Rockfeller's White center Rothko sold for $ 72,840,000

[themightyjoseph]

That is one of the worst and most over rated paintings I have ever seen. It amasses me that some fucktard morons actually consider this to be good art that they would actually pay $70+ million for such garbage.

[JeffersonDinedAlone]

If I owned this crap, I would sell it, too, when stupidity becomes insanity. And piss myself laughing as I deposited the check. Absolutely.

[stankler]

im working on one now...let the bidding begin at $1000 ..do i hear anything..fair warning ! sold .

[GrapeJuiceFruit]

he looks like bill from true blood

[DoctorLawyerWhatever]

Hysterical. These fraud whores are more entertaining than a comedy movie.

[artrca1000]

Plus sellers premium.

[hoplite46]

that was  a lot of money then!!!

[corvette13kane]

buyers premium adds around 12percent to closing bid

[marvesmarves]

going to auctions is one of my past time when i am bored

[marco7patrizio]

Tobias Meyer is the auctioneer,superior!

[riddleronthefoof]

Am I misunderstanding something? Didn't it close at 65 million?

[MmmmJoel]

Buyers pay a 20% commission.

[corvette13kane]

@riddleronthefoof Its called Buyer's Premium. 12% is added onto the hammer price. its how the auction house makes money, therefore Sotheby's earned $7,840,000 selling this painting. The buyer is the one who pays the extra, the seller takes home the 65million.

[essdotverma007]

@riddleronthefoof

It was the Internet Bid that closed the 72,800,000 bid.

[JeffersonDinedAlone]

@essdotverma007 There wasn't a bid for that amount. The auction house fees are over and above the sale price, which brought the total to the higher figure.

[oosh79]

@riddleronthefoof auction house fees between 10-15 percent

[DeeLikeA]

I saw the Rothko show in Tate Modern In london - but it was disapointing...For me his is not so big ! Is his place really worth in the Art History...

[blursst]

interesting thing about rothko's is that because of the paint he used, modern reproductions are truer to the way they originally looked (that's not to say they are worth more, obviously.)

[IMMERSIVA]

This is the idiot speaking to a very idiot indeed who hasn't seen the video to speak like that.

this IS the auction for the Rockfeller's White center Rothko sold for $ 72,840,000

of course the painting you see in the background is bacon, which was sold slighly before white center...

I was there.

and you are an idiot2, again best wishes from idiot1 (who's answering to you)

[malikraza11]

this is nt the rothko painting.which idiot put this clip in

[burnit01]

I can beat that easily after robbing Bill Gates..

[AgnesShadbolt]

Tip for 2008/9 London Artist: Stuart Ridley

[dildopsychologist]

it doesn't suck but i don't want to talk about it - people shall pay 73mln for Rotko, becourse they can't pay 373mln for Rembrandt - it is in museums 4ever! But market must go on, relax, and have a nice entertament.

[BSPrince]

Lol, "becourse". Sorry, it is "because" ^__^

[davidleeroth123]

wow...modern art really SUCKS!!!! i cant believe people actually find inspiration while looking at this absolutely god-awful, piss-poor excuse for a painting...ill bet a retarded monkey could paint a more interesting picture....i guess money cant buy taste...

[you317]

I won't argue the validity of modern art ... judging a work by its price tag or its "nonsense" effect on you is pointless.

[guitarmanK1982]

Anyoe 'could' have painted it - but rothko 'did' paint it.

Read his book 'philosophies of art' - it won't elucidate anything regarding his later artwork, but it will make you realise a)how dated and outmoded your view of art is, and b)how good Rothko was.

[janelso33]

It says it sold for $72,840,000, and I know that's true. But then how come at the end he says "sold for $65 million"???

[Vladdyboy]

taxes?

[janelso33]

This happened May 2007? LOL, I thought it was from the 50s or 60s due to the washed out color in the video and muffled sound. Huess it was someone's cell phone.

[catsnake7]

rothko was a genius and this will soon be considered a good price

[ragemanchoo82]

Ah, ok I googled it. I'm surprised, actually. Google "Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose Rothko" and you'll see what I mean. $72 million+? :|

The painting behind the auctioneer is Francis Bacon's "Study From Innocent X". It sold for $52,680,000.

[ragemanchoo82]

When was this auction?

[arthurdaley]

look out for hungarian art in 2008 akos Zsoter ect. The hungaryn art markets about to blow......

[gpvx2007]

The Bacon i can understand at over $50m but the Rothko... i like Rothko but this is too much, and a Raphael sold for only $38M

[retroact1ve]

He didn't merely adapt or copy any individual painter like many others have. He was truly one of a kind who did what he did for the love of art not money, his paintings reflected his mood at any given time, they reflected what he thought of the human condition.

[danbit5]

true,btw i hit the thumbs down by mistake,its weird how paintings transform,but its a window,people have been touched its okay to cry i did,wwell i know what i seen

[retroact1ve]

"incredible - Rothko is good but not fantastic. I am not he will stand the test of time." The problem is that different people have different tastes. There are high end tastes and low end tastes, not to mention some people love crappy art and some people love true masters like Rothko.

[vieryuiop]

Rothko's paintings are extraordinary but they don't belong in this money thing we've got so caught up in.

[MaryseCasol]

What is great about art is that emotions are tied to simple numbers...

[micr0cosm]

Lol ;D

[jeffreycollins]

They are quite beautiful. I'm amazed one sold for that much, when his previous record wasn't anywhere near that mark. Guess I'll never be able to love on in my own home, where it would truly be loved and not treated as a COD or a stock as so many others.

[lornawatt]

are you kidding me? all i had to do was stare at one in the tate modern and i, a doubter, was enthralled for life. he'll totally stand the test. have you ever stood in front of a properly lit one?

[ThomGreen666]

Yeah you can't mock it unless you've seen a rothko in person. Same with a van gough.

[Straussian]

Thanks, Slate, for linking to this video on 5/22/2007.

[ALLDALI]

incredible - Rothko is good but not fantastic. I am not he will stand the test of time.