Unfairly hurt Gustav Klimt
 

news on this site published an article about a British journalist works by Gustav Klimt - http://artinvestment.ru/news/artnews...tav_klimt.html

I was very disappointed with it: mad: How can you call one of the brightest representatives of Art Nouveau, with its unconditional innovator ostroekspressivnymi women's portraits, the artist, thanks to the work which has the entire Austrian design, just beautiful, but generally minor Viennese artist ?????
Perhaps the reason is that the author himself is very poorly understood in the art ...

Absolutely agree with the latter opinion. The author either does not understand art, or for some inexplicable reasons, is trying to understate the level of one of the most important artists of the twentieth century.

valuation
 

Perhaps the author wanted to draw attention to his own person denying the obvious? I think the work themselves play an important role in the formation of prices, not just the name of the artist.

This is today's news:


Monet painting sold at Christie's auction for a record 80.5 million dollars


25.06.2008, London 05:09:35 At auction Cristie's in London last night was sold to a picture of French impressionist Claude Monet's pond with water lilies. The canvas went under the hammer for a record for the artist's works amounting to 40.9 million pounds (80.5 million dollars), including taxes. Before tendering experts believed that the price of the lot would be "only" 24 million pounds (slightly more than $ 47 million). Name generous buyer is not disclosed, transmits Bi-bi-si.

"A pond with water lilies" was written in 1919. The picture belongs to a series of so-called "water landscapes" that Monet created in 1904.

According to experts, the market of art works is experiencing rapid growth despite the overall slowdown of the world economy. So, since March 2007. cost of European works of art of the XIX century has increased by 13%.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 2 minutes[/color]
And this news is promising a lot of new records in the near future:

In 2007. the number of millionaires in the world reached 10.1 million people
  The number of people with the condition of not less than $ 1 million in the world up to 2007. reached 10.1 million people, which is 6%more than in 2006.

Aggregate amount of their assets (excluding principal properties) increased in 2007. by 9,4%and amounted to 40.7 trillion dollars Such data are provided in its next report, World Wealth Report American investbank Merrill Lynch and consultancy Capgemini.

At the end of last year, the state average of one a millionaire more than $ 4 million - the first time in the 12-year history of research Merrill Lynch and Capgemini.

As noted in the report, the most impressive increase in the number of millionaires and their states took place in the "first wave" of developing countries - the so-called region of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

Most of dollar millionaires currently live in the U.S., Japan and Germany.

In Russia, a sharp increase in the number of millionaires was recorded in 2006. When the number of millionaires grew by 15,5%compared with 2005. As a result, our country has come in ten countries in the world, where in the past year has seen the fastest growth in the number of millionaires.

my paper is not so much disappointed, but very surprised, but for other reasons. First, it is not clear about what the author writes: either he wants to speculate on the causes of high prices of Klimt, or to speak about the exhibition in Liverpool. Once connected it had not happened - the concept of the exhibition does not explain the 135 million paid for the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer ... He's right, for example, that Klimt did not commit a "breakthrough" or a revolution in art. But he became a hallmark of Viennese Art Nouveau ... And why, actually, it should be put on a par with Picasso or, God forgive me, Bacon?? It's just a very talented artist-designer, whose work will be to any decor and good that someone does not mind paying for the work with a perfect provenance 135 million. Actually, everything here to be honest: the collector pays not for the "idea", not for "a new word in art" in the abstract, but for the quality of painting ...

Does the idea is not important? In painting, the force is more important than quality (Crafts Party technic, technology), is not it? Good draftsmen much more than people who say a new word. Can you imagine what would have been a reaction to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon in the Renaissance, in an age of high-quality art?

In my opinion - absolutely not. But I would not talk about the "side of the craft, Technical, manufacturability," I would say about the creative vision, strength of personality of the artist, his eyes - in the end, Cezanne was not inventing anything, but an artist he was disproportionately higher than that of Picasso, who spent Life is something invented.
Look at Van Gogh, Matisse, Bonnard, Soutine, de Stael, Hopper, Bacon - none of them was not the discoverer, but the picture of modern painting without them would be much poorer than without any Severini or Delaunay Raoul.

can think of, to realize complex
 

Innovators are usually not always bring their ideas to perfection, and often surpass their followers.

I think that the idea in art can not possibly be more important than another incarnation, but it does not even about art, but about the art market: the idea, in general, can not buy ... Well then there is trade in air, in my opinion.

LCR, something this time I did not understand you. How "Cezanne did not come up" - all Cubism grew out of his "notions." Why did you not apply to "discoverers" Matisse, Soutine, de Stael and Bacon?? Matisse - one of the fathers of Fauvism, Soutine - original expressionist, but a mixture of abstraction and realism de Stael fifties or expressionistic surrealism Bacon? It's all completely new ideas in painting. However, you are sure all of this without me, you know, apparently, did you mean something else, please explain, please.

Yes, LCR, very much want to hear your explanation.