15 Ridiculous Pieces Of Art That Sold For Millions Of Dollars

July 30, 2015 | 107 Comments » | Topics: Art, Interesting

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana

We’re having a go at being cultured today. Lovers of modern arts are a special breed of people. They are able to see things other people can’t.

For instance, the colour blue is just blue to many of us. But to modern art lovers, it is a blue that evokes the artist’s emotions of longing and sadness, you get my drift.

We have a hard time wrapping our heads around the fact that some of these ridiculous modern arts were sold for millions of dollars, the most recent being of a blue painting with a white line in the middle – that went for $43.8 million dollars!

Don’t just take my word for it! The following are 15 examples of paintings that would be considered junk if they were sold at an ordinary garage sale, but because of their extravagant history, descriptions and estimated value, were sold for millions to the highest bidder:

Blood Red Mirror by Gerhard Richter – $1.1 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Concetto spaziale, Attese by Lucio Fontana – $1.5 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Green White by Ellsworth Kelly – $1.6 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Untitled (1961) by Mark Rothko – $28 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Untiled (Stoffbild) by Blinky Palermo – $1.7 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Peinture (Le Chien) by Joan Miro – $2.2 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


White Fire I by Barnett Newman – $3.8 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Untitled (1970) by Cy Twombly – $69.6 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Cowboy by Ellsworth Kelly – $1.7 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Blue Fool by Christopher Wool – $5 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Riot (1990) by Christopher Wool – $29.9 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Onement Vi By Barnett Newman – $43.8 million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Black Fire 1 by Barnett Newman – $84.2 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Orange, Red, Yellow by Mark Rothko – $86.9 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana


Anna’s Light by Barnett Newman – $105.7 Million

Concetto spaziale, attese by Lucio Fontana

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUpon1Email this to someone

  • BigBadBootyMacDaddy

    uncultured swine!

    • Mark Daniel Johansen

      When someone says, “Hey, I could have invented the cell phone. I had an idea like that 20 years ago and I just never pursued it”, or “I could have won an Olympic gold medal. I just didn’t bother to train and practice”, the reasonable response is indeed, “Maybe you could have, but you didn’t.” But when it comes to “art” like this, I have no doubt that you could have drawn a blue box with a white stripe in it with ten minutes of effort. I’ve created art like this many times while idly doodling or playing with drawing software. The only part that most of us, including me, didn’t do is try to sell it to some “art lover” for millions of dollars.

      • Daniel Fleming

        but Newman’s work ISN’T something done in ten minutes of effort on drawing software, it takes hours of painting even if you only take into account the massive scale. And even if you DID replicate the general result at the actual size, it wouldn’t be the same, it would take far longer than 10 min (have you ever painted an 8×10 foot canvas even just one color? It’s a lot of work especially if you want it a solid, flat color) and it would probably be tougher than you realize to make it look “good”.

        While you may not doubt anyone has the ability to create something similar after the initial piece was made (that’s probably true), I doubt entirely that many would have thought the idea worthy enough to actually pursue it for the tens of hours it probably took to actually create the piece.

        I don’t even really like Barnett Newman…but I also know I’d get bored as hell trying to recreate a piece of his and would never follow through. I find the work interesting when you stand in front of it the same way I find standing near a large window in a blizzard interesting.

        I can make a pretty decent song on my iPAD too but that doesn’t make me a good musician.

        • jay

          Fair enough, making a physical painting is more work than drawing something on a computer. You couldn’t produce an actual painting with 10 minutes of effort. “Have you ever painted an 8×10 foot canvas even just one color?” I don’t think I’ve ever painted a CANVAS, but I have painted walls in my house, and I have painted them more than one color, like a base color and then another color for trim. Painting an 8×10 wall does not take “tens of hours”. Maybe an hour? In any case, the measure of the quality of art is not how many hours were devoted to making it. If I labor for 10 hours to draw a recognizable stick figure while a trly talented artist draws a beautiful portrait in 30 minutes, mine is not better because I spent more time at it.

          “I find the work interesting when you stand in front of it the same way I find standing near a large window in a blizzard interesting.” Maybe so. I suppose someone might find it interesting to stare at a blank sheet of paper. That doesn’t mean that a blank sheet of paper is a great work of art worth millions of dollars.

          “I find the work interesting when you stand in front of it the same way I find standing near a large window in a blizzard interesting.” Maybe so. I suppose someone might find it interesting to stare at a blank sheet of paper. That doesn’t mean that a blank sheet of paper is a great work of art worth millions of dollars.

