hetherweaversmagic
29756
360
30
Why is this painting so expensive? I literally wouldn't pay tree fiddy.
Apr 29, 2025 4:12 PM
hetherweaversmagic
29756
360
30
Why is this painting so expensive? I literally wouldn't pay tree fiddy.
DoctorScoutBobTotoBarkingtonIII
Didn’t know the Dutch liked candy corn so much
AlamoJoe1952
I don’t understand why it’s worth so much either. But then a great deal of contemporary art just leaves my dumb ass scratching my fat head
FoxPesdassi
That's not a painting, that's just paint.
MeatyMouthfeel
Expensive ass candy corn
Frelance
I unironically love Rothkos, but paying Rothko money for them is beyond bonkers.
ScrippyChan
Look, I have a humanities degree; calling that art? Biiiiiit of a reach.
FascisTyrant
Fuck this "art".
MTH254
Money Laundering
TheButtInButterfly
@op it's a money laundering scheme.
aodhfin
That's a big candy corn
digitreal
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dDJ6MGI4NTczY3FpeDNrbmcydmtzcGV2emY4YXZ2NDdrMnpzaWNydSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/4hzUqGLYYYgUs2VpUz/200w.webp
Jezzz
It's 3 rectangles of color on a big piece of cloth, it's worth like $100 at most. the guy didn't even stay between the lines.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
next steps? the curators will file a massive insurance claim and take a multi million dollar payout. the event will add to the painting's history, increasing its value. its abstract art, its not like its viewability has changed. its a money laundering scheme anyway.
MutatedHorse
Good
originfoomanchu1
This is how you launder money.....
CALAMOSCOPYJANE
Poor kid, must be so freaked out. He’s going to need therapy.
billstranger
Luckily he can paint a better painting in his sleep, so should be able to recoup the cost pretty easily.
Blunderwriter
You should see the $2m (in its day) red dot Canada bought a bunch of years ago. I should probably Snopes that first in case my memory as IIRC is fooked in the head.
ElbowDeepInAGoblin
Kid understandably thought that was a stack of Starbursts in profile and wanted some.
rbudrick
Good.
metroid2
judithCat
*entitled cousin
Colopty
That kid's really good at drawing eyes.
AzgarOgly
made it better
metroid2
Haha ya
Retronyx
Oh fuck you're gonna help me draw
PorkFriedSquirrel
"art"
ConfederacyOfDunces
Art.
taez555
Why are they giving kids magic markers upon entering the museum?
cxmpxsxd
It was Rothkos dying wish to see his arts defiled by our youth!
Colopty
In that case the art wouldn't be ruined, since it being destructively contributed to by children was the intention. Kinda like that Banksy which was set up to get shredded the moment it was sold.
taez555
Man... that's a hell of deathbed dream. I hope I don't think about small children during my last moments.
cxmpxsxd
Same!
johnxbear
Not during death necessarily but if i had famous artwork i would think it's absolutely hilarious for a kid to fuck it up. Like all these stuffy adults spending obscene money and here comes timmy all jacked up on mountain dew and unsupervised ready to fuck shit up.
parabolic000
Rothko is a bit like the Grand Canyon--you really need to see it in person. I've heard his Chapel is breathtaking.
ConfederacyOfDunces
Oh it is!! If you ever make it to Houston do go!
hetherweaversmagic
Fuck Texas
ConfederacyOfDunces
Well, that's where the chapel is.
hetherweaversmagic
bottledham
Coventry Cathedral is in Texas?!
ConfederacyOfDunces
Ok?
EllisTomago
Helpful comments aside, I am singularly unimpressed by Rothko.
Heelcat70
I can get a roller and some paint at nearly any hardware store.
kuscheck
But then you'd just create a derivative work, which would be pointless. The trick is to come up with an original idea that speaks to people.
minqapoc
If those smudges of colour are speaking to you, you need to lay off the drugs.
