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 'Macintosh' Painting by Andy Warhol Estimated to Fetch Up to $30,000 at Auction Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My use of Apple stock as a valuation yardstick is arbitrary. An econ professor I had in college taught the "six pack method" of comparative valuation. How many six packs of beer would you give up exchange for a given thing? So if it helps, think of it being worth around 3,000 six packs of good beer.
Incidentally, if a company "tanks" (by which I take it you mean, goes bankrupt), stockholders own absolutely nothing. Any assets the company owns at that point goes to pay creditors. In that respect at least, art has more intrinsic value than stock.
So, can you legitimately prove that this painting is a fake just based off a photo on a front page article?
The art business is all about money laundering, international untaxed wealth transfer, and general tax evasion. The art itself is irrelevant, and doesn’t need to be actual art. Hence conceptual contemporary “art”.
That’s like saying why would you want a worn jersey of Michael Jordan? After all it’s sweaty and stinky. The same way that jersey stands for Jordan’s career, a painting by Warhol (an influential and famous painter) stands for his. Even if the painting itself is not super nice, that’s why it holds value.
Interesting theory. I'm sure art world would like to know more.
Agree with others that this will go for several times the estimate.
If you don't see the art in this, you probably also don't appreciate photography as art.
Photography? Pfoooh! It's just pushing a button.
It's pushing a button at the right time and right place.
Where was Apple in the minds of the public when Warhol did this? Was it up there with Campbell's Soup?
That's the genius! What logos did he capture that turned out to be nothing today? I'd guess none.
I have two "Warhols" on my walls!
- Jackie In Red. It's an authorized "art print" reproduction. You can have one for about $100. It's Jackie Kennedy, drawn from a photograph from the motorcade in which President Kennedy was shot and killed. It's the "happy Jackie" moment, before the shooting. There is a "sad Jackie" (with running mascara) in the series - from a photo taken after the shooting. (Actually, I think this is a museum exhibition poster, a step up from an art print. Not sure, as I didn't purchase it.)
- I Shot Andy Warhol. Vintage movie poster, British Quad format. Two sets of triple-repeated images of Lili Taylor, who played the woman who shot Andy Warhol in the movie "I Shot Andy Warhol". The image is after Warhol's work Triple Elvis.
The former is in my office. The latter is in my living room. From the living room, you can see both. I think it's some nice irony. Is the juxtaposition itself art? I think so.
If you don't see the art in this, you probably also don't appreciate photography as art.
Photography? Pfoooh! It's just pushing a button.
It's pushing a button at the right time and right place.
Where was Apple in the minds of the public when Warhol did this? Was it up there with Campbell's Soup?
That's the genius! What logos did he capture that turned out to be nothing today? I'd guess none.
I have two "Warhols" on my walls!
- Jackie In Red. It's an authorized "art print" reproduction. You can have one for about $100. It's Jackie Kennedy, drawn from a photograph from the motorcade in which President Kennedy was shot and killed. It's the "happy Jackie" moment, before the shooting. There is a "sad Jackie" (with running mascara) in the series - from a photo taken after the shooting. (Actually, I think this is a museum exhibition poster, a step up from an art print. Not sure, as I didn't purchase it.)
- I Shot Andy Warhol. Vintage movie poster, British Quad format. Two sets of triple-repeated images of Lili Taylor, who played the woman who shot Andy Warhol in the movie "I Shot Andy Warhol". The image is after Warhol's work Triple Elvis.
The former is in my office. The latter is in my living room. From the living room, you can see both. I think it's some nice irony. Is the juxtaposition itself art? I think so.
Last edited:
That's part of the issue with Warhol, at least in terms of valuation. He was exploring the boundary between fine and commercial art and his work was reproduced like crazy.
Okay then, why not put your money where your mouth is and "do it easily" and show us how easy it is?
Today, anybody with a MacBook Pro and a copy of Adobe Illustrator can be an artist. Back in the 1980's that wasn't the case.
This piece was done by someone who was very influential in the development of popular art. It was done by someone who was known for his iconic pieces when Apple was no where near being an icon.
Part of understanding art is understanding its historical context. Considering who created this piece and when, I think it will fetch far more than US$30K.
Aside from the taste comment which is 100% subjective, your post makes absolute sense in my book also.
Bragging rights for the filthy rich perhaps?
Fact not theory. Plenty of mainstream info about money laundering with art, but here’s a rather sensational take on it: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1855938
Who's to say I haven't?