          “I find the work interesting when you stand in front of it the same way I find standing near a large window in a blizzard interesting.” Maybe so. I suppose someone might find it interesting to stare at a blank sheet of paper. That doesn’t mean that a blank sheet of paper is a great work of art worth millions of dollars.

          • Daniel Fleming

            pointing out the time was a direct reaction to you belittling a piece of work because you claimed you could “reproduce” it in 10 min on an Ipad (Which you can’t)…I agree, the time it takes to make a piece has nothing to do with it’s worth, hence why your (incorrect) Ipad reference is pointless.

            “Maybe so. I suppose someone might find it interesting to stare at a blank sheet of paper. That doesn’t mean that a blank sheet of paper is a great work of art worth millions of dollars.”

            You don’t even realize how enraged you COULD be about all the crazy “art” out there. There was an entire traveling show dedicated to art that wasn’t there (an erased drawing, a platform andy warhol stood on at some point. etc…)

            And you should start an interior painting business if you can really paint a room with primer, multiple coats and a second color for trim in under and hour. Sounds almost like a performance piece (calling my collectors now)

            • jay

              Ok, my discussion about the relationship of time and value got muddled. Let me try to restate it: If someone with no particular talent can produce an object with ten minutes of effort and readily available tools, I’d say the value is very low. The fact that someone else labored for weeks to produce a similar object does not make it worth more. It just proves he’s a very inefficient producer. Of course if you can show how the work that took 40 hours to produce is “better” in some way than the 10 minute job, the argument fails. But to simply claim that because it took so much effort it must be better … no, it isn’t. If mechanic A takes 15 minutes to change the oil in my car, and mechanic B takes 8 hours to change the oil in the same car, that doesn’t prove that B is doing a better job. Barring some explanation of why it rightly took so much longer, I’d conclude that B is an incompetent mechanic. I certainly would not be willing to pay B 32 times as much money to change my oil as A because B takes 32 times as long.

            • jay

              BTW, RE interior painting business: You said an 8×10 wall, not “a room”. I’ll have to time how long it takes me next time I paint a room, but I’m sure I’ve done it with less than a day’s work for all 4 walls. Not counting drying time between coats, just actual work, which I think is what is relevant here, an hour per wall doesn’t seem outrageously fast to me. Okay, maybe 2 hours per wall would be more realistic. But certainly not “tens of hours” per wall to paint a 10×10 room with an 8 foot ceiling. Assuming just 2 tens, 20 hours per wall, times 4 walls, you’re saying it takes you a minimum 80 hours of work to paint a small room? Please remind me of this if I ever offer to pay you by the hour to paint a room.

        • Shreyas

          We have painted 50 x 30 foot on canvas as college sport festival poster, It sounds totally disrespect seeing this shitty painting sold in millions.

        • Just shut up, Okay!

          Oh..So you are an art broker. I get it now. Your livelihood relies upon the amount of smoke you blow up these “collectors” a$$e$. No need to say more.

        • David Jensen

          Lol “tens of hours” you’re right! That’s totally worth millions.

      • Heloneida

        You right, but you want say, lover art who think stupid

    • sandhillguy

      Because I had better things to do! Garbage is garbage no matter how many sycophants say otherwise.

    • Few people have the shamelessness + art world connection to fools seeking to part from their money.

    • Heloneida

      cultured swine

      The question is:
      We could sell? We could have the same extraordinary luck !!

      These paintings everyone can paint, but is not everyone who can sell them at that price.

  • Tingle

    These are all terrible. But that is capitalism baby. Let the fools spend money on portraits of shapes.

    • Griff Ruby

      Have an untrained kid pretend to be one of these great artists? It’s been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQK64Lixci0 (WYFFT? – Will People Believe That A Kid’s Art Is A Masterpiece When It’s Actually Crap??) One viewing of that and those who spent what they did on the above pieces would have to feel pretty foolish. But in the words of Diego Rivera, “If it’s not propaganda, it’s not art.”

    • White World Media

      actually it’s communism 101, clearly you’ve never read the Naked Communist, part of their infiltration of the west was to destroy traditional art(glorifying heroes, traditions, nations, morals etc) in favour of meaningless, abstractions, amorphous blobs called “art” by the pretentious upper class. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s a philosophy of destruction and infiltration, the economic system of communism is so impossible that all attempts at it have been abandoned so now we have “post-marxism” where the class war has changed into a racial war, all the world’s problems are caused by the existence of privileged classes(white people) and until they are destroyed and abolished “real equality” won’t exist, biology doesn’t exist in the post-marxist doctrine, there is no male or female, no races, no ethnic groups, no nations, no borders, there is nothing but the oppressed and the oppressors and anyone who even suggests there is a biological hierarchy is a heretic to this doctrine, all differences in outcome are explained by oppression and oppressors, they have no room for biology in their model and it’s one of their biggest obstacles.