Heelcat70
Well, I could run the stripes vertically.
kuscheck
Then you wouldn't copy Rothko but Newman. That is, if you managed to mix pigments that are as vibrant and applied them in such a smooth way that no restorer has managed to replicate, but still.
kuscheck
Downvote me all you like, you're proving my point. "I could have made that" isn't a good argument. Because you didn't, did you.
MidoryMoon
It's just common sense to avoid Rothkos like the plague, doubly-so any museum that's going to appraise them at $50 million.
That being said, fake Rothkos have sold for millions before. Why? Because they're incredibly easy to fake and there's no real difference between a fake and real Rothko.
Shoutrr
the main reason being most of it is just fucking garbage. Obvious garbage with the sole reason it's expensive is just money laundering/tax evasion.
ConfederacyOfDunces
Have you seen them in person? How work is incredibly powerful
MaleProstateMilker88
Don't even try with this audience. These folks don't know that fascists also absolutely loathed new art styles, and they only wanted to go back to the "classic" styles, because art became about breaking the rules, experimenting with ideas and concepts, and the reason why many of these are so important comes from the fact that they were part of the art revolution which made art accessible for everyone and also broke all the rules of what art could do and be.
hetherweaversmagic
*yawns
MaleProstateMilker88
Don't cut yourself on that edge. https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1aHBnbnowemJ4dGRteWphb3owM3hkbXZicXRwZzd1OGE2M3RxcXU2NSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3ov9jTGnTJXAyzslBC/200w.webp
ConfederacyOfDunces
Yeah, the amount of "it's garbage and I can tell that from a low-resolution computer image" attitude in this post is really disappointing.
cxmpxsxd
I know why it's expensive but HOW was some kid able to damage something so valuable? Are we a child away from the Mona Lisa burning (again)?
judithCat
Should be asking the parents who will not take any responsibility I'll wager. Tail be wagging the dog right there
VictusVonGuyver
No, the Mona Lisa and most other valuable paintings are behind protective security glass. They've progressively beefed up security over many years due to theft and destruction of art.
It's not perfect, but they do try to mitigate potential accidents and assholes. A few years ago someone decided to break the finger off a Qin terracotta statue and steal it as a trophy. The museum officials made new security measures after that and China refused to loan out more statues in the future.
HandoB4Javert
Yes, but at least that's in France and he's making noises in the White House...
TedBuckley
I was reading about this earlier. The type of paint Rothko uses is extremely flat. Therefore, the slightest brush of fingernails or oil deposit from a hand will invariably be conspicuous on his works. Nothing was mentioned in the article about this being a malicious act, may well have been just a kid touching some pretty colours.
Solkanarmy
I don't know why it's that expensive, nor have I ever heard a convincing explanation for anything like this to be that expensive
sfrinlan
At that point, it's not "expensive" so much as it's a way to store money outside of systems of financial observation
NeoMonish
It's that expensive because that's what idiots will pay for it assuming that in another few years there will be another idiot to buy it for even more. That or tax scams.
Pwnius
Mona Lisa is behind glass now. Stop Oil Now has been vandalizing so many paintings almost all of the real good ones in Europe have bullet proof glass around them.
tankerofquetzals
It's the opposite - Stop Oil Now have been vandalising the ones behind glass, so as not to cause real damage.
chackstar
hear hear!
DontYouHateWhenAllUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken
It's money laundering by different means! =D Not a slight on the artists btw.
sometimesarobot
Most art is just hanging on the walls, sometimes with a little rope barrier
allyrounds365
This was probably hanging in position that an adult would be able to look straight into the center which means a poorly behaved child would be able to run right into it and damage the canvas. Parents or field trip child monitors weren’t paying enough attention to that kid
cxmpxsxd
Not the child though, the child will not be served alcohol.
cxmpxsxd
I've seen the phrase 'Unguarded Moment' being used on people.com so maybe it was just a fluke and both sides will have a good laugh about it over drinks.
sometimesarobot
Art conservation is likely fairly expensive so not sure how much the museum would be laughing
Exdeath5000
Tax evasion for the ultra wealthy by buying art?
