Jackson Pollock's Painting Sold for $140 Million?

1. LT
   November 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 am

   "A rich, brownish-yellow mess, the 4-foot-by-8-foot work was painted on fiberboard."

   WTF?!

   I found a rich, brownish-yellow mess in a public restroom the other day. I'm calling Sotheby's.

   Get off my lawn!

2. Kernunrex
   November 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm

   Neat waste of money. Never got the appeal of Pollock's stuff. I prefer art that requires *some* skills to create, myself.

3. D Smith
   November 4th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

   If you saw the real thing instead of a poor reproduction on the internet or in a magazine, you might change your mind. I've seen "Blue Poles" by Pollack in Canberra, Australia and was just blown away by it. It's beautiful and you just know you're standing in front of something special. There was the same discussion about Blue Poles when the Aust govt bought it in the 1970's. It was said to be a waste of money and turned out to be a very canny investment apart from it's intangible value as a thing of beauty. You might think that anyone could just punch some holes in a paint tin and create the same thing but it's just not true. You wouldn't create the same thing and somehow it would be unlikely that the thing you created would be as special. I probably haven't changed your mind but I have to try!

4. Denita TwoDragons
   November 4th, 2006 at 11:17 pm

   This is proof positive that you don't have to be a GOOD artist, you just have to find the right kind of oatmeal-brained sucker.

   --TwoDragons

5. Alex
   November 5th, 2006 at 10:56 pm

   Then let's not talk about Rothko! That'll get you guys going!

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT