Classic 'Macintosh' Painting by Andy Warhol Estimated to Fetch Up to $30,000 at Auction Next Month

[MacRumors]

Woodshed Art Auctions has announced it will be auctioning an opaque watercolor painting of Apple's classic logo by the late Andy Warhol next month.

The painting is part of Warhol's "Ads" collection from 1985, one year after the original Macintosh launched. It features Apple's old rainbow logo, which the company used from 1977 to 1998, between Apple and Macintosh word marks.

The painting measures eight inches squared inside a 16.5-inch squared frame, and it is signed by Warhol on the front and back. It is said to be in "very good condition" with archival corners and no adhesives touching the artwork.

While a similar Macintosh canvas painting by Warhol sold for $900,000 at a recent Sotheby's auction, this gouache painting is on paper, so it is seemingly less valuable. Still, it is estimated to fetch between $20,000 and $30,000.

Warhol, who passed away in 1987, was a famous artist known for his paintings of iconic American items like Coca-Cola and Campbell's Soup, and celebrities including Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and Muhammad Ali.

Live bidding opens on the Woodshed Art Auctions website on February 1 at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, with a minimum bid of $5,000.

Article Link: Classic 'Macintosh' Painting by Andy Warhol Estimated to Fetch Up to $30,000 at Auction Next Month

 

[DocMultimedia]

Would look nice in my house.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I got a nice painting of a cow I bought for $8 the other day. No idea who drew it, but between the painting I have and this one, I vastly prefer the cow painting, and that's before even factoring in price.

There's no accounting for some people's (complete lack of) taste.

Like, honestly, what the heck does someone buying this think? That they're going to be able to go on to sell it for more later on? That requires there being someone not just as dumb (and wealthy) as you, but even dumber and wealthier. It's going to come to an end eventually - how can the buyer be so certain that they're not the dumbest person, the one at the end of the chain?

Or is it possible to have enough money to impulsively spend $30K on a painting? I guess that'd require having a net worth of around... $3B or so*, for $30K to seem like a small enough purchase to just impulsively do it.

* Because at that point, you're making enough interest that within a few hours your net worth has increased by $30K.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Looks like a kid with a crimson crayon drew this (after having eaten all the other colours).

Still, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm far from an art critic.

 

[macduke]

If I were Tim, I'd have this hanging in my new office.

 

[neliason]

Like, honestly, what the heck does someone buying this think? That they're going to be able to go on to sell it for more later on? That requires there being someone not just as dumb (and wealthy) as you, but even dumber and wealthier. It's going to come to an end eventually - how can the buyer be so certain that they're not the dumbest person, the one at the end of the chain?

I am reminded of the fable The Emperor’s New Clothes. What people appreciate as art sometimes baffles me. I realize personal taste is a factor. But I just can’t see anyone paying much for this. There isn’t much in the painting itself. What you are buying is the fact that it was crafted by a particular person. In that sense it is more like autograph or personal relic collecting.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I got a nice painting of a cow I bought for $8 the other day. No idea who drew it, but between the painting I have and this one, I vastly prefer the cow painting, and that's before even factoring in price.

There's no accounting for some people's (complete lack of) taste.

Like, honestly, what the heck does someone buying this think? That they're going to be able to go on to sell it for more later on? That requires there being someone not just as dumb (and wealthy) as you, but even dumber and wealthier. It's going to come to an end eventually - how can the buyer be so certain that they're not the dumbest person, the one at the end of the chain?

Or is it possible to have enough money to impulsively spend $30K on a painting? I guess that'd require having a net worth of around... $3B or so*, for $30K to seem like a small enough purchase to just impulsively do it.

* Because at that point, you're making enough interest that within a few hours your net worth has increased by $30K.

Not a huge fan of Warhol myself, but for those who are, think of it as 150 shares of AAPL. Not a massive sum by any means and certainly in reach of someone worth far less than billions. Art collectors aren't really any more impulsive than anyone else. They know that fine art value doesn't come "to an end," it tends to increase.
[doublepost=1516297416][/doublepost]

I am reminded of the fable The Emperor’s New Clothes. What people appreciate as art sometimes baffles me. I realize personal taste is a factor. But I just can’t see anyone paying much for this. There isn’t much in the painting itself. What you are buying is the fact that it was crafted by a particular person. In that sense it is more like autograph or personal relic collecting.

That's just the thing with art, you don't have to understand why something is appreciated by someone else but not you.

I bet this piece sells for more than the high end of the estimate.

 

[Saturnine]

I tell you now, this will go for a lot more than $30,000. Mark my words.

