This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of most expensive artworks by living artists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Reviewing this edit:
The 1886 New York sale of Jules Breton's The Communicants for $45,000 ($1.22 million in 2019 dollars) was the second highest paid work of a living artist at that time and only exceeded by Ernest Meissonier. [1] In 1846 Meissonier purchased a great mansion in Poissy sometimes known as the Grande Maison.
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.22 | The Communicants | Jules Breton | March 1886 | AAA | [2] |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
But even if it were true, this would mean that Breton's painting never held the record and should be removed from the list.[In 1886] his painting, The Communicants, sold at auction in New York for $45,000, the highest price paid for the work of a living artist with the exception of a painting by Meissonier.
Hm. This seems to contradict the above. Looking for an independent source... czar 07:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Two years later, at her auction on May 3 – 5, 1886, [Les communiantes] was purchased by Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona, president of the Bank of Montreal, for $45,000 — a sum representing the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist at the time.
— http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/19th-century-european-art-n09499/lot.8.html
czar 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)(45,000 dollars)
Toute l'Amérique avec accompagnement de dollars vient de chanter la gloire de l'art francais.
227,500 francs les Communiantes de Jules Breton!
C'est l'enchère la plus considérable qui ait été mise sur le tableau d'un artiste vivant.
A la vente Wilson en 1881, l'Angelus de Millet n'avait obtenu que 165,000 francs et la Halte de cavaliers de Meissonier 125,000 francs.
— L'Hôtel Drouot en ... ( translate)
misc. sources
|
---|
czar 08:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
czar 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Found a new source and the NYT appears to contradict itself:
OLD
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.35 | Triptych | Francis Bacon | May 1981 | Christie's | [1] |
0.34 | Exchanges of View | Jean Dubuffet | 1974 | Sotheby's | [2] |
NEW
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.53 | Mother and Child | Pablo Picasso | 1967 | Sotheby's | [3] |
0.198 | Death of Harlequin | Pablo Picasso | 1962 | Sotheby's | [3] |
References
... Francis Bacon at $350,000 for a triptych, the highest price paid at auction for a work by a living artist.
Jean Dubuffet's 'Exchanges of View' sold for $340,000, a record price for the work of a living artist.
A Picasso painting brought the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist. ... At Sotheby & Co., $532,000 was paid for an early Picasso, a 1902 "Mother and Child," of the artist's Blue Period. ... The Picasso ran far ahead of the former record-holder, "Death of Harlequin," which brought $198,000 at Sotheby's in 1962. ... It was pointed out that possibly more may have been paid at a private sale for a work by the Spanish master.
misc.
|
---|
This was commented out:
|
The 60s Picasso auction record exceeds that which the Times called a new record in 1974. In general, I've found some sources to be vague in their references to a record "work"—sometimes they meant record for the medium (painting, sculpture, etc.) or the artist. In this case, unless I'm missing something, just looks like an error. I'm going with the Picasso and removing the Bacon/Dubuffet. czar 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Picasso's top price—in fact, the top price in history for the work of a living artist—was set in Basel, Switzerland, where citizens raised $1,950,000 to buy Two Brothers, 1905, and Seated Harlequin, 1923, for their museum.
— LIFE Dec 27, 1968, p. 120
This is a potential non-auction record. Marking it here for further investigation. czar 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Lucien Freud died in 2011; "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping" should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:2E0:8000:3162:7CCD:48FE:18A5 ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Died in 2011 80.223.92.105 ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this an historical list of each work that at the time was the most expensive work sold OR the works that have sold for the most money overall? It is not clear. If the first, Beeple should not be here, and I’m unsure about the others. If the former, it is totally wrong, missing Ruscha, Wool, Ryman, Stella, etc. This source isFive years old, but makes clear: https://news.artnet.com/market/most-expensive-living-american-artists-2016-543305 Theredproject ( talk)<
I see this note in the mainspace - "note that Everydays: the First 5000 Days is not a progressive auction record—the most most expensive auction record by a living artist at the time was the 2019 Jeff Koons Rabbit at $91M" - but the auction was at a reputable house and it was progressive - why wouldn't it be included in this list? Bangabandhu ( talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
There's been some edits recently adding an NFT sale by Pak to this list, and another work by Beeple is also on this list. I am wondering how this differentiation should be held up as there is already a separate article specifically for NFT sales, list of most expensive non-fungible tokens. Should NFTs and "artworks" be considered disparate groups for the sake of categorization and listing on these two articles? SiliconRed ( talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
