Agreed. Finally.
I suspect that others in this thread couldn’t explain why this piece was important so instead they relied on arguing about the price tag, something most didn’t have an issue with. It’s beyond obvious that something is worth what people are willing to pay.
That is hilarious! I’m pretty sure Wikipaintings has it wrong because one, it’s Wikipaintings, but then I did a quick Google search, and while several pages have it upside down, the photos of the painting in person are all presented as it is in the NYT article.
That suggests to me that sometimes expensive artworks *don’t *have much artistic value, but are worth heaps of money because of who painted them. Which is fine and reasoning I get, but it seems like the answer to the question “Which is which?” is “I don’t know; sometimes they’re just worth a lot of money anyway because the artist is important.” Right?
So part of understanding (and perhaps ultimately appreciating) this piece and many others is in providing context for it. That makes sense. So it isn’t enough to say…
“Two blue rectangles. One white line. $44M. Thoughts?..”
I think the term “artistic value” is entirely subjective. Everyone is a critic.
Artistic merit and sale prices are two different things. Art has become an “investment vehicle” for rich people.
This was touched on on a recent episode of “This American Life” – http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/493/picture-show?act=2
Anyone identified by the Saatchi Gallery as a hot artist finds that they can’t produce fast enough to sell to collectors.
The artist in the radio story talked about how it’s great that this allows her to live the life she wants, as a full-time artist, but it conflicts with the artist’s impulse to create works that people will see – many of these buyers just keep her paintings in storage waiting for the value to go up, instead of displaying them.
No, because titling it Onement 6 shows its continuity with Onement 1, and that the symbolism is to be associated with this piece as well. For the artist, it’s a statement that he considers this to be one of his major pieces.
On a more mundane level, Mars bars in the US were renamed Snickers Almond in order to cash in on the Snickers more profitable name.
I think…I could just about manage to suffer through that. 
It would be difficult, mind you.
Right. Fine art is the ultimate in brand name recognition. Most of the buying public is uninformed, and art dealers and auction houses capitalize on that.
Well right, that is subjective. Obviously.
But when someone says sometimes it’s great (again, we all know “great” is subjective – not up for debate) and sometimes it’s a naked emperor, saying the way to differentiate between the two depends on the context of the artist and the particular piece sounds to me like “Okay, from just looking at the painting alone, sometimes you *can’t *tell.” So then audience or buyer will at times be interested in an artwork he may not find particularly inspiring, as having it is important in large part because of the artist’s/work’s significance.
But on preview I see the Professor responded to me, and fair enough. Sometimes I feel like some kind of rube when I look at paintings like the one in the OP and go “It’s pretty, but it’s not that pretty.” But it turns out I am a rube, not for being unmoved by the painting, but because I don’t know anything about Newman.
I rather like it. The blue is quite luminous, and I really like how the brush strokes show and it gets darker around the edge. Like a photography vignette. That plus the ultra-bright white stripe really makes it pop. It kinda looks like a modernistic painting of a cobalt glass vase and the white is light reflecting off it.
Anybody have an idea of what pigment he used? Probably cobalt, maybe some Prussian Blue for the darker areas. Was phthalocyanine available then?
Wordman and Prof, thanks providing good examples of how to answer such questions.
Bienville, thanks for providing contrast.
Sabba, if I may add: Part of what makes such paintings worth this much is that they are investments in addition to being art. Quite speculative investments, it’s true, but sometimes that’s what makes them so attractive.
May I ask a related question when it comes to value?
If I understand correctly, one of the desired effects of art is to broaden our conceptual horizons; to illustrate what is possible in terms of perceptions, cognitions, emotions and actions. The pieces of art which are the first to do something novel tend to be the most valued because they are the breakthrough which made us realize what was possible.
It’s like when someone brings up a new way of looking at a problem/phenomenon and you think: “Damn, that just blew my mind. I didn’t see it like that but that new way of looking at the problem/phenomenon makes sense and now I can’t unsee it.” That initial shattering of your old worldview/point of view to create a new one is often the most dramatic. It’s why Newton’s apple incident and other eureka moments are often used to illustrate the transformation of our understanding.
