This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of most expensive paintings 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | List of most expensive paintings received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
It would never have occurred to me that a peer review was needed. This is an excellent list, well-defined and organised, and extremely popular as a references source, 2000+ views per day. A credit to its lead contributors. A good rule in life is to leave well alone, unless some problem is raised. What would be the problem on this page? Perhaps the inability to use illustrations for some of the paintings, but this is something which can't be fixed (because of the way copyright legislation is interpreted). Macdonald-ross ( talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thought this needed to be added. It was sold in 2013 but not announced until recently. Dagko ( talk) 04:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/arts/2014/12/19/ford-cezanne-dia-sale-victoire/20621413/
Just a question: Is there an accepted wiki policy regarding the adjustment of prices for inflation? I see that it has been done here by calculating the price based on the U.S. Department Of Labor's September 2014 historical consumer price index table. Fair enough, but doesn't this conflict somewhat with WP:Original Research policy? Such a calculation certainly would go against a strict interpretation of OR policy. However, maybe there's a consensus that such a relatively mechanistic calculation if spelled out is acceptable? Curious because I'd like to use something similar at List of transport megaprojects. However, there are a number of factors to consider when updating for inflation, and I'm sure you could reach fairly different conclusions based on different indexes or methods. Any thoughts on this? Peregrine981 ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes but it is reported that mona lisa insurance price would be of 620$ milions in 2016 when if you use any other calculator the transformation will be of 770$ milions in 2016 and 820$ milions on 2018 (one even allowed to set the specif month of both the initial price and current one). 150$ milions are quite a big difference don’t you agree? They should change the equation because this is not accurate Eugeniocazzo ( talk) 01:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we list the pair of Rembrandts as one item, sold for €160m? They are considered to be “like a pair of shoes, never to be separated”, to quote the director of the Rijksmuseum, no less so then, say, either of Bacon's Triptyches. In fact, Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud had been three separated parts until the Italian collector Francesco De Simone Niquesa reassembled them, while Maerten and Oopjen (got to love that name; it's a diminutive of the already rare and archaic Obrecht) never were separated. Afasmit ( talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As shown in this article, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-18/billionaire-griffin-said-to-pay-500-million-for-two-paintings, Kenneth C. Griffin bought two paintings from David Geffen for a combined $500 million. According to the article, "Griffin bought de Kooning’s 1955 oil on canvas titled “Interchanged” -- also known as “Interchange” -- for about $300 million and Pollock’s 1948 “Number 17A" canvas for about $200 million." The paintings were bought in fall of 2015. I think the de Kooning should be the top above the Gauguin because the Bloomberg article specifically notes that the deal is larger than the Gauguin deal. I would add them myself, but editing that graph is too arcane for me right now. -- Dagko ( talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we try to find a title that reflects that paintings like the Mona Lisa are not listed? How about "List of most expensive paintings sold"? -- Bod ( talk) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
In the table, some of the entries have -- Please don't insert a picture here; artist died less than 70 years ago and work postdates 1923 (see WP:NFC and specifically WP:NFLISTS) -- . Why? The main entry for the work has an image? Why wouldn't it also be in thumbnail? Bangabandhu ( talk) 06:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The list has a sorting function that doesn't work due to poorly formatted data. For example, it cannot be sorted by price or date of sale. Someone clever could fix this. 24.236.70.18 ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The list has a sorting function which is not rightly defined. It can be easily detected when anyone wants to find all the Andy Warhol's silkscreens one after the other. Before the sale of the "hot Sage Blue Marilyn" during the auctiom by Christie's in New York City on May 9, 2022, if anyone pressed the ARTIST sort ascending, the list was led by Salvator Mundi, by Da Vince. OK, but when one presses now the sort ascending, instead of taking the reader to Bbacon, because they are placed alphabetiocally, the one which appears is Andy Warhol's Marilyn, when it shoukd lead all Wahols, which are still there, but almost at the end of the list because alphabetocally the W is before the Y and the Z. Many thanbks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.77.197.209 ( talk) 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The reference to the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II is now out of date. It was sold recently for $150 million. I've not edited a table, so I don't want to break the format. If someone who knows how they work could effect the