So are we saying NFTs are not art and thus Beeple too should be removed from this list? Are artworks on this list limited to paintings, sculptures and thus NFTs on the list be removed? Honest question. I think the challenge we are facing is about HOW do we define art and WHO gets to define what art is? Both artists in this instance Pak & Beeple have had major NFT works sold at contemporary auction houses Sotheby's & Christie's respectively. If their "art" was sold in art auctions, doesn't this then make them artists? And, NFTs are art are they not? If you accept that major art auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's sell NFTs then you need to accept NFTs as art. Moreover, this opens the door to include NFTs on that list. One could retort that NFTs have their own page so should be excluded from the art page BUT this page is for sales across mediums no? So, I think SiliconRed is wrong to have deleted Pak from the top of the list and I have provided two sources placing Pak at the top 1) [1] and [2] Pmmccurdy ( talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Really interesting to see this discussion Randy Kryn & SiliconRed and where it leads. I see that Pak's Merge has been removed but we are keeping Beeple's Everday Sale, should that not also be removed from this list? It is also an NFT sale so if Merge doesn't qualify then perhaps Beeple shouldn't qualify? The Beeple work also consists of a large number of works and is not a single work like say a Koons sculpture. It is a compilation of works - sold as one - but does that make it a single artwork? I would argue that if we accept Beeple's Everydays on this list than other NFT works become eligible. Merge needs to be understood as a form of crypto native artwork - thus a new and specific form of work - where the art is beyond visual. It has a digitally native, dynamic and performative nature. You can see the various circles, you can read the contract but there is more to the intended art. Similarly, could we see a picture of performance art? Sure we could watch a video of performance art but it wouldn't be the same thing. I think part of the challenge is that this causes a reckoning and grappling with what art is and who gets to define art. If I view crickets as food an excellent source of protein and I eat them, are they food? If you say they are not food because they are insects, who is right? I think that if an artist/digital creator such as Pak call his works art then we surely can look at is as art, no? Now, if the issue is NFTs and the argument is that NFTs are not art, I am happy to make the edits to Beeple's Wikipedia page and erase references to his work as art and remove him from this list too, should I do that Randy Kryn & SiliconRed? Pmmccurdy ( talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Here are a few articles I've found discussing specifically whether or not NFTs are artwork. From Wash Po:
NFTs are not a new artistic medium in the way that oil paint, printmaking, photography or video art were. Even digital art (which is just art made on a computer) preexisted NFTs by decades. NFTs are financial instruments. They make it easier to sell digital files by creating scarcity.
from NYT:
Beeple’s work has been compared to that of KAWS or Banksy, two other artists who have bypassed art-world gatekeepers to establish huge sale prices. But ultimately, NFTs are a technology used to authenticate an artwork; determining whether a work is art or not is up to the viewer. The technology can be used to authenticate other kinds of objects, too.
& Time:
NFTs are best understood as computer files combined with proof of ownership and authenticity, like a deed. [...] Artists who want to sell their work as NFTs have to sign up with a marketplace, then “mint” digital tokens by uploading and validating their information on a blockchain (typically the Ethereum blockchain, a rival platform to Bitcoin)
Consensus seems to be a distinction between the sale of artwork AS an NFT from just the sale of artwork. Hopefully helpful here. SiliconRed ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for those extracts SiliconRed but I would suggest there is a third reading or understanding which isn't properly captured and that is viewing Pak's work in this instance which uses NFTs on the blockchain as a medium of art. Yes, NFTs are used as a way to tokenize digital works/make digital collectables but Pak's work has explicitly sought to use the medium to question ownership and value. This is discussed here [3]. Pak's approach to the blockchain as an artistic medium is outlined in this Wall Street Journal article:
The artist, who said they privately trade in cryptocurrencies, approached the Sotheby’s sale like a gamemaster seeking to demonstrate several technological intricacies offered by NFT smart contracts that might confound traditional art lovers but were designed to appeal to Pak’s fans. Some digital pieces in the artist’s “Fungible” series can be rendered useless or altered by their owners, a digital feat not usually touted by sellers of paintings or sculptures.
I'd suggest what underwrites this perspective or artistic approach is something like Marshall McLuhan's 1964 decree The medium is the message whereby his concern was how a dominant medium shaped society (power structures, ways of knowing, seeing and interacting). The use of NFTs on the blockchain is another way to explore these types of relationships. However, I think because it is a new medium, many are having a hard time understanding and dismissing the work. For some perspective when McLuhan was writing all the critics were concerned about what was on television, McLuhan's point was about how television is changing the way society is structured. My reading of Pak's practice is that they are doing the same thing with the potential for Blockchain in society. To me, that's art. Make sense yet Randy Kryn? Pmmccurdy ( talk) 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We certainly have certainly managed to type a lot of words over these last few days! In the spirit of succinctness shown by Randy Kryn below, SiliconRed could you kindly and explicitly summarise your objection to having Pak's Merge on the list? This - admittedly interesting - conversation started via edits to the Pak_(creator) which obviously now has implications here. Is the objection to having Merge on the list because it was an NFT or something specific about the work? I'd greatly appreciate the clarity Pmmccurdy ( talk) 17:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this conversation is happening shouLD encourage the inclusion of NFT as art. Besides isn't NFT an attribute to digital art much like a canvas is to a painting.