      • Red Abaris

        @ White World Media
        I lived in the communist era so i know how it’s like, but you forgot to mention one big thing: who were and ARE the people behind marxism, bolshevism, communism etc. Yes, they are – those who bend in front of the wall in the Middle East.

        • oy vey don’t mention the man behind the curtain goy

          • Red Abaris


          • Angus Matheson

            Wow. A Nazi. Kill yourself, fucko.

      • V B

        Actually many of these pictures are made by american painters. Check the Russian paintings of the same era. You will be amazed!

      • Angus Matheson

        There are so many things wrong with your take on this I don’t know where to start. What a whiny load of victimhood. You sound exactly like the “blame-whitey/capitalist” types you are obsessed with, but even more ridiculous and pussified. Fantastic.

      • greencerenkov

        Actually, it’s widely thought that the CIA funded a lot of abstract
        artists in the mid-20th century. The idea was to show that America was
        open to new ideas, unlike those Russkies who were stuck on mediocre
        socialist realism.

    • John27

      Communist Goals (1963)

      23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

  • Mark Daniel Johansen

    I was just thinking recently: It would be interesting to take some examples of abstract art that have sold for millions of dollars, and then take some drawings that I would create on the spot with maximum five minutes of effort each. Or maybe some my kids drew when they were five years old. Then mix them together and ask people which are worth millions of dollars and which are worth nothing. Excluding people who are familiar with the expensive paintings and would recognize them, how many people do you think would be able to tell the difference?
    I readily concede that I don’t know a lot about art. So please, educate me. What makes these paintings so valuable?

    • chris

      “What makes these paintings so valuable?”
      Someone willingness to buy them often the salesman deserves more credit then the artist.

    • Watcho
      • Just shut up, Okay!

        Vag art and a can of shit? Appropriate.

      • jay

        Interesting that she starts out saying that simplistic abstract art really does require great technical skill, and then ends up saying that the artists who produce it reject the idea that displaying technical skill is important, that what really matters is how the artist feels. The end of the video in fact concedes that the argument made at the beginning of the video is completely hollow and false.

        The speaker on the video goes on about how profound this becomes if you know the personal history of the artist. Sorry, no. It may be that the artist’s love life makes a fascinating story, but if he has not, in fact, told that story in a way that makes it fascinating, he deserves no credit for it. Suppose I approached the organization that made this video and said, “Hey, like, I think abstract art and stuff can be good. I was gonna make a video about it but it was too hard. Will you give me a million dollars?” Do you think they would? After all, I have an important and profound message. There’s a story there. But, here’s the key: I DIDN’T TELL THAT STORY. The fact that there might be an interesting story out there somewhere is no reason why I should be praised and rewarded for having a vague general idea.

        The speaker on the video goes on about how profound this becomes if you know the personal history of the artist. Sorry, no. It may be that the artist’s love life makes a fascinating story, but if he has not, in fact, told that story in a way that makes it fascinating, he deserves no credit for it. Suppose I approached the organization that made this video and said, “Hey, like, I think abstract art and stuff can be good. I was gonna make a video about it but it was too hard. Will you give me a million dollars?” Do you think they would? After all, I have an important and profound message. There’s a story there. But, here’s the key: I DIDN’T TELL THAT STORY. The fact that there might be an interesting story out there somewhere is no reason why I should be praised and rewarded for having a vague general idea.

        • Watcho

          I think you’re misunderstanding a few things here. The video isn’t positing an absolute way to view abstract art, but rather refuting commonly held assumptions that simple things are always simple. It doesn’t mean that all of these ideas are present in every piece. As to your comment, “he deserves no credit for it,” then simply accept that something isn’t for you or that you don’t get it and move along. It’s perfectly acceptable for a museum to help explain a piece of art; it’s what they do.

          • jay

            Perhaps you should simply accept that my post isn’t for you or that you don’t get it and move along. But no, you find it appropriate to comment on my post and explain why you think it is flawed. Please allow me the same privilege regarding the original piece of art under discussion.

            Of course things that appear simple are not always simple in practice. Some simple things reflect brilliant insights, or the culmination of much hard work. E=mc2 is a simple equation, but embodies a profound insight and years of reasearch. But other simple things are just simple things.

            • Watcho

              They have another video about how to constructively critique art (and anything else). I suggest you watch that as well.

      • John Doe

        Do not be fooled by this pretentious woman’s platitudes, that inept “art” is the product of untalented charlatans, sold by wealthy people, who have the pomposity to advertise it as something more than what it truly is. It is garbage, and no amount of verbiage will change that.