MKESewerRat
Take a wild guess on where the tax evasion myth came from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
ILDL
It's been a while since I've watched that video, but I'm going to guess fascists. Regardless of that the reason why paintings can be worth so much is because you can buy a bunch of paintings from a dead artist (LIMITED SUPPLY ™ NUMBER GO UP), and then put up one of those paintings you own for auction. Why? Because you can then buy that painting for an exorbitant price making your entire collection skyrocket in its speculative value meaning you can take absolutely massive loans off them.
ILDL
TL;DR still rich people fuckery.
hetherweaversmagic
cxmpxsxd
Wait, if my liquidity is tied up in 'art' can I avoid paying taxes on what could appear to be a lumpy mattress with dollars in it?
Clockworkdancerobot
Depends on the deduction. You could buy it, donate it, take a tax deduction in one country with agreements to honor those in another.
khora
And now the artist can afford to buy that $50 million apartment from you.
Clockworkdancerobot
Well, that's the thing. With how the high end art market is a money laundering operation, that artist is likely someone selling favors or moving money around for other reasons.
UltraDeepFeels
I can't believe that MARK FUCKING ROTHKO is getting the 'art?' philistine posts in the comments
inboxmefoxes
Yeah seriously, what a buncha turds here. Rothko's work is incredible. There are multiple Rothkos in the Buffalo AKG museum near me, and they all stopped me dead in my tracks to stare at. They are incredible pieces.
thebonesofmyancestors
C'mon dude. Look at that painting. There is nothing going on in that art work. I have a deep appreciation of art. But this painting is absolute the epitome of boring. There is nothing thought provoking about it. I love modern art. This painting? Is crap. And it is not worth 56 million dollars. Maybe this artist has other work that's more meaningful. This? Nah. There's no defending this painting. You look at us as philistines. We look at you as being pretentious.
kkanne20
sure he's got name recognition but look at this fucking painting. it ain't all that and a bag of chips...
jfd8u438fdsfkds
Are you holding up your pinkie finger while typing that?
Ausmerica
It's absolutely maddening.
SeeShark
I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable art critic, but it still seems a bit excessive to value 3 rectangles without even a real name for the piece at $56 million.
samuelwestphalia
You think this website is above that? This is basically a pig trough with a comments section attached
hetherweaversmagic
Whoa whoa whoa!
Morganelefay
The real crime is hanging a 56 million pricetag on a painting like that.
ConfederacyOfDunces
The real crime is your paleolithic views on art.
Morganelefay
You consider 56 million dollars for a painting to be normal? Art has value, certainly, but 56 million, for a painting?
The fact that you immediately consider my art views "Paleolithic" while you know jack shit about them, just on a remark on how the monetary value of paintings is stupidly inflated which is tied to money laundring schemes of the rich says more about you than it does about me.
ConfederacyOfDunces
The "value" is whatever a person is willing to pay. If someone it willing to pay $56M for this then yes, it's worth that. No art has or deserves an objective price tag - is always subjective.
My calling your view paleolithic isn't about the price part of your comments, it's about "a painting like that." Rothko is intentionally famous and incredibly highly regarded. To be so dismissive of this work suggests a lack of familiarity, or else bad taste (which is my opinion and one I stand by).
jakedafish
Except that art is used for money laundering meaning that your value is inflated and used for criminals.
hjf2011
you're just a snob
CommodoreSkippy
Having studied artwork academically, pretty much all "modern art" art has value solely because someone convinced someone else it does. When you remove technical skill from the equation, there's nothing objective left to derive value from. It's certainly still art, but the value is arbitary.