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the premise of the debate here. NFTs are a means of creating digital scarcity, as was previously mentioned. NFTs are not a medium of art, nor is NFT an art form. While NFT, as a technology, may be improved upon, perhaps even made obsolete in the future, they are attempting to solve a legitimate problem faced by digital artists, who are now able to sell their artwork in a manner that is somewhat analogous to artists who sell art in physical media. The heart of this debate is not if NFTs are art; they are not, and to say otherwise displays a misunderstanding of both art and NFTs. The heart of the debate is if recording the ownership of art through NFT is the same as owning a physical work of art. While personally I dislike the crowd that seems to champion NFTs, and I detest the treating of digital art as a means of investment rather than focusing on the art itself, the exact same issues pertain to the crowd that deal in the art industry. The stealing of artwork and selling through NFTs without the artist's permission, is not unlike issues that have plagued the art world for centuries. Given the increasingly digital nature of the world, I believe at some point people are going to have to accept NFTs being in equal standing as physical art sales but given the difference fundamental in medium, I support keeping NFT sales separate from physical art sales. AChakra California ( talk) 02:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
An NFT is is a form of unique token that *can be used* for art. The art itself is stored elsewhere (a database, on the blockchain, etc). Overall, NFTs are issued for various reasons. I could open a business and issue NFTs, and only those NFT holders would have exclusive access to X. Or I could create a NFT that leads to a textbook required for a classroom, ensuring that students buy from a primary source. I could issue NFTs in the way of Axie Infinity, etc. I think it would be more accurate to make these distinctions going forward, instead of lumping them all together. As it pertains to this, it would make more sense to include NFT-art sales in this list or even have them in a separate section on the same page. Art may have been defined as physical because it was the only way possible for it to be, but the Internet blurs these lines. Artificial "digital scarcity" is a common way of making a return outside NFT related art. Copyright means that you can own a shade of color for certain use or a specific design of an imaginary character. Artfinder allows the sale of digital art merely printed on canvas. The complications of the topic will definitely require more thought going forward. Perhaps the most simple way to put it, someone created art (true) and someone paid in order to *own* it (true). JusCurt44 ( talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Purchasing via NFT is not in any way purchasing art; purchasing NFT is pretending to purchase art. NFT is a trendy new scam that targets people who are unable to tell reality from ideals, such as young children.
When a company mass-produces a physical product, each copy of that product is its own individual. However, as they may be mistaken for one another, they are distinguished from one another by serial codes or mild deviations such as intentional alterations or manufacturing defects. NFT supposes to emulate this individuality by giving "serial codes" to digital files.
This is a fantasy as each different variation of the file or different serial code is still not unique. Each version of the file is still copied infinitely whenever the given file is transferred to a new system. The problem NFT aims to solve has thus not been solved. In fact, it never can be.
Because physical items do not infinitely duplicate, the owner of a physical item controls the possession of that copy of the item - not only in law but if need be by physically fighting off burglars who try to take it. It is not possible to "right-click" a physical item and get a copy of it, and if someone steals it, the original owner does not have it anymore. None of this is true with digital files and therefore it is not possible to demonstrate ownership of a specific version of a digital file, because there is nothing that can be "owned" to begin with.
This is why the "theft" of digital files has never been prosecuted as such - it makes no sense. Only intellectual property could possibly apply to this scenario. But intellectual property is concerned with all copies of something, while NFT is concerned with individual copies of something.
Even if NFT was to backpedal on that, it's founded on a black market whose sole purpose is to evade the law and can hardly seek legal backing for any intellectual property claims. And if NFT was to backpedal on that, it produces only very mild alterations of the same file (if they are indeed not visibly identical) and would not be able to reliably claim novelty and thus a distinct, new IP to protect.
To top it all off, NFT is completely superfluous. Every bank, every broker, every retailer already has receipts, transaction records, etc. with unique IDs, effectively meaning we have had NFT the entire time we have had a vaguely modern economy. What exactly is being brought to the table other than being more welcoming to shady under-the-table dealings because no meaningful authority is involved?
NFT is a scam like buying stars before it, and no reputable institution should entertain its claims of nobility. Buying NFT is buying vapor, not art.
- FibrielSolaer ( talk) 04:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Should NFTs be included in this list? SiliconRed ( talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Based on the discussion in the above RfC, I propose the following changes to the article (specifically the "All Time" section). I'm working with WP:CONFLICTING and WP:RS in mind, based on my conversation above with Hocus00.
There are three changes here:
Taken together:
I am open to ideas and suggestions! The discussion above has been productive and it seems like we are getting closer to a consensus supported by Wikipedia policy. SiliconRed ( talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have amended the above table based on the discussion and added Merge. The relevant discussion on this talk page initially centred on the inclusion of NFTs and it seems there is a proposal to include them which then means Merge has its place. In the above statement justifying Merge's removal
SiliconRed states that "The few existing
WP:RS describing the sale have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale" however one of the sources provided is from Barron's whose title is "PAK’s NFT Artwork ‘The Merge’ Sells for $91.8 Million", the article title describes merge as an artwork. If this list is for the most expensive artworks, Merge has been recognized as an artwork by secondary sources; its status as an artwork is even in the title. The argument that "at the time of sale, the artwork did not yet exist" is a
Red_herring. Pak's Merge is also referred to as art in
Gotham_(magazine)
[25]. Articles in Artnet also recognize Merge as an artwork. As for the dollar value, that has also been published. We find us coming full circle if NFTs are to be included on this list - and I support of that - both Beeple's Everdays and Pak's Merge have a place on it.