        • Watcho

          In this case the art helps you feel superior to people and things, so it still succeeds in creating an experience for you. I’d be surprised if you don’t become a collector.

          • Atusek

            It’s an experience that’s worth two minutes of my time, not twelve million dollars. Anyone who spends as much has more money than sense. This video is the epitome of self-entitled “artists” who are trying to make themselves relevant. At least she admitted that the only reason people pay for this garbage is because it has a fancy name attached to it, even though she didnt intend to.

            • Watcho

              I think being open to liking things is invaluable.

              • Atusek

                I’m more than open to liking things that are worthwhile. And once again, “liking” something still doesn’t explain how some lines or a blank/colored canvas is worth millions of dollars

                • Watcho

                  Well, first off, the art itself is a rarity. It’s like owning a piece of history within that world. All art is a bunch of lines. If you like DaVinci’s lines that look like the Mona Lisa because it reminds you of your grandmother, and I like a big blue blob because it reminds me of mine, both artworks have done the same thing.

                  And let’s face it, a million bucks to one guy isn’t what it is to you and me. I love this kind of art and if I was given $1M I would never spend it on a painting. If I had $500M, I might buy some paintings.

                  • Atusek

                    I like DaVinci’s lines because they showcase uncommon skill and restraint from a renowned master of the form hundreds of years ago. They are evident of uncanny ability and days, months, or more of hard work. Because DaVinci was undoubtedly a master and a genius. You like a blue blob that reminds you of something that YOU CAN DO. that’s very different, and why the Mona Lisa is a wonder of the world, and a blue blob should be worth about a buck fifty. for 1 million dollars you could buy a mansion, a bugatti veyron, or just about anything under the sun, to spend it on a blue blob is a waste. But hey, a fool and his money are soon parted.

                    • Watcho

                      Did you watch the video? It’s fine to say the only art you appreciate or understand is technical skill in reproducing recognizable physical objects. There is technical skill in a lot of these lines and blobs, if you don’t think so definitely give it a try! You might enjoy painting. But it’s futile to rage against abstract art, because people love and understand it.

                    • Atusek

                      I did indeed watch the video. Severeral times actually, (It took a while before I gave up trying to decipher a coherent argument out of it). She starts by saying how modern art (making lines out of paint and scribbling) actually takes a great deal of technical skill. Then contradicts her self saying that technical skill doesn’t matter. She, like you, acts all high and mighty because she “understands” the story of modern art. If you need to understand some fanciful backstory to truly “get” a piece of art, that art is crap. The issue is that this modern art, despite the ones you have to gain magical knowledge of to “appreciate” is blatantly obvious in what it’s trying to say, the message is just crap and the exxecution is even worse. For the others,It should tell the story on the canvas, not by knowing that some gay guy’s’ boytoy got AIDS, and that’s why two walmart clocks are worth a shit ton of money. Besides, you’re buying a PAINTING, not a book. In books, the story is important, in paintings, whats on the canvas is whats important. Look a bit above at my wonderful piece, Le Petit Penor, it took so incredibly long and so much skill to make. I painted and drew in high school and college, I do enjoy it, but that doesn’t mean that my garbage was worth anything. Finally, have you ever watched that TLC show about strange addictions? Some people love and understand eating mattresses, but they are still derided for it, and rightly so. Maybe the fact that you’ve been spending the greater part of a year defending garbage art on so me random website shows that it’s not that “other people just don’t get it”, but that it is just garbage and you can’t quite face it.

                    • Watcho

                      It’s silly to debate the merits of modern art. It exists, people like it, you don’t, which is fine. You seem upset that people understand or like something you don’t. Or rather, because you don’t get it it must be bogus, because you’re smart and if this was real it would appeal to you. Fortunately this stuff will be here for you when or if you decide to come around. FWIW, she doesn’t contradict herself. She points out that there is more to technical skill than being able to recreate an image, that some modern artworks like Mondrian’s are geometrically basic but technically highly skilled. The story of the artwork is only one interpretation of it, and knowing it might inspire you to see or feel something different about your own life. You can put whatever meaning you want into the two clocks, the artist’s reason for doing it isn’t the only thing it means. If you don’t get meaning from it, and yet it is beloved and appreciated, then the issue is with you, not it. Why you feel the need to make judgements about people who like something you don’t is lost on me. Standing in the presence of some of these pieces is overwhelming to me, for reasons that are mine. I’m sorry that bothers you.

