Top Ten (10) Most Expensive Paintings Of All Time w. Pics
Millions and Hundreds of Millions of dollars are spent every year by the wealthy seeking a highly sought after piece of art. Following is a list of the Top Ten Most Expensive Paintings of All Time and an explanation of what makes them so special and worth the exorbitant price.
1. Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer by Gustav Klimt ($135,000,000)
This record breaking sale was enabled by a court order by the Austrian government to return the painting to the Artist's rightful heir. The entire dispute lasted over a year and was necessary to return the painting that was looted by the Nazis during World War II.
Skillfully painted in 1907 by the art nouveau master Gustav Klimt, the painting was purchased by Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics heir, in 2006.
2. Garçon à la Pipe by Pablo Picasso ($104,100,000)
Created during the Rose Period, Garcon a la Pipe showcases Picasso's exceptional use of cheerful orange and pink palatte.
The oil on canvas painting, measuring 100 × 81.3 cm (slightly over 39 × 32 inches), displays a Parisian boy holding a pipe in his left hand.
The record price auction at the time on May 4, 2004 in Sotheby's was a bit of a surprise to the core art buyers, because it was painted in the style not usually associated with the pioneering Cubist artist.
3. Dora Maar with Cat by Pablo Picasso ($95,200,000)
Another enormous surprise followed in 2006, when this painting near doubled its inaccurate presale estimate and brought in new record $95,200,000 at auction at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006.
Painted in 1941, Picasso's controversial portrait (one of his last) is sometimes described as an unflattering depiction of his mistress, Dora Maar, who was an artist/photographer and mistress of Picasso whose relationship lasted ten years during the 1930s and 40s.
4. Portrait of Dr. Gachet by Vincent van Gogh ($82,500,000)
This painting by the Dutch Impressionist master Vincent van Gogh suddenly became world-famous when Japanese businessman Ryoei Saito paid $82.5 million for it at auction in Christie's, New York. Saito was so attached to the painting that he wanted it to be cremated with him when he died. Saito died in 1996 ... but the painting was saved.
Vincent van Gogh actually painted two versions of Dr Gachet's portrait. You can view the other version, with a slightly different color scheme, at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris.
5. Bal Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir ($78,000,000)
Bal au moulin de la Galette, Montmartre was painted by French artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir in 1876. On May 17, 1990, it was sold for $ 78,000,000 at Sotheby's in New York City to Ryoei Saito, who bought it together with the Portrait of Dr Gachet (see above).
6. Massacre of the Innocents by Peter Paul Rubens ($76,700,000)
This painting by Peter Paul Rubens, painted in 1611, is the only painting in this list which was not painted in the 19th or 20th century. It was sold to Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet for $ 76,700,000 at a 2002 Sotheby's auction.
7. Portrait de l'Artiste sans Barbe by Vincent van Gogh ($71,500,000)
Portrait de l'artiste sans barbe ("Self-portrait without beard") is one of many self-portraits by Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh. He painted this one in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France in September 1889. The painting is a oil painting on canvas and is 40 cm x 31 cm (16" x 13").
This is an uncommon painting since his other self-portraits show him with a beard. The self-portrait became one of the most expensive paintings of all time when it was sold for $71.5 million in 1998 in New York.
8. Rideau, Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne ($60,500,000)
This painting by Paul Cézanne, painted in ca. 1893-1894, sold for $60,500,000 at Sotheby's New York on May 10, 1999 to "The Whitneys". Whitney, born into one of America's wealthiest families, was a venture capitalist, publisher, Broadway show and Hollywood film producer, and philanthropist.
9. Femme aux Bras Croisés by Pablo Picasso ($55,000,000)
This work, painted in 1901, was a part of Picasso's famous Blue Period, a dark, sad time in the artist's life. The beautiful & various tones of blue are typical. The painting depicts a woman with her arms crossed staring at the endless nothing.
Femme aux Bras Croisés was sold for $55,000,000 November 8, 2000, at Christie's Rockefeller in New York City.
10. Irises by Vincent Van Gogh ($53,900,000)
Vincent van Gogh painted this at Saint Paul-de-Mausole in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France in 1889, only one year before his death. In 1987, it became the most expensive painting to date. It was sold for $ 54,000,000 to Alan Bond and later resold to the Getty Museum.
NOTEWORTHY
No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock ($140,000,000?)
Unconfirmed rumors buzzing in the art world now place this painting at the top of the list, at least temporarily. If true, the $140 million price tag would be the highest ever for a painting, besting the $135 million paid for the Gustav Klimt painting Portrait of Adele Block Bauer in June 2006.