changes that would be wonderful. All the best - The Bounder ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I note that the text indicates the adjusted values are inflated (implemented with the inflation template) using CPI values instead of GDP. From the notification on the template, CPI should only be used for small values transacted for items like those in the CPI basket. Ought we be using GDP instead? If so, UK or US? Cmprince ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is (arguably) the beginning of the Big Money Era in the art market. But it would help to put into perspective today's nine-figure prices. In 1961, for example, it was stunning, front-page news when New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art bought a Rembrandt for $2.3 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C400:66F2:4CDF:1B13:CEB2:1F02 ( talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The automatic inflation adjuster says that the current price of the Mona lisa assurance is 620$ milions but any other inflation calculator says that the actual difference from 100$ milions in december 1962 would be of 770$ milions in 2016 and 820$ milion in January 2018. 150$ milions of difference are quite a lot, can anyone correct the error? Eugeniocazzo ( talk) 01:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Blemby for re-arranging the list. But during that process cut-off was also made and I think that needs prior discussion. Current $68 line is arbitrary, I prefer $65 line. I do not share the view that the list "is known to be incomplete at the lower ranges".-- Jklamo ( talk) 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)-->
I still have strong doubts about using the GDP deflator for the adjustment of the prices. MeasuringWorth is given as a reference for what the GDP deflator is. If you plug in a value and years (say Van Gogh's $39.7 M in 1987 and 2016) on their page a large number of answers is returned. By far the weakest inflation is given by the GDP deflator ($73.7M, used on the page since January). The site recommends to use this to calculate the the "real cost" of a project (amongst which they count things like constructing a canal, financing a war, net worth of a company). Three other cost calculations for a project are all much higher in 2016 dollars. It appears to me that buying/selling a painting is not really a project, but more an exchange of a commodity or, even better, wealth (in which they include e.g. bank deposit, stock portfolio, or real estate). The lowest value given for both of these ($83.9) is the one using CPI ("real wealth"), which is also the method used by any article I know that bothers to calculate the inflation-adjusted price of art. Other adjustments (e.g. household purchasing power or relative wealth) give even higher numbers ($93.2 and $115M, respectively). Check out their tutorial for further help. My guess is that the CPI calculation is more appropriate (and much more standard, updated faster, and easier available) and that it still probably underestimates the proper inflation. With the GDP deflator method recent auction prices appear too impressive. Unless someone shows convincing references to keep the GDP deflator, let's turn back to our old method. Afasmit ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As per this article;
Original price US$m | Painting | Artist | Year | Date of sale |
---|---|---|---|---|
$40 | Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers | Vincent van Gogh | 1888 | March 30, 1987 |
$54 | Irises | Vincent van Gogh | 1889 | November 11, 1987 |
$58 | Portrait of Joseph Roulin | Vincent van Gogh | 1889 | August 01, 1989 |
$83 | Portrait of Dr. Gachet | Vincent van Gogh | 1890 | May 15, 1990 |
$104 | Garçon à la pipe | Pablo Picasso | 1905 | May 05, 2004 |
$135 | Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I | Gustav Klimt | 1907 | June 18, 2006 |
$140 | No. 5, 1948 | Jackson Pollock | 1948 | November 02, 2006 |
$250 | The Card Players | Paul Cézanne | c1892 | April, 2011 |
$450 | Salvator Mundi | (Leonardo da Vinci) | c1500 | November 15, 2017 |
MBG02 ( talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't want to upset any boats, but I just learned about Roy Lichtenstein's "Masterpiece" selling for $165M and was wondering whether it should be included on this page. — X S G 02:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/art-and-money-laundering
Both have been a significant driver of prices for many years. 96.240.128.124 ( talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The Vaandeldrager should be added to the list since it was sold for 175 million euros. 84.104.0.52 ( talk) 17:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I came here from the featured list nomination of
List of most expensive books and manuscripts, where I raised concerns regarding original research and the use of the {{
inflation}}
template to adjust prices for ranking purposes. I can see there's already been discussion here over use of the template, but unfortunately none of the indexes available with the inflation template are appropriate for art prices. Paintings are not a consumer goods, nor can they be indexed in the way that an asset (capital good) like property can be, the values are notoriously fluid and require specific asset price indexing against other similar works across similar periods. To avoid the original research problem, the list would be better structured around sales above a certain point (eg US$50 million) as
List of most expensive photographs does. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
02:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of most expensive paintings 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | List of most expensive paintings received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
It would never have occurred to me that a peer review was needed. This is an excellent list, well-defined and organised, and extremely popular as a references source, 2000+ views per day. A credit to its lead contributors. A good rule in life is to leave well alone, unless some problem is raised. What would be the problem on this page? Perhaps the inability to use illustrations for some of the paintings, but this is something which can't be fixed (because of the way copyright legislation is interpreted). Macdonald-ross ( talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thought this needed to be added. It was sold in 2013 but not announced until recently. Dagko ( talk) 04:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/arts/2014/12/19/ford-cezanne-dia-sale-victoire/20621413/
Just a question: Is there an accepted wiki policy regarding the adjustment of prices for inflation? I see that it has been done here by calculating the price based on the U.S. Department Of Labor's September 2014 historical consumer price index table. Fair enough, but doesn't this conflict somewhat with WP:Original Research policy? Such a calculation certainly would go against a strict interpretation of OR policy. However, maybe there's a consensus that such a relatively mechanistic calculation if spelled out is acceptable? Curious because I'd like to use something similar at List of transport megaprojects. However, there are a number of factors to consider when updating for inflation, and I'm sure you could reach fairly different conclusions based on different indexes or methods. Any thoughts on this? Peregrine981 ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes but it is reported that mona lisa insurance price would be of 620$ milions in 2016 when if you use any other calculator the transformation will be of 770$ milions in 2016 and 820$ milions on 2018 (one even allowed to set the specif month of both the initial price and current one). 150$ milions are quite a big difference don’t you agree? They should change the equation because this is not accurate Eugeniocazzo ( talk) 01:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we list the pair of Rembrandts as one item, sold for €160m? They are considered to be “like a pair of shoes, never to be separated”, to quote the director of the Rijksmuseum, no less so then, say, either of Bacon's Triptyches. In fact, Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud had been three separated parts until the Italian collector Francesco De Simone Niquesa reassembled them, while Maerten and Oopjen (got to love that name; it's a diminutive of the already rare and archaic Obrecht) never were separated. Afasmit ( talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As shown in this article, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-18/billionaire-griffin-said-to-pay-500-million-for-two-paintings, Kenneth C. Griffin bought two paintings from David Geffen for a combined $500 million. According to the article, "Griffin bought de Kooning’s 1955 oil on canvas titled “Interchanged” -- also known as “Interchange” -- for about $300 million and Pollock’s 1948 “Number 17A" canvas for about $200 million." The paintings were bought in fall of 2015. I think the de Kooning should be the top above the Gauguin because the Bloomberg article specifically notes that the deal is larger than the Gauguin deal. I would add them myself, but editing that graph is too arcane for me right now. -- Dagko ( talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we try to find a title that reflects that paintings like the Mona Lisa are not listed? How about "List of most expensive paintings sold"? -- Bod ( talk) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
In the table, some of the entries have -- Please don't insert a picture here; artist died less than 70 years ago and work postdates 1923 (see WP:NFC and specifically WP:NFLISTS) -- . Why? The main entry for the work has an image? Why wouldn't it also be in thumbnail? Bangabandhu ( talk) 06:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The list has a sorting function that doesn't work due to poorly formatted data. For example, it cannot be sorted by price or date of sale. Someone clever could fix this. 24.236.70.18 ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The list has a sorting function which is not rightly defined. It can be easily detected when anyone wants to find all the Andy Warhol's silkscreens one after the other. Before the sale of the "hot Sage Blue Marilyn" during the auctiom by Christie's in New York City on May 9, 2022, if anyone pressed the ARTIST sort ascending, the list was led by Salvator Mundi, by Da Vince. OK, but when one presses now the sort ascending, instead of taking the reader to Bbacon, because they are placed alphabetiocally, the one which appears is Andy Warhol's Marilyn, when it shoukd lead all Wahols, which are still there, but almost at the end of the list because alphabetocally the W is before the Y and the Z. Many thanbks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.77.197.209 ( talk) 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The reference to the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II is now out of date. It was sold recently for $150 million. I've not edited a table, so I don't want to break the format. If someone who knows how they work could effect the changes that would be wonderful. All