                    • Atusek

                      Nope, the issue is that people, like yourself, who like modern art believe that anyone who dislikes it simply doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t get it. I get it, I just think it’s still unskilled and uninspired garbage. I also understand why people do drugs and drink heavily, but that doesn’t mean that I like it or enjoy it as well.
                      And yes, she DOES contradict herself, she starts off about how it’s so skillful to scribble and paint lines (despite this being a skill anyone who has a straight edge/piece of tape can do, that’s not ‘technical’ skill, thats fourth grade drawing.), and then talks about how it’s not supposed to be skillful. Reading the rest of the comments, I see that I’m far from the only person who thinks so. Modern art does not inspire me, it does not make me feel different about my life, that’s just the way it is. I understand it, but it doesn’t move me.
                      You don’t get meaning from child pronography, but it is loved and appreciated by many, does that mean the issue is with you? No, the issue is with the people who make it.
                      What bothers many people is when people who dislike modern art are told they simply can’t comprehend, understand, or “get” it. If you do not like modern art, the high-brows who waste their money on it try to call them simpletons, despite the fact that they spent millions of dollars on a white piece of canvas. People like many things, I enjoy working on cars, yet people tell me its a waste of money all the time. I don’t care, it makes me happy, and I have yet to feel the need to defend working on cars for a year on one internet site, and I’m not so far up my own bum that I believe anyone who dislikes cars just can’t “understand” it..

                    • Watcho

                      If you think it’s unskilled and uninspired, then you do not get it. Hanging two clocks on the wall because you miss someone in your life is by definition “inspired.” You mention the piece of tape and straight edge. Why do you use those if there’s no technical skill in free-handing a straight line?

                      Because you misunderstand is why you are told you don’t get it. If you simply say you don’t like it, then we don’t go around and around about it. You have your opinion, I have mine. But you want to go further and cast judgements on others presumably because you think you’re being judged. We’re carrying on this conversation because with each post you demonstrate that you do not understand this type of art. This is perfectly fine and does not make you an idiot. I don’t like the ballet, and don’t care how ballet fans feel about that. I also know better than try to convince them they’re just snooty posers all because I don’t get the appeal. So what, they’re doing ballet, my kid can do that.

                    • Atusek

                      It is “inspired” enough to be a cute valentine’s day present. It is not “inspired” enough to be art worth buying. By the way, Mondrian used charcoal and a ruler to get his straight lines, not freehand. Where’s the technical skill again?
                      I do understand this type of art, I understand that ‘artists’ want to paint their anguish, happiness, or whatever they feel, I get the message, I just do not believe that the message is worth these exorbitant prices, and that it is executed poorly. You cast judgments that people are unable to “understand” the art, and that is why they do not like it. It is possible to understand something and still dislike it. And yet you’re here trying to convince others that it’s only because they don;t understand it. I don’t care for ballet either though, at least we agree on that.

                    • Watcho


                    • Angus Matheson

                      “Whatever”. You just got pwned. Atusek is right in everything he says about this, you’ve been exposed, and your last response is perfect. In the end, you admit your own bullshit is just bullshit.

                    • Watcho

                      “pwned” lol. I love that I get to revisit this conversation every few months with new people who find validation in not liking things and want to make sure I know it.

                    • Angus Matheson

                      okaaaaaaaaaaay. It’s a huge load of wank. Enjoy jacking it to this, ya nonce.

                    • Watcho

                      This guy gets it! “I don’t appreciate this stuff, but you do so enjoy it!” Thanks, brother.

      • Atusek


        Ahh, “Le Petit Penor” a masterful work done by Atusek. As you can see by the lines that do not fully go to the end of the image, it was done by a masterful artist. The exquisite sccribbling and impressive use of the ‘paint’ tool truly indicate the internal suffering of the artist. It was created in the artists life while he was experiencing considerable hardship, his cat had the stomach bug. His anguish and suffering truly comes out in this well timed and well executed masterpiece. Remember people, you COULD have made this, but you didn’t. Give me twelve million dollars for it now.

    • Just shut up, Okay!

      They have done this already with kindergarteners finger paintings. (Maybe younger. I can’t recall exactly how young the kiddies were). Speaking of which, I still have the all blue one’s that each of my kids did when they were pre-k. Seems to be a popular piece with the toddler crowd. That chalkboard one I know I have done many many times when I was in school. You probably have done that one as well.

    • cowatch

      What makes it valuable…? i thik i have to tell you man.. that there is a modus operandi of money laundering crime which involve buying paintings…

  • Tyler

    This is minimalism. It’s not about emotion. It’s about playing with colours and shapes and creating a sensation in the viewer. Minimalism appeared as a reaction to abstract art and classical art also.

    Ellsworth Kelly is considered one of the innovators of American modern art.

    Barnett Newman is one of the representatives of American “Abstract Expressionism”….and Minimalism. He died in the 1970s and that made his paintings even more valuable.

