Let me show you something. Three things. Artworks — EXPENSIVE ones. Let’s talk about that.
Artistic creations, including the performing arts, are not necessary in the way food, water, and shelter are. Yet, a life lacking them is considered less fulfilling.
Imagine your existence without TV, movies, fiction, drawings, paintings, music, theater, dance, sculpture, and the comic relief of a standup genius.
What amount of time do you spend enjoying them? How much would you pay for the opportunity?
On November 9, one possible answer came at the sale of Mark Rothko’s 1955 painting Untitled (Yellow, Orange, Yellow, Light Orange).
Christie’s sold the item at auction for 46.4 million dollars. Now, assume you loved his color-layered floating forms to the point of purchase and had enough money to do so. Let’s also imagine you intended to hang it on a wall in your residence.
Assuming you saved $100,000 annually after taxes and every other expense, accumulating the means would take 464 years. So much for your retirement plans.
Let’s say you’d like something closer to what you can afford, this time by a female. At the same sale, Joan Mitchell’s 1959 Untitled painting, described on ArtNet as “a 7-foot riotous explosion of color in the artist’s signature sweeping, muscular brushstrokes — netted $29.2 million.”
Your $100,000 would require only 292 years of life and labor to reach the needed sum. I’m sure you’re jumping on the train to the nearest fine art gallery now.
Whatever painting you might obtain, think about the experience of placing your favorite where you will see it every day.
Would you spend hours basking in your superb luck and the genius of the genius who was its author?
Might you have bid in pursuit of the canvas as an investment? Many do.
Or was your desire for its beauty trumped by your search for the applause and jealousy of those who wished they were in your shoes? You’ve met people who live to “top you,” I’m sure.
Like a new car smell or a child’s Christmas toy, any masterpiece would, to a significant extent, sneak into the background of your life.
Why? Even a recording of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony would wear on you if you listened to one version daily. The composer’s grip on your attention diminishes with excess repetition over time.
Humankind doesn’t seem to stay satisfied. No matter the wonder of a delicious meal, people get hungry again before long. They have sex, but however spectacular, they don’t remain ecstatic forever. Not even a piece of chocolate is enough to satiate men and women, not to mention the kiddies.
More is required. Robert Wright, the Princeton psychologist, talks about this in lectures on Buddhism. He believes this is part of why people come to be dissatisfied with how things are.
Were anyone over the moon about a single supper — contented for weeks — they’d starve to death. Nor would a one-time, permanently blissful sexual encounter 5000 years ago have motivated the pair to try again. Without the ongoing sexual desire of our ancestors, we wouldn’t exist today.
Most of us search for a spark because we encounter the gradual diminution of the light.
I’m guessing you might not approve of those who view material things as a way of generating envy or treat masterworks as a path to riches.
However, before criticizing these folks, remember that wealthy people have been responsible for preserving art forever. Not stopping there, they form small groups of like-minded associates to start and support magnificent musicians, hospitals, and museums.
One example of such civic virtue relates to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (CSO). The Theodore Thomas Orchestra was a touring ensemble named after the conductor who created it near the end of the Civil War. He could only hope for a comparable group in one location when few cities had one.
The CSO’s website tells the rest of the story:
In 1889, Charles Norman Fay, a Chicago businessman and devoted supporter of the Theodore Thomas Orchestra, encountered Thomas in New York and inquired, “Would you come to Chicago if we gave you a permanent orchestra?” Thomas’s legendary reply was, “I would go to hell if they gave me a permanent orchestra.”
The inaugural performances took place in 1891 without a hellacious detour.
The maestro had no complaints. Perhaps one should be careful about vilifying the rich without first consulting the conductor’s ghost.
==========
The final painting above is Richard Diebenkorn’s Recollections of a Visit to Leningrad, 1965. It was also sold on the same evening as the others for a fantastic sum.
Regardless of how much the super-rich support and preserve the arts, the prices quoted for the above-mentioned paintings are obscene.
Caro dottor Stein,
Your first paragraphs made me laugh, and I’m very grateful to you for this unexpected happiness, because my life is actually all sadness and tears…
But I then immediately thought: no no no! Dottor Stein, ancora? Di nuovo esaattamente uno dei temi che mi occupano (preoccupano) in questo momento???
Ma il dottor Stein è uno psichiatra di Chigaco in pensione, o un mago? Uno sciamano?
Sorry, when too emotional circumstances inhabit my soul immediately my mother language jump in!
“My” Rabbi Nachman’s thought of the day: “Affirm with these words faith yourself put I yourself: I think I’m very important to God’s eyes.”
Grazie, dottor Stein.
Micaela
I am so sorry for your suffering, Micaela. I can only wish that your heart heals as quickly as possible, knowing that the time between now and then will be challenging. Perhaps you have been through similar times before. If so, it sometimes helps to remember that you passed through them and remind yourself of the qualities within you that made it possible. Know that I am thinking about you.