Learn How To Paint These Amazing Artworks Here!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Subscribe to blog
Popular content
Recent comments
- GUCCI MANE. WTF. BETTER THAN
16 weeks 5 days ago - ??????????????????????
16 weeks 5 days ago - this list is stupid as fuck.
16 weeks 5 days ago - Tupac showed Biggie to rhyme
16 weeks 6 days ago - You should replace "your"
16 weeks 6 days ago - art is life.....................................................
17 weeks 6 hours ago - new deal
17 weeks 1 day ago - My Top 5:
Abraham Lincoln-
17 weeks 2 days ago - Something wrong with this?
17 weeks 3 days ago - Agreed, Daniel.
17 weeks 4 days ago
214 Comments
art is life.....................................................
i love art, yes.. ART is LIFE and LIFE is an ART.
Yay
Van Gogh is the highest ranked artist in terms of money wise, he has three paintings on here
post picasso
in 1951, in his book Libro nero, Giovanni Papini, quotes picasso, on his "modern art" Picasso said--"from the momentthat art ceasesto be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer look for consolation and exhiliration in art. The cunning, the rich,the idle,and the distillers of quintessences, want the new, the strange, the original, the extravagant, and the scandalous. I, from cubism onwards, have satisfied these gentlemen and their critics, with all the changing oddities that have come into my head.The less they understood, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, i became celebrated, and very rapidly.For a painter, celebrity means sales, and consequently affluence. Today as you know, i am celebrated, I am rich"
In effect he was saying that "modern art" is all a con trick, and the poor souls who produced , and still produce this rubbish, are not only deluding themselves that they are "artists" but are fooling the public, and the "art critics" as well, nuff said!!!
Which one of us is better at judging??
We are a race of people struggling with ourselves.
Each one of us sees differently. Our appreciation for others comes in when we share common values. Intelligence as well as awareness is part of the answer.
We have a tendency to judge art the way we judge our labor. An artists brush can paint economically, if the line is expressive. We artists bicker as much as the viewers. We debate about the strenghth of an artist, as if they were to be gauged by the mere displine of the craft. Not everyone is cut out to understand what art is, and art appreciation doesn't always come naturally to people.
I believe art is soulful. It attracts elements of our humanity and draws people together. Only good comes from art. The money thing is our instinct to appraise the value of an artist as a commodity. It has nothing to do with art.
If people would resign to the fact that art exists to please us, than the artist would of conveyed his experience. Art will always remain a personal experience, whether representational or expressive. I can't imagine who is a better artist.
Which one of us is better at judging?
I love reading the righteous
I love reading the righteous indignation of people who could care less about art of any kind. This is simply a list of the most expensive paintings. What makes you think the most beautiful painting should be the most expensive? Gory slasher movies bring in gazillions of dollars, yet beautiful nature flicks are a tough sell. Talent, Beauty and Cost have absolutely nothing to do with each other... never have, never will.
19th & 20th Century Art is a poor control group
Is it incredible that $135,000,000 will be paid for a painting? Of course. I feel unfortunately this list is a loaded deck. The problem with 19th & 20th century art is the associated ownership. I think if "Portrait of a Young Man" by Raphael were to resurface, the new number would double or more. The problem with this list is it negates the art that is "priceless." Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, the true masters, would be the complete list. These works are in museums or stolen to private collections. So enjoy Sotheby's take on art, but take it with the "priceless" works in mind.
The old masters were only
The old masters were only good for their time. I can easily name four artists that are better than them. Caravaggio, Vermeer, Emanuel Leutze, and Albert Bierstadt.
The never ending ignorance of mankind...
I enjoy the fact that there are and always will be those that understand art and those that don't. Those that get it are able to enrich their lives in a way that other's never will. And no matter how hard the ignorant try, they will never understand the magic, the beauty, and the experience that art provides us.
The ignorant will, through their frustration and fear, criticize art, sometimes in the most hateful terms in an attempt to feel better about the void that they can never fill within themselves.
When it comes to art, my experience with the ignorant also indicates that they usually don't understand great food, great wine and great music. How sad it is for them.
And I suppose that you came
And I suppose that you came straight from the womb with the ability to discern great art? No, more likely you've been told what great art is by some authoritative sounding snob and like the vast majority of people with a strong inferiority complex you've fallen in line by obsequiously following them down the elitist snob road without even applying one shred of actual thought on the subject.
You'd have loved the emperor's new clothes too....