    Mark Rothko is another famous painter. He also died in 1970.

    Christopher Wool is another trendy artist.

    Cy Twombly has some interesting paintings. He died in 2011.

    Joan Miro was a Spanish painter.who died in 1983.

    Blinky Palermo died in 1977. He was German.

    Gerhard Richter is alive as I write this and has a wide range of paintings that are photorealistic or abstract and even minimalist.

    Lucio Fontana was an Italian painter who died in 1968.

    As You can see most of the painters are dead and this increased the value of their works (because there won’t be any more works by them) and many of these guys were pioneers and innovators. This is why their paintings are that expensive. When you these paintings you buy a piece of history,

    • Wow, I didn’t know they are pioneers and innovators. You forgot “heroes”, btw. So when I die, my chicken scratches may fetch $millions? I need to get my grandfather doing chicken scratching like Cy Twombly did, so I can cash in on this phenomena where certain millionaires spend huge amounts of money on human action that is neither scarce nor useful. Apparently, the surface of a canvas is the only arena where low human competence can yield huge success.

      • Daniel Fleming

        So when I die, my chicken scratches may fetch $millions?

        You are neither a pioneer nor innovator, so no.

        • Are you saying that making scratches on canvas is innovative? I left a pretty innovative work in the toilet this morning. How low exactly is your bar for innovation?

          • Daniel Fleming

            well no…you didnt. You left a crap in the toilet. Which isn’t innovative at all. nearly everyone does that every day, which is pretty much the definition of NON innovative.

            AT the time these artists were making the work, making scratches on a giant canvas and calling it art WAS innovative. Even if it seems stupid and obvious to you now, it was innovative then…and even if you would have thought it was stupid then, it still was innovative, just not interesting or worthwhile to you.

            For instance, the wheel, back in the day, was pretty innovative. The wheel, today, is commonplace. That doesn’t make it worthless, though.

            • Your definition of “innovative” is entirely based on who calls something innovative. Common prole mistake. You have no independent qualifications. You rely on others to determine value for you. You’re just too simple to understand that crapping in a toilet and calling it art is innovative. I’m on the cutting edge. It’s a symbol of how our consumer society consumes, and then disposes of something, never to think or care about it again. See, I can bullshit just like you do, in justifying SCRATCHES ON A CANVAS as “innovative”.

              • Daniel Fleming

                ya but someones already crapped and called it art so, by definition, you are not innovative.

                • Not true. Cy Twombly is merely culturally appropriating cavemen art and claiming he is innovative. He’s stealing from toddlers as well. He’s a con. I, on the other hand, produce one of a kind creations. Each creation is unique, and I sign each individual one with a feather pen. Has any toilet-crapper signed each individual work with a peacock feathered pen before? This is so innovative, it’s mindblowing actually.

                  • Daniel Fleming

                    Looking forward to the mid-career survey. We can see how the fame affected your “productions” and how those differences further comment on the inequality and hypocrisies in our consumer society…i think we’re on to something.

                    • Currently, I’m going through a “brown” period. Maybe I’ll have a blue period at some point, like Picasso. Time and my health, will tell.

                    • Just shut up, Okay!

                      I had a green recently, myself. Looking forward to some yellow texture, Pender. We shall call it….”CORN”.

                    • DDD

                      I honestly hope you get run over by a truck carrying paint,,,

                    • Daniel Fleming

                      Good thing it took a year for you to develop that hope. I had a whole extra 365 days of not being hit by a truck to enjoy!

                  • Just shut up, Okay!

                    MIND BLOWN!

            • Just shut up, Okay!

              Actually, Mr. Expert. I believe Mr. Pender’s onto something. Remember Manzoni??
              Artist’s Shit (“Merda d’artista”) is a 1961 artwork by the Italian artist Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans filled with feces, each weighing 30 grams and measuring 4.8×6.5cm, with a label in Italian, English, French, and German stating:
              Artist’s Shit
              Contents 30 gr net
              Freshly preserved
              Produced and tinned
              in May 1961

              At the time the piece was created, Manzoni was producing works that explored the relationship between art production and human production.

              A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby’s on May 23, 2007; in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby’s with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250. The cans were originally valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market.
              I don’t see why Pender (or my own for that matter) Shit is worth less than Manzoni’s. What makes Manzoni Shit worth any more than mine or Penders? If you had a buyer I bet you could come up with your own line of shit, huh? Anything to make a buck..even taking advantage of fools.You are pathetic human piece of…..well you can probably guess.