 

[smacrumon]

This painting is certainly worth much more than $30000. I suspect it will go much higher than that.
[doublepost=1516297764][/doublepost]

I tell you now, this will go for a lot more than $30,000. Mark my words.

Twins!

 

[PG(Austin)]

I'm in the wrong business. I could do this easily....but as someone said above, you are buying the name of the artist. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Why do people want things created by weirdos?

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm in the wrong business. I could do this easily....but as someone said above, you are buying the name of the artist. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Why do people want things created by weirdos?

Stop to consider how this gives all of us hope.
[doublepost=1516298558][/doublepost]

Twins!

I bet this piece sells for more than the high end of the estimate.

Triplets, actually. And FWIW I made that prediction first.

 

[Nunyabinez]

Hanging on the basement wall of a not insignificant number of MacRumors posters.

 

[lunarworks]

I'm in the wrong business. I could do this easily....but as someone said above, you are buying the name of the artist. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Why do people want things created by weirdos?

"l could have made this."
"Then why didn't you?"

 

[smacrumon]

Stop to consider how this gives all of us hope.
[doublepost=1516298558][/doublepost]



Triplets, actually. And FWIW I made that prediction first.

My family!

 

[Starship67]

I got a nice painting of a cow I bought for $8 the other day.

Thats not something I Would have admitted on a public forum. /S

 

[Joe Rossignol]

This painting is certainly worth much more than $30000. I suspect it will go much higher than that.
[doublepost=1516297764][/doublepost]
Twins!

I tell you now, this will go for a lot more than $30,000. Mark my words.

I know nothing about this, but the other canvas one linked in article was estimated at $600K and sold for $900K!

 

[scott911]

I tell you now, this will go for a lot more than $30,000. Mark my words.

i agree. several times over.

 

[cpfoto2005]

I'm in the wrong business. I could do this easily....but as someone said above, you are buying the name of the artist. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Why do people want things created by weirdos?

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers…"

 

[Spendlove]

I really like it.

Can someone lend me $30,000? I will let you visit to look at it from time to time.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Not a huge fan of Warhol myself, but for those who are, think of it as 150 shares of AAPL. Not a massive sum by any means and certainly in reach of someone worth far less than billions. Art collectors aren't really any more impulsive than anyone else. They know that fine art value doesn't come "to an end," it tends to increase.

Interesting to compare it to stock. There's a bunch of major differences:
#1 - It's easy to buy and sell stocks, and to see what the going rate for it is at any point, because thousands (or millions or billions) of people have shares that are identical to yours.
#2 - Many stocks will earn you dividends.
#3 - If a company tanks, you can liquidate it and get the value of whatever property they owned.

None of these apply to art.

I bet this piece sells for more than the high end of the estimate.

I think that's a reasonable bet, given a nearly identical piece went for 30x as much. My concern would be that this person intends to hold onto it for years before selling it. Apple's brand value is already going down - seems like it's only a matter of time before the art depicting their brand similarly declines in value.

 

[guzhogi]

I got a nice painting of a cow I bought for $8 the other day. No idea who drew it, but between the painting I have and this one, I vastly prefer the cow painting, and that's before even factoring in price.

I know. I find that with a lot of art, it's not the art itself, but the painter. If they said that my sister's 6 year old daughter painted this, it might go for a few bucks. Yet, if you put a kindergartener's art project in the Louvre and said that it's by some famous artist, people would pay thousands of dollars for it.

 

[arkitect]

I know. I find that with a lot of art, it's not the art itself, but the painter. If they said that my sister's 6 year old daughter painted this, it might go for a few bucks. Yet, if you put a kindergartener's art project in the Louvre and said that it's a Van Gogh, people would pay thousands of dollars for it.

Actually? No. They won't.

Next time you're standing in front of a Van Gogh. have a good look.

That is not "kindergarten" art… and could never be mistaken for it.

Now, Tracey Emin stuff on the other hand… "Look Mum, I messed up mah bed!"

 

[guzhogi]

Actually? No. They won't.

Next time you're standing in front of a Van Gogh. have a good look.

That is not "kindergarten" art… and could never be mistaken for it.

Now, Tracey Emin stuff on the other hand… "Look Mum, I messed up mah bed!"

Okay, maybe not Van Gogh, but some other famous painter/artist. Just trying to say that sometimes people pay for the name over the actual work.

 

[warholron]

This is 100% FAKE. The signature is way off. |Everything about this is wrong. Can't believe an auction house would market a fake and not do the basic research like buying the $50 catalogue raisonne which would spell out all the stamps, numbering, etc.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I know nothing about this, but the other canvas one linked in article was estimated at $600K and sold for $900K!

Art auction estimates tend to be conservative, which is my only reason for predicting that this piece will go for more than $30k.