[doublepost=1516367011][/doublepost]
The Weirdos....
[doublepost=1516367763][/doublepost]
But I wouldn't WANT a smelly stinky jersey from ANYONE. Sorry, I don't live my life to worship others and collect their bodily fluids. That's just gross... And Warhol was only an influential painter because a group of people say he was and during an era of heavy drug use. I'm not gonna get into an argument about something I could care less about and that is only valuable at ridiculous levels because someone is willing to pay it. Warhol's work IMO is copies of stuff. I mean Com'on, a Campbell's Soup can? Colorized photos of famous people? Apple logos!!? If people like his work, more power to ya...I happen to think he's HIGHLY overrated and mediocre at best. County fair level....hell, some county fair art is better!
Not interested in sensational takes. They pretty much disprove your point, and certainly don't supply any facts to support your sweeping assertion.
This is really funny. I think you and others here don't get "art". Anybody can paint in a way but can you create art? Somebody said nowadays with the computers anybody could be an artist. Like technology makes art easier. Well guess what anybody could be an artist back then as well. Cameras existed back then, oil and canvas was cheap and so on. You don't make art because you know how to hold an pencil or because you can afford an expensive camera. Hell Keith Haring started with chalk on blacked out ads at the subway stations. You create art because you want to tell something. You want to express yourself.
But hey its ok. I actually feel sorry for people like you who can't see real art. Who think a cow painting has to look like a real cow. And I don't say it in a bad or elitist or mean way, I really feel sorry. Even knowing you don't get why I feel sorry because you don't see what you are missing out. Like I met this guy who lost an eye as a baby and had this glass eye and I said I am sorry that you can't see in 3d and he is like don't be sorry because I don't miss it since I don't know it.
Enjoy your cow painting and be happy it was just $8 and don't make fun of other people enjoying real art just because you can't value it.
Sorry to you art lovers but paying anything more than $20 for a painting is about as sensible as paying $100,000 for a fiat multipla.
I love the smug naivte .. its Warhol.. its Apple.. its going to sell for more and keep on rising in value...
not meaning you in particular..you are right.. they are paying for the autograph as much as anything else.. like paying for a signed baseball.. that probably isnt really signed... this is at least authentic...
Here's a sad case of not getting art:
There once was a classic, simple, Space Invader installation on a freeway overpass abutment near me. Whether or not it was "authorized" is ambiguous. It was done in conjunction with ComicCon one year.
After a few years, it was removed. It was "graffiti". While it doesn't rise to the level of stupidity of painting over a Banksy... it's up there in stupidity.
Up in it's place, went a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. (It's in an area called Little Italy). Authorized. Designed by students at the local elementary school.
Get this: it's in the style of Space Invader. That is, it's made from tiles applied to the surface. Pixellated.
There is a brass plaque under the work. It says when it was installed, and acknowledges the contribution of the local elementary school students.
It does not acknowledge that there was originally a Space Invader there, nor that a city crew ruined that work, nor even that the Mona Lisa that is there is was influenced by the style of Space Invader.
This is an example of the educational system TEACHING kids to not get art. I'm sure there are some smug administrators that love pointing out that "any 5 year old could do that".
Wisely, many of the business owners whose properties were "defaced" by Space Invader have preserved the works. They now have valuable works of art on their properties for which they paid nothing.
(Actually, I have an idea. I think I am going to print-up post-it notes to stick to the plaque. I will just persistently leave them. I can't be accused of "defacing" the plaque with post-it notes!)
----
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Enjoy your "Hang In There Kitty!" poster and your inspirational sayings from HomeGoods!
Who knows, though. I will admit I am wrong when "20-teens AirBNB decorative kitsch" hits the top of the art charts.
[doublepost=1516478645][/doublepost]
Oh, my, that's rich.
Allegations of MULTIPLE pedophilia scandals involving Hillary Clinton. The old gal sure gets around!
Sorry, I didn't get to the part about money laundering using art. I'll see if I can read further after I pick myself up off the floor.
It also would be easier if any of these conspiracy theorists could write coherently. It seems their brains are wired "different" if you catch my drift.
Last edited:
Betrays your mindset. Here’s one I wrote in 2013 - perhaps less conspiratorial: https://www.jessewaugh.com/blog/2013/4/6/gaming-belief
The stampede by forum members to demonstrate their ignorance on this subject is disheartening.