Ha
I find it hilarious that people like yourself build their arrogance on their so called appreciation of the finer things in life. All the art that you supposedly find magic in was created from the artist's own personal experience. Whats ironic is that your personal experience is nothing but the experience that they convey to you... the fine wines, the great music and food- all things created by other people. What kind of real reward can you get from that? You speak of others' empty void, but I contend that the void is yours. After all the only thing that you have to share with others is your ability to appreciate... How sad
hmm.
I'm an art scholar, and it's people like you that make art so intimidating for the average viewer. Why don't you stop pontificating and actually creating something if you're such an artist yourself?
What the???
Okay, theres obviously something I'm not getting here. I did a painting of a mule in my garage, and it sold at a yard sale for $300,000.000
What the???
Okay, theres obviously something I'm not getting here. I did a painting of a mule in my garage, and it sold at a yard sale for $300,000.000
Camera make realistic art absolute
The expressionist will always win the art battle. The big difference between craftsmanship and art will always be the intellectual soul. Something a camera or computer will not be able to produce that’s why Pollock and Van Gogh will always be considered as true artistic geniuses.
Think about this, if you
Think about this, if you were to take a Pollock painting or a Van Gogh back to any period in history it would be considered garbage. But if you took say Albert Bierstadt's "Rocky Mountains, Landers Peak" back to any time period the people would be amazed. Bierstadt is the true artistic genius. His work is timeless.
Art
Your comment...."The expressionist will always win the art battle. The big difference between craftsmanship and art will always be the intellectual soul. Something a camera or computer will not be able to produce that’s why Pollock and Van Gogh will always be considered as true artistic geniuses."
May I use it in my high school art class?? See, I am an art teacher... and I have been trying to get that point across to my students for months now... and you said it perfectly!
You would be saddened to know the young generation of today would rather sit and do a 5 minute half-way thrown together "piece" on the computer in... Windows PAINT of all things... than sit down for a week and use a real paintbrush and acrylic. It "takes too long..." apparently. "Why should I have to do this when I can get something done 100 times faster on the computer??" The art of art making will be gone before we know it... and those masters' works will be more valuable than ever... well at least until these kids get old enough to control the market... then they'll be tossed aside like a 3 year old's scribble art. It's a shame.
Its the idea that matters!
Lets not forget that every painting in the list have a definately unique style, I used to criticise Pollock, and say how rediculously his style was but now as an artist I respect him for opening my eyes, to see that art is not just beautiful objects and perfectionism, is about the contact of your boby and soul with the canvas and the paint. If you get a chance to see a Pollock painting they are not little but huge. Orinality is what matters the most in the world of art.
about Paintings
all the pictures are just amazingly inspring
they desrve what they have done
still as an artist i think the art is presiouse it has never the cost or it will have cost just the mentioned amount is an appreciation cost not the cost of the painting i love the painting s and i can read what is hidden inside the paintings
regards
god bless all the painters
Pollock???????????????
I don't understand the whole Pollock thing. I mean I'm no artist, but if I can do that am I? Who would pay for this anyway. Why don't these people just buy some canvas and paint and make one theirselves. This makes me crazy.
Rubens is a genius
Rubens is a genius and Pollock is equally amazing. These are incredibly talented people. A Pollock might luck easy but he honed his craft, he knew what to do with paint. If I had the money to spare I would totally buy some of these paintings.
This is not art, it's worthless scribblings.
I have some artwork by my grandma in my mom's attic that looks a lot like these worthless scribblings.
Art world, the jokes on your silly asses!
How about photo-realism in art? THAT'S TALENT!
Wouldn't the joke be on you,
Wouldn't the joke be on you, since all we have to do is create worthless scribblings for money.
In response to the first
In response to the first post: These pieces of artwork are beautiful. The buyers definitely knew what they were doing. I think that that Dr. Gachet is one of Van Gogh's best, and that Cezanne and the Renoir!
Luckily everyone is different with different opinions.
Photo-realism is also an art, and I know it is not as easy, but what makes it different from a Jackson Pollock, Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh or any impressionist, Post-Impressionist artist for that matter.
Jackson Pollock
If David Geffren got rid of the Jackson Pollock it´s because it isn´t worth keeping!!!!!!!
I've read a lot ...
I've read a lot and yes it is just my humble and to many "worthless" opinion but I feel that a true piece of art, is work that many can only hope to accomplish or copy not just drip off the canvas.
you're an idiot and Pollock
you're an idiot and Pollock is a loser...
art.