I agree, Rosaliene. The purchasers are not always identified, so it is sometimes impossible to know much about them beyond what they purchased. We therefore wouldn’t know how they acquired the money, how they live, whether they employ people, how they treat them, etc. Wittgenstein, the great philosopher, inherited a fortune and eventually gave it all away. Rosenwald is still remembered in the South for building numerous schools for black children. We are left with the complexity and the frequent behavioral contradictions within ourselves and the other members of the human race.
Yes, there are people who are helping others with less money than the cost of one of those paintings.
I would add two points, Rosaliene. The names of surpassingly rich people, as well as their connections, give a credibility to organizations that would otherwise not be able to encourage the much needed smaller donors to recognize the cause as worthy.
Beyond that, some of those rich people do not fit the stereotype we have of them. The story or Julius Rosenwald is worth reading about: https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/hall-of-fame/julius-rosenwald/
So much here to contemplate, Dr. Stein. I know a few too many people who embody precisely what you spoke about related to acquiring precious objects:
…”desire for its beauty trumped by your search for the applause and jealousy of those who wished they were in your shoes? You’ve met people who live to “top you,” I’m sure.”
And this…the reminder of how fleeting that initial rush of joy can be before those same precious acquisitions fade:
“Like a new car smell or a child’s Christmas toy, any masterpiece would, to a significant extent, sneak into the background of your life.”
How wonderful it is to have the means to surround oneself with beauty by purchasing but when the objects become an extension of self and with mixed up feelings of worthiness…I find so much sadness. Perhaps you know a few folks like this? Thank you for your post. 💕
I haven’t gotten to know anyone who could have bid on the paintings mentioned, but encountered more than a few who bought fancy sports cars, sometimes several, and other expensive things. I’ve long thought that not only was this a desperate effort to create admiration or prestige, but not so different from those of more modest means who shop to find an article of clothing or piece of jewelry to give them an emotional boost of a similar, though not identical kind. Collecting objects can also be understood as a way of finding and holding on to material objects that won’t change in a world in which every living thing does change and eventually expires. As you say, much to contemplate. Thanks, Vicki.
I like your extended thought here — it’s not about the bankroll. Even those with more modest means can fall prey to materialism…or the collecting that becomes a method for avoiding the world – creating a fortress (thinking of hoarding disorders). Thank you again.
And thank you, Vicki!
A cloth or jewel ?
Even being a sort of serial buyer???
Hahaha! Of course, I experienced this many many times in my life, in times of poverty, in times of better financial situation.
Consolation for sorrow, despair, rage, injustice.
Silly consolation? Still consolation.
And what writes Rabbi Nachman of Breslau?
“If the only way to make you happy is to do something stupid, do it!”
Hahaha! Great Rabbi!
If you, holy man, say this, how right for me!
It’s 30 years this quotation consoles me and makes me happy!
P.S.: would never think to buy any painting, any form of Art: I think all these should be declared Patrimony of the Universe by Unesco, protected, cherished, and accessible to everyone!
Now: are both these paintings Art?…
I do not dismiss the need for consolation, sometimes material, in all of us. Yes, I am especially drawn to the first two paintings, both art in my opinion. Others will differ. I suggest you look at the Rothko for two or three minutes. The forms will start to move and change internally.
Grazie per la Sua risposta puntuta, dottor Stein!
Felt myself a bit ashamed about my last sentence, sort of “Schadenfreude” ‘s one.
Please forgive me.
In fact I loved the Rothko VERY MUCH.
My remark was related to too many contemporary horrors (all arts included) which are to be seen on the (money money) market.
No need to apologize. I suppose it has always been true that tastes change and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I recently saw 15 Rothkos in Washington, D.C. I do not come to tears as some do when they sit and look for a while, but some are captivating to me.
What an insightful post, Dr. Stein. This sentence grabbed me, “Most of us search for a spark because we encounter the gradual diminution of the light.” Right. We have a never-ending need to satisfy unless we work to appreciate what is.
Thank you for reminding me of the good that can do sometimes. Thought-provoking and beautifully written!
Thanks, Wynne. We are built to become dissatisfied I in order to survive, according to Professor Wright. We have to experience hunger lest we become weak and die, pursue sexual encounters lest we have no children and the human race dies out, etc. The appreciation you describe is in a constant battle with our built in evolutionary state of being.
Authentic art is not a commodity to be marketed, consumed, and collected. Authentic art is a vehicle that connects, inspires, and heals.
It occurs to me that perhaps you mean to say it should not be treated as a commodity, rather than what it is or isn’t.
I wonder if you can expanded on this, Frank. Visual art has no control of what is done with it or to it, so I am confused by what you mean. Similarly, the Nazis played Beethoven Symphony #9 each year to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, oblivious to the meaning Beethoven intended when he wrote it over 100 years before.