Pmmccurdy (
talk) 22:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The price was a record for an artwork sold publicly by a living artist, according to Nifty Gateway, a leading NFT marketplace. [...] However, the claim is debatable, depending on whether The Merge is ultimately considered to be a single piece or a series of artworks.(Barron's) and
in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator,”(and other ways of calling it art using others' words, i.e. not in their editorial voice) (Gotham). I will grant that Gotham called Pak the
highest selling digital artist, but that can refer to his whole collection of works and not necessarily a single art work. The fact that RS are not sure whether to classify it as a single artwork or a group of them means we should probably use caution and wait a few months at least for academic consensus to form on the issue. Many of the sources are from 2021 and NFTs are a terribly new technology, so I suggest we avoid preemptively adding in recent and badly understood types of art (if it can be considered as such). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Case in point: in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator”This is from the second paragraph, I'm not digging to get this. Read your sources. SiliconRed ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, this proposal makes sense to me. There's a lot of wiki jargon on this talk page that I don't understand, but big picture, it seems clear that works like this need to be in this article. The only thing I'd tweak is the claim that the Beeple work was sold "as a nonfungible token." Christies ( https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-NFT-to-come-to-auction-11510-7.aspx) says that it was sold WITH a non-fungible token. The NY Times also describes it the same way ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html) - it's the artwork/JPG file that sold for the money, not the blockchain link. This page is incomplete as written. Amplifysound ( talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeple’s collaged JPG was made, or “minted,” in February as a “nonfungible token,” or NFT, no separation of the idea of the art and the NFT. I don't see the "with" syntax in that article. Are there any WP:SECONDARY that say "with" rather than "as"? SiliconRed ( talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The Branding of Damien Hirst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Is becoming quite extensive, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on it in the next The Signpost. Anyway, I removed from the template [5] Twitter, because come on, and Hypebeast, because WP seems to say it's a blog.
The guidance at Template:Press is a bit fluid, what should be considered "press" is not always clear, but Twitter ain't it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I have created this second proposal in chart form as much of the discussion has centered on the potential inclusion or not of Pak’s Merge on this list. As such, it is better to offer a visual representation of the chart with Merge, its relevant sources and reasons for inclusion. This can also allow for more transparency in discerning between the two competing proposals. With respect to SiliconRed other additions, I support these and there seems to be agreement NFT artworks should make this list (a position I have taken from the very beginning). Where we differ is on Merge, this section adequately addresses all of the concerns rasied.
Reading through the objections or questions raised around Merge various questions have been raised. If we accept the premise that NFTs are artworks, as per SiliconRed’s proposal then Merge qualifies as an artwork to be considered on this list.
A. C. Santacruz asked if Merge was a single artwork. Merge is indeed a single work and cited as such in Artnet [2], it was described as a single work in a Forbes piece [3] and, of course, the smartcontract shows it as a single work.
With respect to dollar figures, Merge has been recognized as a 91.8 million dollar sale. Fast Money described Merge as "the most expensive NFT ever sold". The full quote is: "You are looking at 91.8 million dollars. That's how much this NFT, Merge, by the artist Pak that auctioned earlier this month. It is the most expensive NFT ever sold" [4] (I can find the video if required). If we accept NFTs as art – which we should – Merge qualifies. Related, a December 27, 2021, Artnet article recognises Pak’s Merge as a single NFT sale of $91.8 and continues, “Based on that sales total, Pak is now the world’s most-expensive living artist, eclipsing his fellow crypto-art master Beeple, who landed in the number three spot with his record-breaking Christie’s sale this spring (more on that below), as well as more traditional blue-chip artists such as David Hockney and Jeff Koons, whose sculpture Rabbit (1986) holds the current benchmark, selling for $91 million sale in May 2019.” [5]. The Barron’s article discussed already supports this reading [6]. The fact that Merge is a single NFT Artwork that sold for 91.8 is a fact supported by multiple sources and such entitles it to be on this list. Given this list is focused on dollar value, its sales total qualifies it to be on the list.
Recognizing and proposing Merge does not violate Wikipedia’s “No original research” policy; all of these facts have been published by secondary sources and directly support the argument that is deserving of a place on the list of most expensive artworks.
Taken together:
Constructive discussion welcome Pmmccurdy ( talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
the world’s most-expensive living artistand explicitly distinguishes this from most expensive artwork. The Forbes citation isn't a reliable source, WP:FORBESCON. We've already discussed the other cites repeated here. Adding Merge does violate WP:NOR if there are no secondary sources to back up the claim... Generally, this proposal seems nonconstructive. SiliconRed ( talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The Branding of Damien Hirst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Recent press [1] [2] [3] suggests that the $100mil sale of Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God" may have never actually happened, as the artist appears to still own a large portion of the work. From NYT:
That $100-million skull, called “For the Love of God,” was Hirst’s ultimate test of whether artistic and financial value could be the same thing. It now languishes in storage in Hatton Garden, London’s jewelry district, Hirst said, owned by him, White Cube and undisclosed investors.
Hirst owns an undisclosed portion of the work and the actual $100mil sale reported in 2007 did not happen as publicized.