MKESewerRat
Let me know when you find that "objective technical skill". Or better yet, since it's your field and all, let me know when you find out how Rothko picked his colors and how he applied them. It's so easy a 5 year old could do it, right?
kkanne20
Agreed. I also went to art school and have been painting seriously for 15+ years, and from what I can tell, you take any piece of art that a 5 year old could make--be it a finger painting or a balloon animal--and make it 100x larger, and boom you've got "modern art". I never understood the price tags this kind of style carries, although I do actually enjoy some of it.
inboxmefoxes
EVERYTHING only has the arbitrary value that we assign it, this is the 'academic' take of a teenage redditor who just discovered libertarianism, you should get a refund
CommodoreSkippy
Insofar that "value" is a human construct and essentially imaginary, yes. However, some derivations of value are more s than others. Oil is valueable because of its utility, whereas the value of diamonds far outstrips their utilitarian worth due to market manipulation. Art that is not a display of skill has value solely by merit of the story (or person) behind it, which cannot be measured. Also, please don't lump me in with libertarians.
inboxmefoxes
Having seen a Rothko from very close, I will say that I could not hope to reproduce the way he does brush strokes; our stupid monkey brains are predisposed to assign things as 'low skill' when the skill involved isn't obvious, like it is with realism and impressionist classic paintings, the type that folks obsessed with classical artwork (by way of comparison to devalue modern artwork) focus on the most.
LespritDeLescalier22
bUt My fiVE yEAr oLD CoULda pAInTeD tHAt
kkanne20
many 5 year olds have painted better artwork than this one pictured above :)
LespritDeLescalier22
My freshman year art history teacher would say “sure your 5yo could’ve painted it. But they DIDN’T.” If you put all “fine art” (read art acknowledged by the art world and history books,) in its historical context, every piece is part of a larger conversation in society regarding aesthetics, philosophy, etc. Sometimes paintings are direct conversations between other artists. The reason why your kid can paint it, but it NOT be acknowledged is because when your kid does it, it isn’t within>
LespritDeLescalier22
That larger societal conversation which would help the viewer derive meaning and context to the work. Admittedly, the group that academically verifies the pieces as “art” have not been involved in judging your kid’s painting, so as far as that community is concerned, it IS art, but not worth further investigation due to the work not pushing the boundaries aesthetically or philosophically. And those observations on the part of the artist are absolutely determined and constrained by whatever is>
LespritDeLescalier22
Going on culturally, at that specific time and that specific place. It’s all about timing.
kkanne20
Yeah, my problem is with gimmicks that require no particularly unique skill and throughout the years those gimmicks have been mistaken for great art simply because they hadn't been done before. That, to me, doesn't warrant massive price tags simply because someone was the first to make what is incredibly facile art out of some gimmicky method (taking everyday toddler art like finger painting in the case of Rothko and simply making it 6 feet tall then adding 6 zeroes onto the price)
LespritDeLescalier22
I would argue that people pay ridiculous exorbitant amounts for movie memorabilia. These items only gain value within their context. The same care and craftsmanship is directed in the creation of both movie prop and art object. To me the main difference is that “fine art” is oftentimes created within a philosophical framework that isn’t easily accessible outside of those in academia. This doesn’t negate their value. It only means their actual target audience is much smaller than the Everyman.>
Idonotbelievewehavecompany
Art is a money laundering scheme
LexiconDul
https://images.saatchiart.com/saatchi/2364181/art/11214579/10276849-CYPATHWT-7.jpg
Manakini
There is certainly a money-laundering scheme running inside of the art community. However it's far from the entire scene.
youreathing
It's the entire fine/expensive art scene.
Hippb
How do you know? I've heard a lot about this but nothing concrete
youreathing
VERY easy to find more info. Google "connection between fine art and money laundering"
CraftyGiant
NO.... As someone with two arts degrees. NO. 90% of Modern, Pop, and Abstract made after 1974 was done for money laundering and tax evasion. But to say a blanket statement like you did about art in general is demonstrably false.
JustHereForTheMemes0321
Yep
djl74
How does a fella get in on that?
freakdiablo
Step 1 - pay an artist a couple grand to make a unique piece. Step 2 - pay your appraiser friend another couple grand to say "Wow, the detail, the finesse! This is worth well into the 7 figures!" Step 3 - Donate it somewhere. Boom, that 5x8 piece of drywall with $40 of paint just got you a $3,000,000 tax writeoff.
sumthinsumthinsumthin
Bingo.
JustAnotherCynicToo
Or tax fraud.
infrazab
Unless you buy my art, then I can pay rent make more art
tankerofquetzals
Wow. Edgy. You're so cool, man.
