Why does a Jackson Pollock painting sell for $140 million and a Rembrandt only $46 million?

Question

I know the price tags are both huge but What the Heck? I thought Rembrandt was the great master.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10234096/detail.html
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10234096/detail.html

oops, sorry about that

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/22/world/main650852.shtml

Answer 1

There is no logical explanation to me as to why "A Rembrandt "would have less value.

I guess more and more people are not interested, nor do they hold and hold high regard for our old world masters and their teachings.

Soon we will be giving away and devaluing Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel, his "David",etc.
We will deny the genius of Leonardo Da Vinci and burn our history books.
This saddens me deeply. I Love all forms of Art and even appreciate today's Artists but I can not deny the extraordinary.

It's funny,I have an Ancient Roman Coin and it cost me all of $15.00, along side my collection sits a piece of the Berlin Wall both deemed to have little value but to me they are Priceless!

Signed by a lover and passionate of history.
Without this appreciation, what would we truly know today?

Answer 2

Jackson Pollock Paintings Prices

Answer 3

In recent years, some wealthy businessmen and industrialists (like David Geffen, who figures prominently in the NBC story you cited) have had huge amounts of money and have desperately sought for something to do with all of it. One thing they've done is to attend art auctions and bid up the prices of artworks.

A few years ago a Picasso sold for $96 million, which at the time was the highest price paid for a painting; a few years before that, a buyer put down $92 million for a Van Gogh. In these cases, and in the case of te Pollock, the buyers weren't so much bidding on the paintings as they were bidding on the reputation of the painters.

One important thing to remember: when Pollock first sold that painting it probably sold for $1,000, which was the going price for many of his works. Pollock himself probably got $450. The difference between that thousand bucks and that $140 million went into the pockets of a series of art collectors who were probably already rich. Pollock's estate hasn't seen one thin dime of all that.

Answer 4

Because a painting is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. And Pollock Goes easier with the furnishings of today, a leather couch or something made of glass and chrome, where a Rembrandt has to have a statue of David or some other Renaissance styling to help it along.

Answer 5

I think that is nuts also. I think It has to do with how we are more interested in celebrity rather than talent. Pollocks paintings are interesting but a Rembrandt in incredible. When you look at one you don't just see what a photograph could give you but he painted in a way that you think the people are about to move.

I hope we some day get back to looking for quality rather than celebrity again.

Answer 6

I guess it has to do with the that although Rembrandt was undoubtedly a master and his works have inspired artists through the ages, he didn't change the fundamental perception of art to the world. Rembrandt was an objective artist, creating in his own stile the world around him as did his predecessors. Pollic was the mane influence of an entirely new way of looking at art. He wasn't representing the out side world. He created works that were entities in them selves. In doing so his paintings changed the cultural landscape. The idea that nonrepresentational art has validity has taken hold of collectors world wide. The exorbitant prices these works go for in my opinion are obscene, and I'm an artist.

Answer 7

As Tammy mentioned, Jackson Pollock painted with house paint, and that does not last as an art material, as oil paint does. That is one of the facts about his art that is driving the prices up. Because they won't last, they become very desired. Soon no one will be able to own one because they will cease to exist. Having one is a big status booster. Art patrons have always been very competitive, so "old" art goes big!

Answer 8

That's funny since Pollock's are mostly house paint -the paintings are falling apart (it'll cost the owner half a mill in curating) and Rembrandt's paintings are ages old and still look great!

Answer 9

thats very simple; pollock pioneered a new technique with his painting, while rembrandt was an outstanding example of an already established style of classical, figurative, and biblicaly themed oil paintings, ala titian. its sorta like how the wright brothers' first functioning plane is worth more than an F16, even though the first working plane is severly inferior, it holds a higher value in the place of history as being the first ever of its kind.

Answer 10

Rembrandt was a greater painter. In my opinion Jackson Pollock doesnt put any thought or preparation into his paintings, a child could paint his stuff. He's only famous becuse it's not what you know, it's who you know.