It's going to be impossible to verify the actual sale price of the work (which I guess would be the portion owned by "undisclosed investors"), and it would makes sense to remove the work from the list or add it in an appendix of some sort -- any other thoughts? SiliconRed ( talk) 13:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of most expensive artworks by living artists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Reviewing this edit:
The 1886 New York sale of Jules Breton's The Communicants for $45,000 ($1.22 million in 2019 dollars) was the second highest paid work of a living artist at that time and only exceeded by Ernest Meissonier. [1] In 1846 Meissonier purchased a great mansion in Poissy sometimes known as the Grande Maison.
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.22 | The Communicants | Jules Breton | March 1886 | AAA | [2] |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
But even if it were true, this would mean that Breton's painting never held the record and should be removed from the list.[In 1886] his painting, The Communicants, sold at auction in New York for $45,000, the highest price paid for the work of a living artist with the exception of a painting by Meissonier.
Hm. This seems to contradict the above. Looking for an independent source... czar 07:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Two years later, at her auction on May 3 – 5, 1886, [Les communiantes] was purchased by Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona, president of the Bank of Montreal, for $45,000 — a sum representing the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist at the time.
— http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/19th-century-european-art-n09499/lot.8.html
czar 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)(45,000 dollars)
Toute l'Amérique avec accompagnement de dollars vient de chanter la gloire de l'art francais.
227,500 francs les Communiantes de Jules Breton!
C'est l'enchère la plus considérable qui ait été mise sur le tableau d'un artiste vivant.
A la vente Wilson en 1881, l'Angelus de Millet n'avait obtenu que 165,000 francs et la Halte de cavaliers de Meissonier 125,000 francs.
— L'Hôtel Drouot en ... ( translate)
misc. sources
|
---|
czar 08:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
czar 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Found a new source and the NYT appears to contradict itself:
OLD
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.35 | Triptych | Francis Bacon | May 1981 | Christie's | [1] |
0.34 | Exchanges of View | Jean Dubuffet | 1974 | Sotheby's | [2] |
NEW
Price
(in millions) |
Work | Artist | Auction
Date |
Auction
House |
Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.53 | Mother and Child | Pablo Picasso | 1967 | Sotheby's | [3] |
0.198 | Death of Harlequin | Pablo Picasso | 1962 | Sotheby's | [3] |
References
... Francis Bacon at $350,000 for a triptych, the highest price paid at auction for a work by a living artist.
Jean Dubuffet's 'Exchanges of View' sold for $340,000, a record price for the work of a living artist.
A Picasso painting brought the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist. ... At Sotheby & Co., $532,000 was paid for an early Picasso, a 1902 "Mother and Child," of the artist's Blue Period. ... The Picasso ran far ahead of the former record-holder, "Death of Harlequin," which brought $198,000 at Sotheby's in 1962. ... It was pointed out that possibly more may have been paid at a private sale for a work by the Spanish master.
misc.
|
---|
This was commented out:
|
The 60s Picasso auction record exceeds that which the Times called a new record in 1974. In general, I've found some sources to be vague in their references to a record "work"—sometimes they meant record for the medium (painting, sculpture, etc.) or the artist. In this case, unless I'm missing something, just looks like an error. I'm going with the Picasso and removing the Bacon/Dubuffet. czar 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Picasso's top price—in fact, the top price in history for the work of a living artist—was set in Basel, Switzerland, where citizens raised $1,950,000 to buy Two Brothers, 1905, and Seated Harlequin, 1923, for their museum.
— LIFE Dec 27, 1968, p. 120
This is a potential non-auction record. Marking it here for further investigation. czar 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Lucien Freud died in 2011; "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping" should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:2E0:8000:3162:7CCD:48FE:18A5 ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Died in 2011 80.223.92.105 ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this an historical list of each work that at the time was the most expensive work sold OR the works that have sold for the most money overall? It is not clear. If the first, Beeple should not be here, and I’m unsure about the others. If the former, it is totally wrong, missing Ruscha, Wool, Ryman, Stella, etc. This source isFive years old, but makes clear: https://news.artnet.com/market/most-expensive-living-american-artists-2016-543305 Theredproject ( talk)<
I see this note in the mainspace - "note that Everydays: the First 5000 Days is not a progressive auction record—the most most expensive auction record by a living artist at the time was the 2019 Jeff Koons Rabbit at $91M" - but the auction was at a reputable house and it was progressive - why wouldn't it be included in this list? Bangabandhu ( talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
There's been some edits recently adding an NFT sale by Pak to this list, and another work by Beeple is also on this list. I am wondering how this differentiation should be held up as there is already a separate article specifically for NFT sales, list of most expensive non-fungible tokens. Should NFTs and "artworks" be considered disparate groups for the sake of categorization and listing on these two articles? SiliconRed ( talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