Kbantar
I like art. But it's hard for me to process a "minimally useful" item actually being that valuable. That's enough to feed and house families.
TychoTychoAlba
The problem is equating its value with monetary value. It's no big deal if a few million euros have been knocked off the price of this, but it's bad if it's been damaged and its value as a unique and widely appreciated artwork is reduced.
Sageypie
I could understand a bit more if the piece was at least impressive. Sometimes art is defined by the techniques used to make it, even though it may visually appear simplistic. Like the artist that just paints large canvases in a single color. The impressiveness comes in at him making the entire thing the one, unbroken, unchanging color, that is painted so finely that you cannot see the brush strokes.
This though, I'm not seeing anything like that, and I'm guessing it's just the artist attached
RevolutionOnHerLips
Sometimes, but it's also an example of conspicuous consumption. When you pay that much for a piece of art, you aren't only paying for the artwork, you're also paying for the ability to advertise that you own a piece of that artist's work. When you're so fucking rich that you can buy anything that makes you happy, you and your friends have to make up these sorts of reindeer games just to find any value in continuing to exist.
camvani
"THE" art world
Icanalreadytelliwillbepopular
I recall seeing ads around the height of the pandemic for an app that supposedly let you "invest" in fine art. Being a tax shelter was one of their biggest selling points.
bluefrenchhorn
Yeah I got a telemarketer call about this kind of scheme a few weeks ago
Sfingks
Yup, basically people use it as a way to follow the "Buy, borrow, die" tax evasion scheme. You try to make sure that you make no income (or very little income), and you instead put as much money into owning assets as possible (real estate, art, valuables, etc), and then you take out loans to act as your income, using your assets as collateral. Since there's no taxes paid on loans, you end up paying no taxes.
NeoMonish
Art is the original NFTs - random bullshit that idiots have convinced themselves is valuable and are desperately trying to flog to other idiots so that they're not left holding the bag.
HighSorcerer
That painting is a piece of shit, that's how you know.
pm1001
Rothko is awesome, take your down vote
MyRespectableAlterEgo
You'll probably downvote this, but if you've ever seen a Rothko painting up close they are extremely powerful. The process to create the pigments and layer them was highly technical and methodical, and you truly can get pulled into them. I didn't buy the hype til I saw one in person and had an authentically emotional response - I don't quite know why, but they're very special.
They are not worth $54M - that is a repulsive amount of money - but it isn't fair to say they're shit.
HighSorcerer
Hmm. You know what, I retract my statement. There's no way to see technical skill in paint through a comparatively low-resolution photograph. I'll concede that there's an element of the art that is missing and therefor my judgement is unwarranted.
CraftyGiant
The only reason his paintings are famous is that WHEN he did them, no one else had done anything like them.
voydkastor
And here I thought someone prompted AI to draw a pastel smears
MyRespectableAlterEgo
Nobody has since been able to replicate his method. he mixed new pigments using experimental homemade binders (inc. egg yolk & tree resins) many of which he took to the grave. He also used hundreds of layers alternating varnishes and paints using a method that nobody has successfully replicated. Many modern artists deserve your comment, but Rothko is arguably the opposite: his work contains tones and textures that are literally unreproducible. See one if you get the chance: it's an experience.
CraftyGiant
Yeah, I know all that. I have a studio art degree and an art history degree. I'm aware he experimented with pigments and carriers and layering, so I'm willing to be a bit more forgiving about his terrible abstracts.
Art is subjective, we are allowed to like or dislike as we see fit. I personally will never accept that a couple big squares of color, no matter how many layers they have, are equal to things like Titians "Sisyphus" or Picassos "Ambrose Vollard" Both of which also use many layers.