              • Daniel Fleming

                Yes, Manzoni has done this already. That’s exactly my point. Someone else already packaged and sold shit so there is no innovation in any of us doing it now, thus, no interest in anyone buying OUR packaged shit for any amount of money, let alone thousands.

                If you convinced a rich guy to buy a can of your shit I would…well I wouldn’t shake your hand but I’d congratulate you on your ability to sell shit to rich people…that doesn’t mean the art world is going to recognize it as anything more than a derivative joke. (which it is)

                And, by the way, I am a designer, so I don’t sell art to anyone. If I did, I would prefer to work in modern painting…not a big fan of contemporary art.

        • jay

          And more importantly, you don’t have a skilled salesman to market your chicken scratches as great art.

  • william bramblett

    That is some seriously ugly shit.

  • stuart

    Many people don’t understand Abstract Expressionism. The Rothko paintings are huge. The idea is that when you stand in front of them, the color covers most of your field of view, and that color is supposed evoke a particular feeling in the viewer. You really have to see them in person. When you judge a painting or a work of art, you must understand the context when and how the art was created and the dialog happening in the art world when the work was created and the current historical significance. I know the cheesy reproductions on here and the upturned nose of the people writing the article say one thing, but the paintings actually say another.

    • White World Media

      why not just paint your whole wall one color and have the same effect instead of spending millions on a pile of trash painted by a pretentious communist with a european name?

      • Daniel Fleming

        If you actually stood in front of one for more than 10 seconds you’d see why it might be a bit more difficult than simply painting a wall one color…there is a lot more variation within a Rothko painting than pictures give you.

        But yes…ultimately you could try to recreate the effect on your own and save the money. However, the people buying these are investing in something, not simply trying to copy the effect…so you are missing the point a bit and probably purposefully so.

        There are thousands (probably millions) of artists alive today that can recreate Leonardo’s and Michelangelo’s almost exactly and without much effort…that doesn’t make the renaissance unimportant or less impressive.

        • Just shut up, Okay!

          You are a biased profiteer in the “art” world so “Just shut up, okay!”.

    • Just shut up, Okay!

      Another profiteer or gullible fool?

  • Eric Barney

    Three words: mob money laundering.

  • Frag Wall

    Looks shit. What the fuck happened?

    • Johnny Meo

      “What the fuck happened?”

      Money laundering.

  • Johnny Meo

    I’m not sure if I’m looking at a collection of overpriced stupidities, or a series of obvious money laundering…

  • Dknowhy Young Postman

    ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ATTENTION !!! ! ! ! ! ! !
    DKnowhy Neo-Art Artist
    Damien L. Kinney have 2 come up with a
    Public Announcemenst
    Buy My Art Dont waste YOUR Time with simple Colors if U LOVE ARTworx
    or Feel Introduced 2 visit my New 2016 Online Vernisage from
    ME 2 U
    with Love in design by he[ART]wox

    Damien L. Kinney ….and never forget http://kinney1990.wix.com/dknowhy
    dont LIKE it…….
    ……………………..if you LOVE it

  • Amhairghen Faithliaig

    As an artist myself (a jade carver and sculptor), I can honestly say that these works most likely owe their worth to the capacity of the ludicrously rich to be gulled into buying anything. I had a notable abstractist as a childhood friend; so no, my statement does not come from a lack of exposure to abstract art. It comes from the fact that these works all lack any sense of self-defined context, and thus provide no clues as to how their simplicity is anything more significant than the simplicity of laziness or childhood.

    Yes, simplicity can be more than it initially appears; but in order to be so, it requires a sense of context. If context is absent, then the simplicity is meaningless, and thus the high price tag is nonsensical and unjustified. If this sense of context is absent in the piece, then it must be defined by the environment in which it is set. And since the pieces’ price tags don’t come with that environment thrown in, they’re overvalued.

    And the only people who would overvalue them this much are foolish rich people; those with excessive spare change and a desire to appear more sophisticated than they actually are.

  • johnnyboyjohn

    What a lot of the posters of comments above and below this one don’t realize:

    it’s the NAME of the artist and how collectable they are. It has nothing to do (almost) with what is on the canvas. Much like a designer dress or a designer pair of tennis shoes can go for thousands and thousands, it’s the same with art. Once the market decides (as a collective group) that an artist’s work is worthy and important people start purchasing it (The DuPonts, famous people, etc.) then the works gain value. After that, it’s all about auction prices and market fluctuations. People purchase it as investments, they don’t care about what’s in the picture per se. They sit on it for a while and then sell it. Just like classic cars, guns, antiques, you name it.

    You may not like the paintings, you may think they’re horrible, simplistic crap, but the ARTIST’S NAME behind them and who owned it? That’s what counts and that’s what makes it worth the price tag.