So are we saying NFTs are not art and thus Beeple too should be removed from this list? Are artworks on this list limited to paintings, sculptures and thus NFTs on the list be removed? Honest question. I think the challenge we are facing is about HOW do we define art and WHO gets to define what art is? Both artists in this instance Pak & Beeple have had major NFT works sold at contemporary auction houses Sotheby's & Christie's respectively. If their "art" was sold in art auctions, doesn't this then make them artists? And, NFTs are art are they not? If you accept that major art auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's sell NFTs then you need to accept NFTs as art. Moreover, this opens the door to include NFTs on that list. One could retort that NFTs have their own page so should be excluded from the art page BUT this page is for sales across mediums no? So, I think SiliconRed is wrong to have deleted Pak from the top of the list and I have provided two sources placing Pak at the top 1) [1] and [2] Pmmccurdy ( talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Really interesting to see this discussion Randy Kryn & SiliconRed and where it leads. I see that Pak's Merge has been removed but we are keeping Beeple's Everday Sale, should that not also be removed from this list? It is also an NFT sale so if Merge doesn't qualify then perhaps Beeple shouldn't qualify? The Beeple work also consists of a large number of works and is not a single work like say a Koons sculpture. It is a compilation of works - sold as one - but does that make it a single artwork? I would argue that if we accept Beeple's Everydays on this list than other NFT works become eligible. Merge needs to be understood as a form of crypto native artwork - thus a new and specific form of work - where the art is beyond visual. It has a digitally native, dynamic and performative nature. You can see the various circles, you can read the contract but there is more to the intended art. Similarly, could we see a picture of performance art? Sure we could watch a video of performance art but it wouldn't be the same thing. I think part of the challenge is that this causes a reckoning and grappling with what art is and who gets to define art. If I view crickets as food an excellent source of protein and I eat them, are they food? If you say they are not food because they are insects, who is right? I think that if an artist/digital creator such as Pak call his works art then we surely can look at is as art, no? Now, if the issue is NFTs and the argument is that NFTs are not art, I am happy to make the edits to Beeple's Wikipedia page and erase references to his work as art and remove him from this list too, should I do that Randy Kryn & SiliconRed? Pmmccurdy ( talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Here are a few articles I've found discussing specifically whether or not NFTs are artwork. From Wash Po:
NFTs are not a new artistic medium in the way that oil paint, printmaking, photography or video art were. Even digital art (which is just art made on a computer) preexisted NFTs by decades. NFTs are financial instruments. They make it easier to sell digital files by creating scarcity.
from NYT:
Beeple’s work has been compared to that of KAWS or Banksy, two other artists who have bypassed art-world gatekeepers to establish huge sale prices. But ultimately, NFTs are a technology used to authenticate an artwork; determining whether a work is art or not is up to the viewer. The technology can be used to authenticate other kinds of objects, too.
& Time:
NFTs are best understood as computer files combined with proof of ownership and authenticity, like a deed. [...] Artists who want to sell their work as NFTs have to sign up with a marketplace, then “mint” digital tokens by uploading and validating their information on a blockchain (typically the Ethereum blockchain, a rival platform to Bitcoin)
Consensus seems to be a distinction between the sale of artwork AS an NFT from just the sale of artwork. Hopefully helpful here. SiliconRed ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for those extracts SiliconRed but I would suggest there is a third reading or understanding which isn't properly captured and that is viewing Pak's work in this instance which uses NFTs on the blockchain as a medium of art. Yes, NFTs are used as a way to tokenize digital works/make digital collectables but Pak's work has explicitly sought to use the medium to question ownership and value. This is discussed here [3]. Pak's approach to the blockchain as an artistic medium is outlined in this Wall Street Journal article:
The artist, who said they privately trade in cryptocurrencies, approached the Sotheby’s sale like a gamemaster seeking to demonstrate several technological intricacies offered by NFT smart contracts that might confound traditional art lovers but were designed to appeal to Pak’s fans. Some digital pieces in the artist’s “Fungible” series can be rendered useless or altered by their owners, a digital feat not usually touted by sellers of paintings or sculptures.
I'd suggest what underwrites this perspective or artistic approach is something like Marshall McLuhan's 1964 decree The medium is the message whereby his concern was how a dominant medium shaped society (power structures, ways of knowing, seeing and interacting). The use of NFTs on the blockchain is another way to explore these types of relationships. However, I think because it is a new medium, many are having a hard time understanding and dismissing the work. For some perspective when McLuhan was writing all the critics were concerned about what was on television, McLuhan's point was about how television is changing the way society is structured. My reading of Pak's practice is that they are doing the same thing with the potential for Blockchain in society. To me, that's art. Make sense yet Randy Kryn? Pmmccurdy ( talk) 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We certainly have certainly managed to type a lot of words over these last few days! In the spirit of succinctness shown by Randy Kryn below, SiliconRed could you kindly and explicitly summarise your objection to having Pak's Merge on the list? This - admittedly interesting - conversation started via edits to the Pak_(creator) which obviously now has implications here. Is the objection to having Merge on the list because it was an NFT or something specific about the work? I'd greatly appreciate the clarity Pmmccurdy ( talk) 17:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this conversation is happening shouLD encourage the inclusion of NFT as art. Besides isn't NFT an attribute to digital art much like a canvas is to a painting.