I guess it just comes down to "The eye of the beholder", and in the case of some of these buyers of multi-millon dollor art, It's just to say "Yeah, I bought that". For me, if I was given the choice of say a Van Gogh, or a Frazetta, (With the stipulation that I could never sell said art work) I would rather have the Frazetta to look at every day, but that's just me. (By the way, some of frank's oils sell for over a millon today) and he's still alive.
Eye of the beholder huh.
Eye of the beholder huh. Ever see a miss universe pagent. All the women are tall and thin. Frazetta is good but I doubt his stuff sells for millions. Albert Bierstadt is still the greatest and highest paid American artist of all time.
Fact: Jackson Pollock paintings suck
Fact: Jackson Pollock paintings suck. This is indisputable. My IQ is 365.
r u serious ? ? ?
r u serious ? ? ? hahaahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahaah
So yeah, its looks like a
So yeah, its looks like a bunch of paint. Because it is. And yes, you could do it easily as well. But you didn't do it first. For him to be the first to use this overly abstract style makes him a revolutionary and you a talented copy cat. but congratulations on the awesome iq. too bad it didn't come with creativity.
you obviously drank the
you obviously drank the kool-aid... Pollock is a talentless loser and so are you.
Agreed...only, my IQ is
Agreed...only, my IQ is about half that.
Jackson pollock
the only reason i like jackson pollock is becuase in class we have to make a painting that is similar to a famous artist. i chose jackson pollock because all you have to do is throw paint on a paper. how easy is that???????????
opinions are always
opinions are always disputable
come get sum!!!!!!!!!
you suck y dont u make a painting that can sell for millions chump. what it do my iq in 10 now what son come to cali and my boi philip will handle you. make you cry for your momma and then say u aint got an iq of 365 chump.
exression is driven with purpose.
I am an art lover. I am open to new innovative ideas that can bring a person to think or feel differently than before. Self expression equals emotion which bring this thing we call 'art' to life.
Art can not be defined. Art can not be justified.
I may not always find certain pieces pleasing to the eye, however I look beyond the picture and try to understand the artist and their technique or medium. Their purpose. In my opinion a 4 year old can finger paint the most beautiful refrigerator art imaginable. However the thought, purpose and drive behind the effort is point less.
Although I feel the 'arts' do not stop here. Humans are expressing themselves everyday by the clothes they wear, their tattoos, stories, along with various styles and genre's of music and dance. Yes, some may be more pleasing, soothing, confusing or outrageous than others. Maybe I sound like a hippie love'n tree hugger but this world would be ssooooooooo boring with out self expression. So you don't have to like it and the value may be just as insane as the artist itself. But learn to appreciate what they are saying/expressing.
MAKE ART NOT WAR
Those paintings shown above
Those paintings shown above are not very good. It doesn't make any sense why they are worth so much money today when they were hardly worth anything when they were painted. The skills which those painters possessed are really mediocre. Those people who bought those paintings really got ripped off.
what is the base of your
what is the base of your judgment? one art can never be compared with the other... like one moment can not be compared with another... and the artists did not put high price of their paintings, it was the people who had money; may be they wanted to make more money out of art. after all, we all are human beings... it is not a mediocracy... its the tragedy of life. and art has a potencial to take us beond that. but that art has to come out of good heart, from good intention...
What is the base of my
What is the base of my judgement? Well, did you look at the paintings? Yes you can compare art. Look at paintings from 1300's all the way up to the 1800's. Art progressed and kept getting better and better. But the quality of art really declined during the 20th century with picasso and his contemporaries. Yes artists did put high prices on their paintings. Read about artists of the 1800's. They sometimes would turn down large sums of money because they knew that their paintings were worth more. And some of them did get more, such as the Hudson River School artists because the quality of their work was excellent. Im not sure what to make of your last comment. I think your just trying to sound poetic. Nice try
New and Different
They are not worth so much becuase they are the best paintings ever. They are worth so much becuase at the time what these people did was new and different than others. People pay for the innovation of the time. Sometimes we can't see that now because in our generation we have grown up looking at all of that, it's old to us. In their world, the artists now passed were the Radioheads of their time :-)
Not only that, some artists are revered because of their ideals. They had "courage", etc.
I don't always agree with this explanation, but it is what it is.
I think Pollock's paintings
I think Pollock's paintings are worth money only because of his personality, life story and culture at the time.
You're an idot.
You're an idot.
absolutely lagree .))
absolutely lagree .))
What's an "idot"?
What's an "idot"?
RE: If Jackson Pollack is worth $140 million...
true THAT
Haha...thats good
Haha...thats good
Rednecks think $100 million too much for Picasso???
But $100 Billion for an illegal war because Bush lied, is OKAY?
wow...relevant
wow...relevant