David Hockney's pool painting set to sell for record amount for a living artist ($80 million)

I have to admit, I do like it a lot.

Such an iconic piece.

The old fag has done pretty well...

I thought that was one of the Hockneys that David Geffen owned, but maybe he sold it.

It looks like an illustration from a BEE book. Like Spader in "Less Than Zero".

I love Hockney's "pool" paintings. Who would NOT want one? Good for him - he deserves the fame.

Oddly, my favorite is his painting of the Pacific Design Center - and by no means do I find WEHO to be one of the more scenic parts of LA. I just love the painting...

Hockney won't get any money from the sale. Correct?

Most likely, not. Too complicated to explain, but you can Google if you have further interest.

Is that Hillary standing poolside watching one of her victims drown?

^ Meant as a joke!

R7 pic is very phallic.

$80 million u say? A lot of pop in R7 's portrait. An elephant type house, against a blue jailed house, against a red tiled house. Y'all are stupid

No painting is worth that.

People are stupid to pay that .

80 Million dollars could be put to much better use.

For that money I'd rather buy some paintings by Agnes Martin, Joan Mitchell and Helen Frankenthaler.

It's just an investment for rich people to get richer on, like real estate or stocks. To them the painting is a product with a price tag, and the artistic qualities of the work itself are completely irrelevant.

Art as commodity.

Very true, R16. R15- Helen Frankenthaler was fantastic! I would much prefer one of her better large-scale works over this Hockney. But I would love either one of course.

I had a framed poster of that painting hanging for many years in my home.

He needs to die already to make his paintings really valuable. He’s lived way too long and created way too much garbage in his lifetime to achieve icon status. He will always be a few hit wonder. I own a piece and, while I like it, it’s not stellar art. To me, he really seemed to lose interest and dedication to his art after the 70s when he became rich and famous. Now he just plays around.

Some people simply have NO taste.

Overrated hack. The art world has gotten absurd.

The film 'A Bigger Splash" had us swooning when it was realised in 1973. All those Lillies, the tinkly music and Schlesinger's penis

Of course, Schlesinger's a god no more.

Hack Hack Hack. Right place at the right time.

"Right place at the right time"

Probably true for most artists of the last 100 years honestly..

You can buy fifteen Frankenthalers for that money, R18. How absurd.

Yes you could, but fuck Helen. David is iconic LA. I don't care for his later work, but he perfectly captured a time period so well. Most likely because he was an outsider.

I would prefer ONE good Frankenthaler over any Hockney, R26. Totally agree.

And that's why you aren't a major collector. With money.

So this was the one of the Hockneys owned by Geffen. Most valuable known art collection in the world.

[quote]Yes you could, but fuck Helen.

Oh, dear.

In a world where the princes are lawyers

What can anyone expect.... except to recollect....

The only thing that satisfies me about this report, and this thread, is that some people still appreciate art.

I like it, but I don't find it spectacular -- at all. A pleasant, competent artist, but nothing more. $80 f'in million? I guess the art market will take care of itself. I may protest, but if someone's willing to pay $80 mil, then it's worth $80 mil.

Sorry, but to me it's art you expect in a hotel room. Bland and inoffensive to the viewer's eyes.

That is not a painting one would find hanging in the Queen's Palace in New Lesbia, I can assure you.

Who would have thought the DL would have a Frankenthaler troll?

What's that about a fool and his money?

"David Hockney’s brilliance as an artist is on full display with this monumental canvas, which encapsulates the essence of the idealised poolside landscape, and the tremendous complexity that exists within human relationships."

How so? Can someone explain this, please

R39 That was written from someone from the Hot Air Brigade.Most exclusive club, involving rarefied air and heads up asses.

And with clear homoerotic undertones; so the best sold painting is Queer Art. The world is changing.............

R17 art and commerce have always gone together, hand in hand. The only difference now is that as opposed to the theocracy of centuries ago where the church commissioned art or kings/queens commissioned art, so it then reflected those times and hierarchies; we now have art that reflects the times we live in of democracy, globalisation and mass market produced goods. Art is merely affected by and at the same time showing the present economic order.

R9 I did Google, but still can't find the answer. Can someone explain why Hockney doesn't get paid for this?

R9 isn't it because the sale is in the secondary market, instead of the primary market? But surely it ultimately helps the artist because it could well be that now the value of all his paintings will go up in the art market? Other Hockney-owning collectors must be thrilled.

R20 so to you he needs to fit the stereotype of an artist, in other words to starve to death in order to reach iconic status?? You are mad and clueless, he is already a living icon and he has a place in the cannon. On the other hand, on the other hand I'm curious why buy work of someone you are not crazy about? Are you a flipper?

Isn't the simple reason as to why Hockney won't get any money from the sale the fact that he doesn't actually own the painting?

Hockey is an overrated hack and that painting one of the most overrated ever.

Exactly R46, secondary market. The primary market is when an artist or a gallery that represents the artist sells it directly to someone.

Secondary market is when that work of art changes hands, and whoever sells it get the money for that.

Although in real life is not that straightforward and it can get complicated.

R47 I see, are you from the 'my-10-year-old-child-could-do-that' school?