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the premise of the debate here. NFTs are a means of creating digital scarcity, as was previously mentioned. NFTs are not a medium of art, nor is NFT an art form. While NFT, as a technology, may be improved upon, perhaps even made obsolete in the future, they are attempting to solve a legitimate problem faced by digital artists, who are now able to sell their artwork in a manner that is somewhat analogous to artists who sell art in physical media. The heart of this debate is not if NFTs are art; they are not, and to say otherwise displays a misunderstanding of both art and NFTs. The heart of the debate is if recording the ownership of art through NFT is the same as owning a physical work of art. While personally I dislike the crowd that seems to champion NFTs, and I detest the treating of digital art as a means of investment rather than focusing on the art itself, the exact same issues pertain to the crowd that deal in the art industry. The stealing of artwork and selling through NFTs without the artist's permission, is not unlike issues that have plagued the art world for centuries. Given the increasingly digital nature of the world, I believe at some point people are going to have to accept NFTs being in equal standing as physical art sales but given the difference fundamental in medium, I support keeping NFT sales separate from physical art sales. AChakra California ( talk) 02:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
An NFT is is a form of unique token that *can be used* for art. The art itself is stored elsewhere (a database, on the blockchain, etc). Overall, NFTs are issued for various reasons. I could open a business and issue NFTs, and only those NFT holders would have exclusive access to X. Or I could create a NFT that leads to a textbook required for a classroom, ensuring that students buy from a primary source. I could issue NFTs in the way of Axie Infinity, etc. I think it would be more accurate to make these distinctions going forward, instead of lumping them all together. As it pertains to this, it would make more sense to include NFT-art sales in this list or even have them in a separate section on the same page. Art may have been defined as physical because it was the only way possible for it to be, but the Internet blurs these lines. Artificial "digital scarcity" is a common way of making a return outside NFT related art. Copyright means that you can own a shade of color for certain use or a specific design of an imaginary character. Artfinder allows the sale of digital art merely printed on canvas. The complications of the topic will definitely require more thought going forward. Perhaps the most simple way to put it, someone created art (true) and someone paid in order to *own* it (true). JusCurt44 ( talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Purchasing via NFT is not in any way purchasing art; purchasing NFT is pretending to purchase art. NFT is a trendy new scam that targets people who are unable to tell reality from ideals, such as young children.
When a company mass-produces a physical product, each copy of that product is its own individual. However, as they may be mistaken for one another, they are distinguished from one another by serial codes or mild deviations such as intentional alterations or manufacturing defects. NFT supposes to emulate this individuality by giving "serial codes" to digital files.
This is a fantasy as each different variation of the file or different serial code is still not unique. Each version of the file is still copied infinitely whenever the given file is transferred to a new system. The problem NFT aims to solve has thus not been solved. In fact, it never can be.
Because physical items do not infinitely duplicate, the owner of a physical item controls the possession of that copy of the item - not only in law but if need be by physically fighting off burglars who try to take it. It is not possible to "right-click" a physical item and get a copy of it, and if someone steals it, the original owner does not have it anymore. None of this is true with digital files and therefore it is not possible to demonstrate ownership of a specific version of a digital file, because there is nothing that can be "owned" to begin with.
This is why the "theft" of digital files has never been prosecuted as such - it makes no sense. Only intellectual property could possibly apply to this scenario. But intellectual property is concerned with all copies of something, while NFT is concerned with individual copies of something.
Even if NFT was to backpedal on that, it's founded on a black market whose sole purpose is to evade the law and can hardly seek legal backing for any intellectual property claims. And if NFT was to backpedal on that, it produces only very mild alterations of the same file (if they are indeed not visibly identical) and would not be able to reliably claim novelty and thus a distinct, new IP to protect.
To top it all off, NFT is completely superfluous. Every bank, every broker, every retailer already has receipts, transaction records, etc. with unique IDs, effectively meaning we have had NFT the entire time we have had a vaguely modern economy. What exactly is being brought to the table other than being more welcoming to shady under-the-table dealings because no meaningful authority is involved?
NFT is a scam like buying stars before it, and no reputable institution should entertain its claims of nobility. Buying NFT is buying vapor, not art.
- FibrielSolaer ( talk) 04:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Should NFTs be included in this list? SiliconRed ( talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Based on the discussion in the above RfC, I propose the following changes to the article (specifically the "All Time" section). I'm working with WP:CONFLICTING and WP:RS in mind, based on my conversation above with Hocus00.
There are three changes here:
Taken together:
I am open to ideas and suggestions! The discussion above has been productive and it seems like we are getting closer to a consensus supported by Wikipedia policy. SiliconRed ( talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have amended the above table based on the discussion and added Merge. The relevant discussion on this talk page initially centred on the inclusion of NFTs and it seems there is a proposal to include them which then means Merge has its place. In the above statement justifying Merge's removal
SiliconRed states that "The few existing
WP:RS describing the sale have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale" however one of the sources provided is from Barron's whose title is "PAK’s NFT Artwork ‘The Merge’ Sells for $91.8 Million", the article title describes merge as an artwork. If this list is for the most expensive artworks, Merge has been recognized as an artwork by secondary sources; its status as an artwork is even in the title. The argument that "at the time of sale, the artwork did not yet exist" is a
Red_herring. Pak's Merge is also referred to as art in
Gotham_(magazine)
[25]. Articles in Artnet also recognize Merge as an artwork. As for the dollar value, that has also been published. We find us coming full circle if NFTs are to be included on this list - and I support of that - both Beeple's Everdays and Pak's Merge have a place on it.