the best - The Bounder ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I note that the text indicates the adjusted values are inflated (implemented with the inflation template) using CPI values instead of GDP. From the notification on the template, CPI should only be used for small values transacted for items like those in the CPI basket. Ought we be using GDP instead? If so, UK or US? Cmprince ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is (arguably) the beginning of the Big Money Era in the art market. But it would help to put into perspective today's nine-figure prices. In 1961, for example, it was stunning, front-page news when New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art bought a Rembrandt for $2.3 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C400:66F2:4CDF:1B13:CEB2:1F02 ( talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The automatic inflation adjuster says that the current price of the Mona lisa assurance is 620$ milions but any other inflation calculator says that the actual difference from 100$ milions in december 1962 would be of 770$ milions in 2016 and 820$ milion in January 2018. 150$ milions of difference are quite a lot, can anyone correct the error? Eugeniocazzo ( talk) 01:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Blemby for re-arranging the list. But during that process cut-off was also made and I think that needs prior discussion. Current $68 line is arbitrary, I prefer $65 line. I do not share the view that the list "is known to be incomplete at the lower ranges".-- Jklamo ( talk) 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)-->
I still have strong doubts about using the GDP deflator for the adjustment of the prices. MeasuringWorth is given as a reference for what the GDP deflator is. If you plug in a value and years (say Van Gogh's $39.7 M in 1987 and 2016) on their page a large number of answers is returned. By far the weakest inflation is given by the GDP deflator ($73.7M, used on the page since January). The site recommends to use this to calculate the the "real cost" of a project (amongst which they count things like constructing a canal, financing a war, net worth of a company). Three other cost calculations for a project are all much higher in 2016 dollars. It appears to me that buying/selling a painting is not really a project, but more an exchange of a commodity or, even better, wealth (in which they include e.g. bank deposit, stock portfolio, or real estate). The lowest value given for both of these ($83.9) is the one using CPI ("real wealth"), which is also the method used by any article I know that bothers to calculate the inflation-adjusted price of art. Other adjustments (e.g. household purchasing power or relative wealth) give even higher numbers ($93.2 and $115M, respectively). Check out their tutorial for further help. My guess is that the CPI calculation is more appropriate (and much more standard, updated faster, and easier available) and that it still probably underestimates the proper inflation. With the GDP deflator method recent auction prices appear too impressive. Unless someone shows convincing references to keep the GDP deflator, let's turn back to our old method. Afasmit ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As per this article;
Original price US$m | Painting | Artist | Year | Date of sale |
---|---|---|---|---|
$40 | Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers | Vincent van Gogh | 1888 | March 30, 1987 |
$54 | Irises | Vincent van Gogh | 1889 | November 11, 1987 |
$58 | Portrait of Joseph Roulin | Vincent van Gogh | 1889 | August 01, 1989 |
$83 | Portrait of Dr. Gachet | Vincent van Gogh | 1890 | May 15, 1990 |
$104 | Garçon à la pipe | Pablo Picasso | 1905 | May 05, 2004 |
$135 | Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I | Gustav Klimt | 1907 | June 18, 2006 |
$140 | No. 5, 1948 | Jackson Pollock | 1948 | November 02, 2006 |
$250 | The Card Players | Paul Cézanne | c1892 | April, 2011 |
$450 | Salvator Mundi | (Leonardo da Vinci) | c1500 | November 15, 2017 |
MBG02 ( talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't want to upset any boats, but I just learned about Roy Lichtenstein's "Masterpiece" selling for $165M and was wondering whether it should be included on this page. — X S G 02:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/art-and-money-laundering
Both have been a significant driver of prices for many years. 96.240.128.124 ( talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The Vaandeldrager should be added to the list since it was sold for 175 million euros. 84.104.0.52 ( talk) 17:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I came here from the featured list nomination of
List of most expensive books and manuscripts, where I raised concerns regarding original research and the use of the {{
inflation}}
template to adjust prices for ranking purposes. I can see there's already been discussion here over use of the template, but unfortunately none of the indexes available with the inflation template are appropriate for art prices. Paintings are not a consumer goods, nor can they be indexed in the way that an asset (capital good) like property can be, the values are notoriously fluid and require specific asset price indexing against other similar works across similar periods. To avoid the original research problem, the list would be better structured around sales above a certain point (eg US$50 million) as
List of most expensive photographs does. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
02:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)