Crappy pic sells for $71.7 million.
 

Its fucking hideous. I wouldn't give it wall space in my toilet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6664623.stm

I cant even see how it is a good investment at that sort of price.

His work is AMAZING.

I just don't get it......

Maybe because of your work you can see it.

Im not a major fan of the pop-art scene myself.

Ya know, I just couldn't imagine paying $71.7 MILLION for a painting, even if I was Bill Gates I wouldn't piss away my money like that.

ok now i know i am in the wrong business. time to start taking art classes.

The problem with art is you never reach elite status until you are dead.

You would have to do an Elvis and fake your own death - lol

You know whats great about business.. you secretly build your fortune. celebrities are out here destroying their lives in front of the world. While others sit around staking millions and billions and we don't even know their names. Via la business.

That's worse than Kandinsky.

On a side note - who was the first dip shit to think this stuff was good and where did all the other dip shits who agreed come from? I guess to each their own, but fuck... $71.7 million for that piece of shit?

haha jesus

I hear ya, but I always felt that he was greatly over rated because of use of silk screens. I mean, every original is actually produced like a reproduction, although I agree that is is still an original.

He used images that he didn't create to make the silk screens.
Any graphic artist(old school that is) can do that.
In fact, he was nothing more than a graphic artist.

I credit him with a great talent for self promotion and the abilty to wow people with his persona.

Yet I think he couldn't paint the side of a barn with an actual brush.

Your worst cartoon is rendered better than his best brush painting IMO.

Edit: sorry I think I confused you with a cartoonist on this board because he did some work for you.

I think Andy Warhol is typicaly an impressive artisit but this thing for how much...is it proven authentic I mean seriously...well I guess if you have the money...

people who buy art like that are worthless human beings.

i dont see 71 million

I've never heard about that guy before.

$71.7 million seems a bit high indeed.

He is pretty famous here and in the States - he is credited with "inventing" pop art.... he should have been shot - oh hang on!! :1orglaugh

My ex wife was an artist, and I used to tell her to take something to a gallery and have them sell it for her. Put a price tag on it of like 30k, and some idiot will come and buy it talking shit about the pain in the upstroke of the brush, and the Joy in the downstroke.

Its all about the marketing and not the art - Juicy should become an artist :winkwink:

If they really like art, they still don't need the original. That money could've been given to me and let me buy three blonde young girls to pleasure me.

It's not a crappy pic... it's a masterpiece

It's a silk screen from a photograph.

It may be worth millions, but calling it a "masterpiece" is just not real.

Nowadays, Andy Warhol's stuff would be called crappy photoshopping but to each his own I guess

It's art. The crappier the better... I think that's how art goes.