Pmmccurdy (
talk) 22:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The price was a record for an artwork sold publicly by a living artist, according to Nifty Gateway, a leading NFT marketplace. [...] However, the claim is debatable, depending on whether The Merge is ultimately considered to be a single piece or a series of artworks.(Barron's) and
in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator,”(and other ways of calling it art using others' words, i.e. not in their editorial voice) (Gotham). I will grant that Gotham called Pak the
highest selling digital artist, but that can refer to his whole collection of works and not necessarily a single art work. The fact that RS are not sure whether to classify it as a single artwork or a group of them means we should probably use caution and wait a few months at least for academic consensus to form on the issue. Many of the sources are from 2021 and NFTs are a terribly new technology, so I suggest we avoid preemptively adding in recent and badly understood types of art (if it can be considered as such). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Case in point: in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator”This is from the second paragraph, I'm not digging to get this. Read your sources. SiliconRed ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, this proposal makes sense to me. There's a lot of wiki jargon on this talk page that I don't understand, but big picture, it seems clear that works like this need to be in this article. The only thing I'd tweak is the claim that the Beeple work was sold "as a nonfungible token." Christies ( https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-NFT-to-come-to-auction-11510-7.aspx) says that it was sold WITH a non-fungible token. The NY Times also describes it the same way ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html) - it's the artwork/JPG file that sold for the money, not the blockchain link. This page is incomplete as written. Amplifysound ( talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeple’s collaged JPG was made, or “minted,” in February as a “nonfungible token,” or NFT, no separation of the idea of the art and the NFT. I don't see the "with" syntax in that article. Are there any WP:SECONDARY that say "with" rather than "as"? SiliconRed ( talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The Branding of Damien Hirst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Is becoming quite extensive, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on it in the next The Signpost. Anyway, I removed from the template [5] Twitter, because come on, and Hypebeast, because WP seems to say it's a blog.
The guidance at Template:Press is a bit fluid, what should be considered "press" is not always clear, but Twitter ain't it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I have created this second proposal in chart form as much of the discussion has centered on the potential inclusion or not of Pak’s Merge on this list. As such, it is better to offer a visual representation of the chart with Merge, its relevant sources and reasons for inclusion. This can also allow for more transparency in discerning between the two competing proposals. With respect to SiliconRed other additions, I support these and there seems to be agreement NFT artworks should make this list (a position I have taken from the very beginning). Where we differ is on Merge, this section adequately addresses all of the concerns rasied.
Reading through the objections or questions raised around Merge various questions have been raised. If we accept the premise that NFTs are artworks, as per SiliconRed’s proposal then Merge qualifies as an artwork to be considered on this list.
A. C. Santacruz asked if Merge was a single artwork. Merge is indeed a single work and cited as such in Artnet [2], it was described as a single work in a Forbes piece [3] and, of course, the smartcontract shows it as a single work.
With respect to dollar figures, Merge has been recognized as a 91.8 million dollar sale. Fast Money described Merge as "the most expensive NFT ever sold". The full quote is: "You are looking at 91.8 million dollars. That's how much this NFT, Merge, by the artist Pak that auctioned earlier this month. It is the most expensive NFT ever sold" [4] (I can find the video if required). If we accept NFTs as art – which we should – Merge qualifies. Related, a December 27, 2021, Artnet article recognises Pak’s Merge as a single NFT sale of $91.8 and continues, “Based on that sales total, Pak is now the world’s most-expensive living artist, eclipsing his fellow crypto-art master Beeple, who landed in the number three spot with his record-breaking Christie’s sale this spring (more on that below), as well as more traditional blue-chip artists such as David Hockney and Jeff Koons, whose sculpture Rabbit (1986) holds the current benchmark, selling for $91 million sale in May 2019.” [5]. The Barron’s article discussed already supports this reading [6]. The fact that Merge is a single NFT Artwork that sold for 91.8 is a fact supported by multiple sources and such entitles it to be on this list. Given this list is focused on dollar value, its sales total qualifies it to be on the list.
Recognizing and proposing Merge does not violate Wikipedia’s “No original research” policy; all of these facts have been published by secondary sources and directly support the argument that is deserving of a place on the list of most expensive artworks.
Taken together:
Constructive discussion welcome Pmmccurdy ( talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
the world’s most-expensive living artistand explicitly distinguishes this from most expensive artwork. The Forbes citation isn't a reliable source, WP:FORBESCON. We've already discussed the other cites repeated here. Adding Merge does violate WP:NOR if there are no secondary sources to back up the claim... Generally, this proposal seems nonconstructive. SiliconRed ( talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The Branding of Damien Hirst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Recent press [1] [2] [3] suggests that the $100mil sale of Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God" may have never actually happened, as the artist appears to still own a large portion of the work. From NYT:
That $100-million skull, called “For the Love of God,” was Hirst’s ultimate test of whether artistic and financial value could be the same thing. It now languishes in storage in Hatton Garden, London’s jewelry district, Hirst said, owned by him, White Cube and undisclosed investors.
Hirst owns an undisclosed portion of the work and the actual $100mil sale reported in 2007 did not happen as publicized.
It's going to be impossible to verify the actual sale price of the work (which I guess would be the portion owned by "undisclosed investors"), and it would makes sense to remove the work from the list or add it in an appendix of some sort -- any other thoughts? SiliconRed ( talk) 13:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
References