Warning: Table './drupal5_a/karemar_watchdog' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: INSERT INTO karemar_watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '<em>Table &amp;#039;./drupal5_a/karemar_sessions&amp;#039; is marked as crashed and should be repaired\nquery: SELECT COUNT(sid) AS count FROM karemar_sessions WHERE timestamp &amp;gt;= 1409621698 AND uid = 0</em> in <em>/home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc</em> on line <em>172</em>.', 2, '', 'http://www.karemar.com/blog/top-ten-10-most-expensive-paintings-all-time-w-pics?page=3', '', '54.167.249.155', 1409622598) in /home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172

Warning: Table './drupal5_a/karemar_watchdog' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: INSERT INTO karemar_watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '<em>Table &amp;#039;./drupal5_a/karemar_sessions&amp;#039; is marked as crashed and should be repaired\nquery: SELECT DISTINCT u.uid, u.name, s.timestamp FROM karemar_users u INNER JOIN karemar_sessions s ON u.uid = s.uid WHERE s.timestamp &amp;gt;= 1409621698 AND s.uid &amp;gt; 0 ORDER BY s.timestamp DESC</em> in <em>/home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc</em> on line <em>172</em>.', 2, '', 'http://www.karemar.com/blog/top-ten-10-most-expensive-paintings-all-time-w-pics?page=3', '', '54.167.249.155', 1409622598) in /home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172
Top Ten (10) Most Expensive Paintings Of All Time w. Pics | Karemar

Top Ten (10) Most Expensive Paintings Of All Time w. Pics

  • user warning: Table './drupal5_a/karemar_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT COUNT(sid) AS count FROM karemar_sessions WHERE timestamp >= 1409621698 AND uid = 0 in /home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.
  • user warning: Table './drupal5_a/karemar_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT DISTINCT u.uid, u.name, s.timestamp FROM karemar_users u INNER JOIN karemar_sessions s ON u.uid = s.uid WHERE s.timestamp >= 1409621698 AND s.uid > 0 ORDER BY s.timestamp DESC in /home/drupal5/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.

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.

Learn Beginning Drawing, Watercolor Painting, Sketching Outdoors and Picture Making like the great artists HERE!

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!

186 Comments

Value of The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci

This, of course, is a priceless work of Art. One has to consider that it is a fresco (ie. painted on a wall) in a monastery, it would be rather difficult to sell it and cart if off to some other place. It is also, I understand, in fragile condition. Another consideration is whether or not the Italian government would allow it to be taken out of the country. What is it worth? Probably more than any individual could afford.

Fresco

Actually, fresco is a technique of painting, that of mixing plaster with paint. As used by Michaelangelo on the Sistine Chapel. It is a difficult technique to use, as the plaster dries so quickly one cannot make changes or work long on something. A wall painting is a mural. I have a degree in art...but so what. I work at Target, and I like it. : )

Adjusted for Time

It is a very interesting list but I think the prices should be adjusted for year purchased. $82,500,000 in 1990 (Dr. Gachet) is quite a bit different than the same price in 2007. Using a conservative rate of 4.5% annually, the most expensive pieces would be Dr. Gachet ($174 million), the Renoir ($165 million), the Klimt ($141 million), and Irises ($130 million), and Garcon ($119 million).

Nonsense

The price of these paintings is utter nonsense and one hundred years will expose this for what it really is... mass delusion. And in response to "most of you are clueless." Get a life. I started as an art student and quit after a semester. It quickly became apparent that the people who "understand" art like this understand nothing else, especially about the real world.

Nonsense

Art school drop-out, eh? Yeah, we'll take your word seriously...

Nonsense

So, I guess you had nothing to offer artistically, eh?

The Renoir at No 5 is

The Renoir at No 5 is beautiful - probably the only one where I could understand someone falling in love with it and forgetting about the money. The attention to light and shadow is impressive and almost makes me feel like I'm there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose though.

The point of The Price

Another way to look at it is that The Price is a reflection of what that work of art means to the person buying it. Maybe it's awe, or passion, or maybe power, especially if bought at auction, maybe all it means is "Hey i get to have this because i'm richer than you."
Money is an illusion anyway, it's a placeholder for value, think about what buying art is: You trade a piece of paper with marks made by an artist for pieces of paper with marks made by a government (money) or by a bank (check). The ratio of the number of pieces of paper in this transaction is the perceived worth of the art versus the perceived worth of a country's currency.
Also, if you look at it economically, the price is set by demand and scarcity. Usually there is only one of a piece of art, thus scarcity is at a maximum, and there's nothing as manipulable as human desire.

ignore

Oh pisha, as my genius grammie always says. You do NOT sound like a snob. You sound very down-to-earth and smart. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge of Pollock with the rest of the people reading who have not had a sufficient background in art history.

Pollock must be laughing in his grave

His art resembles an old used palette. You sir, sound like the Crane brothers from Frasier. Snobby and better knowing. If you, or anybody else, wants to pay 140 million dollars for something that resembles the leftovers from a real painting, please go ahead.

