The above image is of an abstract painting entitled “Study for Improvisation 8” It sold for US $23 million at Christie’s in 2012. It was painted by Wassily Wassilyevich Kandinsky.
Today’s “Google Doodle” commemorates the birth 148 years ago today of Wassily Wassilyevich Kandinsky (1866 – 1944).
Herewith a link reporting on the sale: http://sputniknews.com/art_living/20121108/177292334.html
Today a young person leaving school and thinking of becoming an artist specialising in paintings (oil on canvas or watercolour) may well be advised (by their teachers) to undertake a course of study at one of the many art colleges, one of the most prestigious being the Royal College of Art in Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU.
Herewith the link: http://www.rca.ac.uk/
It is most unlikely that the teachers will direct them to the Academy of Realist Art at 151 London Road, Edinburgh EH7 6AE (Tel. 0131 308 2541).
This academy is not state funded in any way for the simple reason that they would no longer be allowed to teach what they teach and would have to become like all other state funded art colleges.
OK then, suppose your son or daughter is not far off leaving school at 18 and clearly has a skill with an artist’s brush how much and how long would it take them to acquire the skill to become say a traditional portrait painter? Between two and four years but assume three. At £5,800 per year.
Herewith the link: http://www.academyofrealistart.co.uk/
Of course there is the question of financing the young person through the course.
There are two possibilities; full time or part time.
Part time would mean the young person moving to Edinburgh, finding employment and accommodation and studying part time.
Full time would generally mean is Dad and Mum re-mortgaging or getting a second mortgage on their home for say £50,000 and then making a private arrangement with their son/daughter to pay the loan back when they are earning.
Herewith below a YouTube video of the academy:
To answer the question this article asks however, one should say that something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. Clearly whoever it was that purchased the painting for US $23 million clearly thought it was worth it. They clearly have a lot of spare cash.
But then the wealthy can often have strange likes and dislikes and will pay what we ordinary folk consider an extraordinary amount of money for something quite bizarre.
Rather like our globe trotting (he is just back from Lima in Peru) Climate Change minister, Mr Ed Davey who doubtless delights in the increased cost of his electricity due to the fact that some of it (not as much as he may think) is being generated by his beloved wind turbines scattered across the North Sea!
That of course is all very well for Mr Davey as he can afford it. But he should spare a thought for his constituents many of whom are impoverished and worry about where they are going to find sufficient cash to feed their pre payment meters.
So we can well imagine Mr Davey being puzzled were he to hear of one of his constituents re-mortgaging their house to provide finance for a son/daughter who wants to learn to paint properly when that young person could go to a state funded art college where they would be encouraged to “express themselves.”
Speaking the Truth unto the Nation
NO. It does nothing for me and I can only marvel at the fact that anyone would pay even a fraction of that amount for something so……………weird!
My favourite period is the Pre-Raphealites I have loved this style of art since I fell under the spell of Holman-Hunt’s “The Light of the World” when I first saw it at five years old in Sunday School. Altho’ of course I had no idea of its meaning and provenance at such a young age, I was just drawn to the detailed, magnificent imagery and vibrant colours. Of the two versions he painted, it is the one at St. Paul’s Cathedral that I prefer, as I type this I can see the copy of it I have on the wall next to my computer.