[quote]he has a place in the cannon.

Or not.

This is a way of laundering money you know. Now all that drug money is legit.

R50 thank you for pointing that out.

Sorry *canon*

It's a game between art advisers (who also collect), collectors (who often sit on the board of trustees at a museum), museum trustees (who influence the choice of a museum director), museum directors (who chase money from collectors/museum trustees).

Kerry James Marshall had a retrospective at MOCA last year. This year one of his paintings sold for $21 million. Previously, his paintings sold for around $1 million. Having a retrospective at a major museum greatly influences the value of an artist's work. And all the people I mentioned above have something to do with it.

Like high-end real estate, assets that only billionaires can afford have prices that reflect just how many filthy rich people there are right now.

R53 I think the museum world unfortunately has been corrupted. Whilst before the non-profit art organisations would pride themselves of being mostly about the art. The commercial side of the arts (namely finance and investments) have influenced non-profits to a point of no return. 'Museum quality' is not what it used to be and the aunction houses together with other 'rapacious beings' rule.

Sorry *auction*

R54 that's not actually true. There's tons of art out there for a couple of grand and online auctions companies that have made the process a lot more affordable, transparent and democratic. It depends on what you like.

We know it's not the primary market, r48. This is a 40-year-old painting, it's not the first time it's being sold, it's being sold by a private owner, is being sold at auction. A far clearer explanation as to why Hockney isn't making any money from the sale of the painting is that he doesn't actually own it.

No r49, I'm from the I'm not going to laud Hockney as an amazing painter because I don't think he is, certainly not to the extent his fame suggests, and I'm not going to pretend I think he's great just so I can sound hip school.

He's way overrated, a bit of a hack and a one-trick pony, and this painting is no way worth 80 million dollars. Do you think it is?

There have been several cases in the courts about artists receiving a percentage of resales. I believe it was 5% in CA.

Only a moron would think that Hockey still owns it.

R9, nothing complicated about it: Hockney doesn't own the painting so there is no reason for him to make any money from its sale.

R60, if Hockney wants to take the matter to court in the US then he's free to do so. That would mean, however, that he has no automatic right to a percentage of the sale, so why would anyone expect that he's automatically entitled to any money? It's not complicated.

How long would it take him to dash off another pretty painting like the OP's and earn a ton of money with so little effort?

R62 why would someone (an artist of all people) whose net worth is around 40 million pounds take anyone to court for that. He's not Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst who have dollar signs for eyes; he cares about his craft, instead of all this fashionable conceptualist mumbo jumbo that's so ' in' right now. So many fine art graduates producing this conceptual s*** that shows no skill. No wonder the contemporary art of Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American countries are taking over.

R63 practice makes perfect. When you have done it all your life and you are a master at what you do, of course you can churn them out and make others feel it's easy.

He’s no Jasper de Kimmel.

Very nice but really. These prices make acquisition of major works impossible for museums. They have to be donated if the collector can get a full tax deduction which I don’t think is as simple or automatic as you might think.

Gracie: Oh George, I had such a wonderful time at the art museum today.

George: Did you see Blue Boy and Whistler's Mother?

Gracie: Please George, I'm not interested in scandal.

He's no Thomas Kinkade.

It's a nice image, but Hockney's work can be flattered by reproduction and obvious diminution. I recall seeing at a retrospective the famous (equally pretty) double portrait of Isherwood and Bachardy and being unimpressed by its painterly quality. Thin, flat, filled in.

Hockney's a good and fashionable artist but by no means great. He's always worked hard, and made some nice stage designs and graphic art. Dabbled in photography too. Capable draughtsman.

He's not in the same class as an artist with his nearish London contemporaries Bacon and Freud. (As they're dead, their prices also will continue to soar, the work now finite.) The best of Bacon and Freud's work projects from walls with immense power, depth and originality.

Freud painted a brilliant portrait of Hockney, whose return effort of Freud was paltry. I mentioned recently in another thread that Robert Hughes called Hockney the Cole Porter of painting, rather than the Mozart. Even that might be a shade generous.

Bacon and Freud are certainly considered more serious artists, but most of their work is best seen in a museum. Neither produced work I'd want to look at every day.

I was lucky enough to purchase 2 Hockneys- one a photo collage of LA that I still love all these years later.

Have a collage graphic from late 80s done in conjunction with a graphics shop. Great color and size that is energizing to look at in the morning - but not stunning. I appreciate his eye for shape and color (generally bright) but not a “great” artist.

I like the painting.

His one claim to fame: painting water in a modern way.

I thought R7 was joking, but that's really a Hockney! It's terrible.

R65, Hockney is churning out computer-generated images these days and the pseuds are all swooning.

I lived in la at the time all the hockney stuff was goin on, 70....with a big ass art gallery owner.

the kids he painted were the most spoiled little whores in the world, boring as butts...(not so for M and J...tho,,,,kool dudes)

but I reckon he likes em that way....

my sugar daddy used to make such fun of Hock, and his boys.....silly group,,,,,,the art world is total fake weird mess.

its a grifters paradise, the art world.....u have no idea of the fraud and deceit and hyperbole involved....