There's also a big

There's also a big difference between art and a painting.

A painting can be an art work but for most people a painting is an artwork in a room set there for decoration. If I buy a painting it will be something that suits the room it's in and to set a certain atmosphere.

These paintings aren't of course simple paintings in the eyes of the world so can't even talk about having it in your living room. One thing is for sure, for most part, these prices are not justified just like art itself. They're overrated due to globalization, it's not what the painting tells you as much as it's the painter's name. Am I wrong? Then ask yourself, would they cost this much if it was done by your neighbor's cousin? Would they cost this much if the "buyers" were the only ones who knew about these paintings.

To me these paintings freak me out and I would rather have something beautiful on my wall that set a nice mood.

There's also a big

There's also a big difference between art and a painting.

A painting can be an art work but for most people a painting is an artwork in a room set there for decoration. If I buy a painting it will be something that suits the room it's in and to set a certain atmosphere.

These paintings aren't of course simple paintings in the eyes of the world so can't even talk about having it in your living room. One thing is for sure, for most part, these prices are not justified just like art itself. They're overrated due to globalization, it's not what the painting tells you as much as it's the painter's name. Am I wrong? Then ask yourself, would they cost this much if it was done by your neighbor's cousin? Would they cost this much if the "buyers" were the only ones who knew about these paintings.

To me these paintings freak me out and I would rather have something beautiful on my wall that set a nice mood.

If you must choose between

If you must choose between cars or works of art, you can afford neither.

most of you are clueless.

all of these artists are genius in their own right. if you dont understand this, you dont understand or appreciate art.

its hilarious to see the first response only sees the rueben's painting as good. its a shame that people still correlate high art with the ability to paint like michaelangelo or divinci. the reality is that art has come a long way since then. even if, picasso was a master artist who was a prodigy who could paint like a master as a teenager.

i would love to see what some of you think about marcel duchamp, who is probably the most groundbreaking artist of the past century.

stick to consuming mass amounts of fast foods and shopping at wal-mart. art critics...you are not.

Painting got better and

Painting got better and better as time went on. It reached its peak during the mid to late 1800's with romanticism. Michelangelo and DaVinci were good for their day but were surpassed by the dutch artists who used strong light and dark contrasts. Picasso was no master or prodigy. I believe it was Duchamp who wrote a name on a urinal and called it art. Thats not groundbreaking, thats just stupid.

Nice

It's not "michaelangelo", but Michelangelo and it's not "divinci " but Leonardo Da Vinci, you fucking ass licking snob. Sorry about my spelling, I'm from Denmark (get the irony, huh?)

You are a fucking prick.

You are a fucking prick.

Self-Absorbed Hypocrite

Excuse me sir, or ma'am, but I must tell you that you are an absolute self-aggrandizing hypocrite. You play yourself off as a high-class mug, if you live on your own you probably listen to classical music when you have people, or "company", over, you do fancy dinners for clients or brown-nosing jobs, and you look down your nose the entire time. But you, person, are worthless. What right do you have to generalize people? If you had half a brain, you would understand that art is not only for real estate moguls and corporate suck-ups, but for every man on every level. The only reason that these gain particular attention is because of their tremendous value, but realize what that means. Only a ridiculously marginal amount of the world's population could have buying interest in. You totally ignore the masses of people have levels of art on their own level that they probably appreciate more than someone paying 100+ million dollars because they don't have to sign away their life to worry over their "possession" more than their own life or kids or home. And just the fact alone that you would criticize so harshly and condescendingly clearly evidents that you have very little self-worth that you have to put everything else down to make yourself feel more valuable. And perhaps you may want to pay more attention up your mentors ass when you leech off information, but he was Leonardo Da Vinci, not divinci.
Enjoy.

The only good painting on

The only good painting on here is #6. The painter really made efforts to make it "photo realistic" and is really skilled. All the other ones are lame compared to that one.

I hope they put work and quality back into "fine arts" instead of hyping the names of sell-out attention whores.

If you think "Massacre of

If you think "Massacre of the Innocents" is photo realistic, you must have a very odd idea of what the world looked like in 1611.

Picasso could draw

Picasso could draw realistically if he desired to, but that wasn't his style. If great art was simply how realistic a painting was, then great painters would be a dime a dozen.

Photo-realism

Painting (and all art for that matter) stopped being about photo-realism after cameras were invented. We don't need paintings to look exactly like the world we already see with our own eyes. Paintings make you see it through someone else's eyes, or at least see the world differently.

Interesting because of the unevenness.

I'm a big fan of all of the painters here, but the actual selections are extremely uneven. The Picasso paintings in particular stand out as more or less slight works from a great and varied master.

I think a lot of it is that these top prices depend on the whims of whatever ultrarich people happen to be interested in art when these items come up for sale. At the very top, there's a lot of randomness this way.

