Needs to be thinner and lighter with a rose gold frame and and iWarhol label on it
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Classic Andy Warhol ‘Macintosh’ Painting Could Fetch $600,000 at Auction
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Needs to be thinner and lighter with a rose gold frame and and iWarhol label on it
You're right.
This work is a nexus of both art and business history.
Yeah, it's not much as art by itself, but it's a notable historical artifact.
It will go for $1,000,000 easy.
That would have to be one damned sophisticated (and dull) toddler.
Maybe a toddler could assemble it from clip art and premade typography.
No, not even then.
Yes, Warhol's stuff was simplistic and even dumb. No, a toddler couldn't do it.
No one will ever need to spend more than 640k on this.
IF that's art, neither do I, but it's just Warhol's usual tawdry rubbish.
Indeed.
One would think Art would be about the art. the image on the canvas.
It has nothing to do with that at all.
It's simply about who created it.
The exact same image in every way could of been created by some college student on exact the same day and only be worth perhaps $10 if they were lucky simply down to who they were.
This is the typical comment by someone who doesn't know anything about art.
I'm not really an Andy Warhol fan, but those criticizing him here saying they don't get art, you're right, you don't get art. More accurately, you don't get art history. It may look obvious and simplistic now, decades after the fact, but there's a reason nobody really did it before he came along. It took a certain creative genius (read: insanity) to come up with doing this sort of thing, and Andy Warhol did "it" very well. Furthermore pop art follows from a long history of artistic movements, going back through expressionism to impressionism (I'm skipping a bunch of steps, but those are the ones you've probably at least have heard of). The same sorts of criticism you're leveling at Andy Warhol was leveled at people like Vincent van Gogh or Claude Monet, and will continue to be leveled at all the greats of every new art movement.
There's a lot of people who can copy an Andy Warhol piece, I'm sure. There's also a lot of people who can copy a Vincent van Gogh piece too. Good luck selling your work for Andy Warhol or Vincent van Gogh prices.
I also find it particularly amusing that so many people on this site of all sites would be making fun of Andy Warhol for being too obvious or simplistic. In retrospect, the same can be said for everything to come out of Jony Ive's lab, yet presumably if you're here you're a fan of his work at least on some level. So I'll just ask you all, what's wrong with simplicity?
I had no idea Andy Warhol ever used Apple as a subject, but I'd certainly say they're a match made in heaven.
There's a lot of people who can copy an Andy Warhol piece, I'm sure. There's also a lot of people who can copy a Vincent van Gogh piece too. Good luck selling your work for Andy Warhol or Vincent van Gogh prices.
I also find it particularly amusing that so many people on this site of all sites would be making fun of Andy Warhol for being too obvious or simplistic. In retrospect, the same can be said for everything to come out of Jony Ive's lab, yet presumably if you're here you're a fan of his work at least on some level. So I'll just ask you all, what's wrong with simplicity?
I had no idea Andy Warhol ever used Apple as a subject, but I'd certainly say they're a match made in heaven.
Precisely.
Your post sums up modern art, and, indeed, contemporary society, sadly.
We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I hate to break it to you, but this pretty much sums up all art going back hundreds of years, not just the contemporary stuff. Art used to be just religious in nature, and while some artists were known as being more talented and thus commissioned by wealthier patrons, art was still basically just an interchangeable commodity. Eventually it started being used to keep track of geneology-type information for families that were wealthy enough that ancestry/inheritance meant something (hanging one's grandfather on the wall), but for the most part any artist of suitable talent would do. It was only when the artists themselves rebelled and started painting subjects besides gods, saints, and kings that art became something fashionable. The result was more art, which is a good thing I'd argue, but it also made everyone a critic. This happened a long, long time before Andy Warhol.
Sounds like the craigslist description of a listed iPhone in questionable condition (aka """mint""")...
No that's the comment from someone expressing an opinion. Art is subjective. It's value, monetarily speaking, is only what someone is willing to pay. Take this, it not only looks like something a toddler could do, but I bet a few of us have had better taped to our refrigerators (better is our opinion of course). It's Royal Red and Blue #1. It sold for $75 million.
Is it more artful than this $25 painting by some random woman on the internet?
I'm surprised the classic Apple rainbow logo hasn't been used much by the company given the political/social stuff they've been into under TC. The cold, steel logo presently used doesn't inspire any emotions in me.
No that's the comment from someone expressing an opinion. Art is subjective. It's value, monetarily speaking, is only what someone is willing to pay. Take this, it not only looks like something a toddler could do, but I bet a few of us have had better taped to our refrigerators (better is our opinion of course). It's Royal Red and Blue #1. It sold for $75 million.
Is it more artful than this $25 painting by some random woman on the internet?
I think most people would agree that this "random" painting is artistically superior to the $75 million thing above it. The idea that art is subjective is a relatively recent development in art history and it coincides with a dramatic decline in the quality of art. This video explains it brilliantly:
I'll second that. This piece isn't about being "art" in and of itself, it's more like owning Napoleon's chessboard or Picasso's "fish skeleton plate" - not that it's artistic, but because it was owned or made by someone of great historical importance. In this case, that it was made by Warhol is enough for a 6-digit price tag, 2x that because it's of a non-sequitur subject currently of significance in our culture. Striking to know that Steve Jobs, Andy Warhol, and John Lennon knew each other and apparently were in Lennon's house together.
And on a related note, seems Warhol did some artwork on an Amiga to try out that medium. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/watch-andy-warhol-computer-art/
Yes.No that's the comment from someone expressing an opinion. Art is subjective. It's value, monetarily speaking, is only what someone is willing to pay. Take this, it not only looks like something a toddler could do, but I bet a few of us have had better taped to our refrigerators (better is our opinion of course). It's Royal Red and Blue #1. It sold for $75 million.
Is it more artful than this $25 painting by some random woman on the internet?
Hey there's more words here, so don't flag the post
Andy Warhol's business plan:
1. Get 3-year-old to draw picture
2. Slap my name on it.
3. Profit!
Not sure if he did know John Lennon.
I think he died in 81. More than likely, he knew Yoko if he was setting up a Mac in the bedroom of Sean Lennon.