MyRespectableAlterEgo
I agree - I think "complexity disguised as simplicity" is central to the abstracts... but I'd never compare him to someone like Titian. Personally I love Durer and the Flemish 15th C. artists, so I'm not even a huge modern art person. The part of your comment I was disagreeing with was where you said nobody had done anything like it at the time, so I thought it was relevant to point out that - technically - nobody's done anything like it since then either. In that sense they are unique.
charondaboatman
A kid touched it, literally just touched it, and left a couple of small scratches on an unvarnished portion of the painting. The value is undisclosed and hasn’t been appraised since the 70s…. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/28/style/child-damages-rothko-painting-scli-intl/index.html
ColonKoala
How dare you use facts to soothe my internet rage
prettydumb
im not an art person but that doesnt mean im going to pretend like its all bullshit either
33WhiskeyTX
Hasn't been appraised... such crap. Its unique. It's not like rare coins where you can say one its worth a little less because its damaged. That only matters if you can get one in better condition. This is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Taalii
On a surface level yes. But the art world has a second layer to that ‘worth’ in the form of wealth transfer with tax shenanigans.
33WhiskeyTX
Oh I wasn't debating that the value with all its little evaluations and estimations, deductions, depreciations, and trendlines exists and makes people quite a bit of money. I was just saying, "such crap".
Taalii
Mmm. Fair point, I will agree that art is, quite literally, priceless as its worth is not defined so easily.
MikeRInternetTraveler
Aka money laundering
ubnty
And here I thought he put his whole hand through it. A couple small scratches? You'd hardly notice. And why wasn't the whole thing varnished?
charondaboatman
Good question.
Carl99
According to a BBC article the type of pigments used to make it make any scratch's super noticeable and also mean it can't be varnished. Apparently most modern art has this issue that they're much easier to damage by touching and any damage is much more noticable.
Ivain
Ok but, if it's KNOWN to be really fucking vulnerable then why the fuck is is possible to get within touching range in the first place?
eastherbunni
If its that delicate why not put it behind glass or something??
billstranger
Counterpoint, it's a stupid painting, and not worth the canvas it's printed on.
ubnty
So what's changed between old paint and new paint that it's so delicate that you can't put a clear coat on it anymore?
Carl99
From the BBC article:
This is "owing to a combination of their complex modern materials, lack of a traditional coating layer, and intensity of flat colour fields, which make even the smallest areas of damage instantly perceptible," she said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6dvdwjpj4o
Carl99
TLDR Older paints are less susceptible, can be protectively coated, and damage is less visible.
TexMexHex
Doesnt matter. Kid has shit parents.
Alientongue
Omg ive never met a perfect parent before please tell me youve written books or have videos available!
stygimoIoch
Nah, kid is a kid. Don't hang up bullshit art and make it touchable if it is ACTUALLY worth 56 mil. Which this isn't. Three shit colours on a canvas for 56mil is money laundering at its laziest. Too bad the kid didn't fuck it up more! Get their money's worth!!
charondaboatman
What doesn’t matter?
TexMexHex
If he "only" just touched it. That is shitty parenting. Take your kid to a place with valuable works of art and just let the little shit do what they want? Fuck that
kadaeux
No, shitty parenting is whoever was responsible for teaching anybody that the painting was worth a $5 note let alone millions.
I mean it does make the money laundering obvious though.
stygimoIoch
You are one dumb fuck.
Itaru
Put your blob of paint and canvas behind a glass layer if it's that precious. Jeez.
kranchan
"Valuable"
ConfederacyOfDunces
Dude, have you seen Rothkos in person? I don't have that kind of money, but they are incredible art. *Valuable* indeed.
charondaboatman
You have kids? Do you keep them on a leash? Are they basically good kids? Do they ever get away from you? Do you try and teach them about art and literature and diverse cultures? Or do you sit them in front of the tv with a box of Cap’n Crunch? Before you judge someone you should know them or the circumstances surrounding the issue. Just a thought.
charondaboatman
Oh. Almost forgot. I didn’t say it did matter. So.
HFlashman
Yes. No. And to cut your crap short: I did NOT go to a place with my kids where I wasn’t sure that the could wreak havoc. Or when being in any doubt that they could possibly ruin the situation/the art/ the thing I grabbed and left with them. Like during a wedding, a concert, a show. Because I was a responsible parent. Unlike you seem to be.
TexMexHex
Yes I do. This was an art exhibit. Go to a playground