It's very sad that Lauder snapped up that Klimt -- that's a fantastic and very elegant painting. Let's hope we get to see it again soon.

Picasso is so over-rated.

Picasso is so over-rated. Not saying he's not one of the all time greatest, just he's really over-rated.

Say what?

This is insane. Why waste money on stupid paintings which are out of shape and doesn't make sense to most(99.99999% of world??

That's a rather stupid comment. First of all, the assumption is wrong.
(100%-99.99999%)=0.00001% of 6 billion people, which is equal to 600 people - I'm quite sure that there are far more than 600 people who genuinely appreciate Picasso's work.

But more importantly: why should something worthwhile make sense to a certain percentage of people? In that case we'd better get rid of advance quantum mechanics, rockets science and experimental brain surgery.
This has become a common misconception. It's a phenomenon on which, among many others, digg.com thrives: when enough people find something interesting (or 'get' something), it is deemed worthwhile, othewise it is 'voted off'.

Ah yes, and if you don't like paintings that are out of shape: there's always photography.

This is not to say that I find these amounts ridiculous, and what I find absolutely scandalous is that a large percentage of these end up in private homes where no one can enjoy them except a tiny amount of people who have far too much money on their hands and who may have just bought them as a status symbol.

Say what?

This is insane. Why waste money on stupid paintings which are out of shape and doesn't make sense to most(99.99999% of world??

That's a rather stupid comment. First of all, the assumption is wrong.
(100%-99.99999%)=0.00001% of 6 billion people, which is equal to 600 people - I'm quite sure that there are far more than 600 people who genuinely appreciate Picasso's work.

But more importantly: why should something worthwhile make sense to a certain percentage of people? In that case we'd better get rid of advance quantum mechanics, rockets science and experimental brain surgery.
This has become a common misconception. It's a phenomenon on which, among many others, digg.com thrives: when enough people find something interesting (or 'get' something), it is deemed worthwhile, othewise it is 'voted off'.

Ah yes, and if you don't like paintings that are out of shape: there's always photography.

This is not to say that I find these amounts ridiculous, and what I find absolutely scandalous is that a large percentage of these end up in private homes where no one can enjoy them except a tiny amount of people who have far too much money on their hands and who may have just bought them as a status symbol.

This is insane. Why waste

This is insane. Why waste money on stupid paintings which are out of shape and doesn't make sense to most(99.99999% of world??

There is a lot more you could do with all that money!!! Wakeup!!

Comment what? What's

Comment what? What's this
post about?! What's the
real subject? ...of this
post, John????????????????

Barry

dashing

i dont wonder why lots of wealthy people spend millions of dollars just for a painting, because the painting depicts something. It may reflect their personality or their desire or perceptions/ views in life. The painting is not just a drawing, there's a message within it, a message which only few can see through.

interesting collection

indeed an interesting collection, but i wonder where you got your prices from?

Better than football

When I see how much Barcelona or Madrid are paying for their football players, I think it has much better sense to buy these pictures

Only if sold... (too)

Like PanMan said, those paintings got a price because they are available for sell from time to time.
The greatest paintings are in national museums where they won't ever be sold again.
For example, we (I'm french) will never ever sell da Vinci's Mona Lisa (La Joconde) and it won't move again from Le Louvre (too fragile, too expensive, too risky, too important). There are numerous examples in each european country: how much for the roof of the "Capilla Sixtina"? How many billions for those two? How much for the statue of Liberty? It doesn't matter and few actually care: it's not for sale.

National laws can make prices of some paintings drop: when a painting is considered as part of french national heritage, anybody including foreigners can buy it BUT the painting can't leave France anymore. Thus, there are fewer buyers interested and foreigners are less prone to spend tens of millions for it.

I'm a capitalist but

I'm a capitalist but still... talk about conspicuous consumption. jeesh.

so many idiots are spending

so many idiots are spending million of dollars for those stupid pictures instead helping other people. the paintings are ok but u must be out of ur mind to spend so much for them

Picasso rules

I like most of them. Van Gogh is so vulnerable without his beard.

Funny anecdote about Picasso.

One day he was having lunch in a restaurant. After the meal, he asked the owner if he could pay with a drawing. the man said: Alright, yes, please! so Picasso took out his pen and sketched something on his napkin, which he then handed to the guy.
The guy looked at it and said: 'Great, but... you didn't sign it!'
To which Picasso replied: "I said I wanted to pay for my meal, I don't want to buy your restaurant.'

This is how weird things get when painters get overly famous during their lifetime.

BUT... to those commenters who like the Pollock over the Picassos: you are freaking mad. If you're ever in Paris, go see the Picasso museum. I never liked Picasso much, but when I saw a lot of his work I actually started appreciating his genius and I understood why a painting of a woman with two noses isn't just stupid. Do yourself a favor and get into Picasso.
I'm wondering if nationalism plays a part in this. Would Pollock's work be as costly if he hadn't been an United Statesian?

Wouldn't even pay $5 for

Wouldn't even pay $5 for this..

Navigation