    • wahyu setiawan

      Just like when you buy the new iphone,

  • Heloneida

    These painting are the perfect example of the king is naked.

  • Royal_Blue

    The first thing that comes to mind? A fool and his money are soon parted.

  • Miles

    at one of museums in LA they have a damned rock on display, and a room with a single light bulb. This isn’t art anymore, its business. It’s what happens when artist sacrifice their love, passion, and hobby just so you can make a big buck. And if any of you pretentious fucks try to find meaning behind a blue ass canvas because you are wise and meaningful, i’ve given up on America.

  • the buttress

    get the rothkos out of here or i will punch you so hard in the butt it ccomes out your face

  • You didn’t even get into the ridiculous crap produced by Koontz that were made by other people. Art or “ART” these days is a con game wherein rich people try to out sophisticate each other by buying the latest emperor’s new clothes. Let the fools try and buy status and taste, but anyone with any independent sense can see the truth.

  • “I have never learned to appreciate or understand abstract art, so I’ve decided it’s all stupid and worthless.”

    • Liberal

      You are stupid and worthless.

  • PopRocks

    there are many reasons as to why paintings are sold at such a high price, some buy it because of social status or peer approval, some buy it due to its history, some do it (surprisingly) because of love of art.

  • Asger Horn Brorholt

    I rather like Picture Le Chen. I think it’ll be the new wallpaper for my laptop. Nice.
    The other ones though, they haven’t really any aesthetic, have they? I’ll be buggered if I know what else they might be trying to accomplish.

  • Asger Horn Brorholt

    I rather like Peinture Le Chien. I think it’ll be the new wallpaper for my laptop. Nice.
    The other ones though, they haven’t really any aesthetic, have they? I’ll be buggered if I know what else they might be trying to accomplish

  • Jaya Jaya

    Funnily enough – I’m an abstract artist… I make a living. I produce what I think are nice, pleasing to look at, decorative pieces.
    Then I give tham an ‘intellectual’ name, and people are falling over themselves to pay big prices. Apparently they see all this deep and meaningful stuff that was never my intention. Good luck to ’em – I get to eat.
    Personally, I think I put more thought and effort into it than Rothko et al, but what do I know? I like representational art myself – still life, and some impressionist stuff. I do abstract because I can turn them out more quickly.

  • Please take my money…

  • TheEvilBlight

    At least for me, art has been always about chasing the new. In the old days the aim was to chase realism until the tide turned away from realism. We chased reproduction/recapitulation of the environs, but with photography available to corner the market on recapitulation of the corporeal what’s next?

    I felt that it would either require art to capture more fantastical things by exercising the imagination. However it is hard to make a practical argument about say, a Jackson Pollock. In the end the buyer is buying a story from a storyteller encoded in canvas, and if deployed without the story the mere canvas is indeed, child’s play.

    Perhaps the other problem is a post-realism shift means that immediate interpretation of the piece is no longer a setpiece requirement of viewable art. A stained glass window with a saint is indeed, quite obvious and interpretable. A Rodin is also, to some degree, quite interpretable. But red canvas’ with lines? If the annotation card is mandatory to extract meaning, when do we go “post-canvas” and have empty galleries with just the cards that ask viewers to exercise their imaginations, or more excitingly, to paint their own from the card and take it home?

  • Alfons


    • Alfons

      can i sell this comment now?

  • These are amazing but only foolish will spent their money.

    • Rahul Raj

      Great check my site

  • Jac Jac

    Don’t forget Voice of Fire, purchased by the National Gallery of Canada for its permanent collection in 1989 at a cost of $1.8 million.


  • Joe Biggs

    An ape can do a better job than these so called artists.

  • Maya

    Some of theese are terrible, like “orange, red, yellow” , the 4th from the top (it’s untitled).
    But some people don’t understand how hard it is to paint with a paintbrush. It’s hard to paint a completely straigh line.If they were sold at such a high price, they are probbably not digital. I even think, that “Concetto Spaziale” is actually pretty alright. But others are just boring. People say that the artists put no effort or thought into theese paintings, but still, they were probably really difficult to paint. Wow, you are still reading? Good job!

  • LeftistGladiator499

    As an artist myself, the fact that any of these were worth millions of dollars is disgusting and sickening. I’m not sure if ANY painting is worth millions of dollars, but these definitely are NOT worth that much.
    And let me make something clear: Abstract art can be (and often is) great art. I’ve made a lot of it myself. To call most of these “abstract art” is inaccurate. These paintings are minimalist, and not even GOOD minimalism at that. They are just lazy. That is all.

  • Elvis

    This is cupidity at its most sickening.