Here’s a bit of background on the style that Newman was more or less working in, courtesy of Wiki:
As for “artistic merit”, a lot of people just plain don’t like non-representational art (especially if it tends to be simple in form, like many Color Field works) and aren’t going to find any artistic merit in it. That’s okay, but that doesn’t mean that their judgement is somehow “right” and those who disagree with them are “wrong”.
I’m no artist or art critic, but AFAICT the essential point of Abstract Expressionism and its offshoots is exactly what it says on the tin: to express emotion or significance solely by means of abstract elements.
One of its chief motivating ideas, AFAIK, has to do with the fact that human beings are conditioned by their nature to respond emotionally and spiritually to seeing actual real-life objects: the human body, sunsets, mountains, flowers, etc. And we’re also conditioned by thousands of years of representational art to respond positively to accurate representation of objects: if somebody paints a tulip, say, that looks very much like a real tulip, we consider that an impressive and aesthetically valuable exhibition of skill. (And indeed it is, IMO: I’m not trying to knock representational art here.)
What the Abstract Expressionists were trying to do was to see if art could create such aesthetic and emotional responses in viewers without those conditioned reflexes triggered by representational art. Namely: Could you inspire in viewers an emotion, an idea, an awareness of some kind just by using color, shape and size in a way that didn’t “look like” anything? Their skill and technique were directed toward trying to find combinations of color, shape and size that would achieve that.
You may find the whole concept of non-representational art kooky and useless, and that’s okay; nobody says you have to like it. But if you imagine that an Abstract Expressionist work must be just some random slosh-and-spatter con job that was never seriously intended to have any meaningful aesthetic purpose at all, you’re missing the point.
'Mika: Yes, she seemed to have found a way to live with it. 
bldysabba,
My recommendation is that you check out the documentary “Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?” It is a hilarious and enlightening insight into the world of modern, abstract art, the art market itself, and why/how some pieces are appraised at seemingly ridiculous sums.
Quick question that is strictly a matter of personal opinion: How common are artists who can fetch millions because of Who They Are, except you don’t think who they are is all that great. Like, it’s fine and well that Picasso could have balled up a napkin and it would have been worth zillions because he’s Picasso, but how often do you come across a guy who’s got boatloads of undeserved clout? Is the art world filled with those guys? Or for the most part, even if a particular work isn’t that great, the price tag is justified by the artist’s body of work? Something else? Stupid question?
I second this. It’s a great deal of fun.
NOT a stupid question at all.
The number of artists whose works sell in the millions is actually a fairly small percentage, and it’s something of an indication of a major artist that his or her work will do that well at an auction house. Typically, these artists are dead and history is justifying their place in the art world.
The artists with the “boatloads of undeserved clout” are beyond numerous. A good deal of them are flash-in-the-pan artists who had a breakthrough show, but whose reputation didn’t survive their 15 minutes of fame. Others are up-and-coming artists who will never make it in their field, if only due to the staggering number of artists out there.
The most insidious, IMHO, are the art galleries that make exclusive agreements with artists (especially print artists) to promote and sell their works, and then exceed all boundaries of hyperbole and ethics in their attempts to establish a high-money reputation for their clients. Want to see some of these? Take an art cruise. DON’T buy the artwork.
And then, of course, there’s the matter that artworks are being easier and easier to fake these days.
Did I miss anything?
On the other hand, you did not respond politely to what I said.
Even looking at a photo on the internet (low resolution) I can see variations in the blue in that particular piece. If you can’t, it is because you choose “not to see”.
Now I have a question for you.
How often do you visit an art museum?
I wasn’t at all familiar with the breadth of Newman’s work until this topic came up on the board. But I have seen similar styles in galleries and some left no impression while others made me pause and consider. No idea why but that seems to be the desired effect and point of art. There are paintings by Newman that I like very much and would happily hang on my walls at home (Station of the Cross I, for example).
So what makes Onement 6 worth $44M, while his other work considerably less valuable? How did the valuators and market decide that this was his superior work? Is it only because this was the only one available for sale?
Onement 1, as I mentioned, was his breakthrough work, it made his reputation, and is in the MoMA. He did only six in the Onement series, so any of them that show up have the luster of the Onement name, pointing up the fact that Barnett Newman himself considered this to be one of this best pieces. He has a number of other works that are in major collections, and if any of them were to go to auction, they’d receive the same high praise.