Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums$69 million for a jpeg? (There's just too much money out there in the wrong places)
?quality=90&auto=webphttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html
After a flurry of more than 180 bids in the final hour, a JPG file made by Mike Winkelmann, the digital artist known as Beeple, was sold on Thursday by Christies in an online auction for $69.3 million with fees. The price was a new high for an artwork that exists only digitally, beating auction records for physical paintings by museum-valorized greats like J.M.W. Turner, Georges Seurat and Francisco Goya. Bidding at the two-week Beeple sale, consisting of just one lot, began at $100.
With seconds remaining, the work was set to sell for less than $30 million, but a last-moment cascade of bids prompted a two-minute extension of the auction and pushed the final price over $60 million. Rebecca Riegelhaupt, a Christies spokeswoman, said 33 active bidders had contested the work, adding that the result was the third-highest auction price achieved for a living artist, after Jeff Koons and David Hockney.
With seconds remaining, the work was set to sell for less than $30 million, but a last-moment cascade of bids prompted a two-minute extension of the auction and pushed the final price over $60 million. Rebecca Riegelhaupt, a Christies spokeswoman, said 33 active bidders had contested the work, adding that the result was the third-highest auction price achieved for a living artist, after Jeff Koons and David Hockney.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
11 replies, 1217 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
$69 million for a jpeg? (There's just too much money out there in the wrong places) (Original Post)
TreasonousBastard
Mar 2021
OP
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)1. It was actually $69.3 million.
The determination of what constitutes "art" has always been personal and subjective. Apparently at least 33 people considered this a worthy example of same.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)3. Dumb typo. But that makes it worse.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)2. A .png maybe, but a .jpg never! n/t
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)4. Ha.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,184 posts)5. I just right clicked on it for free.
And now I feel dirty.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)6. Congratulations! You now own an original pixelgraph!
Please remit $25 to the artist for your Certificate of Authenticity and to avoid future regret.
DenaliDemocrat
(1,476 posts)7. Jeff Coons, lol. PT Barnum was right
A basketball in an aquarium
Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)8. George Carlin was, as usual, right.
If you nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, some fool will buy it from you.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)9. I like Beeple's stuff, but would never pay these prices!
BTW, he's NOT a Trumper. This is farcical.
meadowlander
(4,399 posts)10. Money laundering, anyone?
nolabear
(41,987 posts)11. Crazy money, but I'd love a poster. It's very cool!