32 2 mins 7 yrs

Turner’s “Rome, from Mount Aventine” will go to auction with an estimated value of £20million. What a magnificent painting (and as someone who’s walked every inch of every road in Rome, the Aventine’s changed a bit). Click the pic for a bigger image –


So is it worth £20million? As the Austrians teach, value is subjective. There is no empirical rod or scale of value. The value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labour required to produce the good; instead value is determined only by the importance an individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

So yes, if someone wants to exchange £20million for it, it is worth £20million to that person, and that’s the end of it. And we’ll see where some of these newly printed notes are going …

At least we’re talking a real painting here, and something undeniably beautiful instead of a splurge of paint or tangle of wires, or whatever’s in the Tate Modern. I just hope it goes to a real connoisseur and someone who’ll appreciate it, and not some gauche trophy-hunter from Russia, the Middle East or China. Ugh.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

32 thoughts on “BEAUTIFUL

  1. The great Steve Wynn was saying something like that the other day.

    Personally, I would spend the money on a million other things, but that’s that and I hope that whoever buys it doesn’t accidentally scratch it.

  2. And we’ll see where some of these newly printed notes are going …

    Precisely, just where exactly do all those newly printed notes go?

  3. //Turner’s “Rome, from Mount Aventine” will go to auction with an estimated value of £20million. What a magnificent painting (and as someone who’s walked every inch of every road in Rome//

    And there was this fellow on here last week saying you “detest western civilization”.

    In the old days of Communism in E.Europe, countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia used to have laws preventing anything made before 1945 from leaving the country.
    So tourists with wallets full of hard currency couldn’t buy old art works or antiques even when they were on sale in shops, or at least couldn’t take them home.

    I think they were good laws. We all agree that the sale of some things must be prohibited for decency’s sake. I think paintings like this should be subject to the same respect.
    When he died, Turner left his entire collection to England. His paintings should stay there.

  4. Noel


    But some think that the only law is the law of the dollar, and they will not agree with that.

  5. Almost no comments
    Whats the deal?

    Personally speaking – I honestly feel like all honest opinion has been shackled on ATW. Since the last big ‘bust-up’, and David’s well-justified admonition of all the cat-fights, it has become clear to many that, no matter what you say, no matter what your opinion, it will be shouted down and swept away by a louder, more volatile voice, which knows it will get away with absolutely anything it wants, cloaking itself in faux morality.

    I’m not leaving, but I do think that I’ll comment much less here from now on. The thought of being lectured to by anyone who revels in others’ deaths just sickens me.

    Pete Moore – I apologise for putting this in a post about a quite beautiful painting. Like you say, if someone wants to pay £20 million for it, then it’s worth £20 million. Look at Falcao 😉

  6. Almost no comments
    Whats the deal?

    Boring as stale horse shit might sum it up. ( No offense intended, Pete. Lord knows you’ve tried to inject enough oxygen into the place)

    Seimi soundly nails the real problem.

  7. Agree 100% with Seimi and Daphne, honest opinion has ben shackled here, and all as a result of the bullying, and very intentional antics of just one person.

    From his first appearance here when he supposedly had difficulty with grammar and spelling, through masses of cut and paste posts, to supposedly heartfelt declarations of ‘honest intentions’, and all coupled with a general abuse of anyone who dared to criticise or even to comment on the rubbish, the man’s sole intention has been destruction, – of ATW.

    He will, of course deny that with yet another ‘poor me, accept me as I am’ insincere diatribe. Now that ATW is a mere shadow of what is once was, it is noticeable that he is posting much less previously – I suspect he feels that it is ‘mission accomplished’.

  8. Just want to say its a bit unfair to be discussing and criticising Troll when he hasn’t even been here for a few days and has not commented on this thread.

  9. Colm,

    He has done the damage and now sits back to watch the result. As with the yob who farts in the lift, – the stench ligers on!

  10. Rare art is a good thing for the ultra rich to spend money on, if they were buying stuff that everyone wanted, it would be bad for the rest of us. Spending £20 million on a painting is far better for the rest of us* than if they bought £20 million worth of land, for example.

    * Assuming that none of the ATW readership are billionaires.

  11. //Rare art is a good thing for the ultra rich to spend money on,//

    These things are generally bought by investors, who usually know or care nothing about the work other than that it’s rare, and scarcely even look at it.

    The rarity of this painting alone makes it a sound investment. All it needs really is some melodramatic tale about an execution or a ghost or love affair or something for its “value” to rocket and to fetch the 200 million USD a van Gogh gets.

    Strange as it may seem, the age of a painting has very little effect on the price it realises at an auction. Of the 20 or so priciest paintings ever sold, almost all have been modern works (impressionist or later) and several are even post-WW2.

  12. I recently visited the Museum of Socialist Art in Sofia. Great depictions of the working class struggle and I got some great propaganda prints for only a few Euro. Sure where would you get it?!

  13. Soviet Artwork to me is very much like Triumph of the Will. It is art that was is service of Immoral regimes.

  14. //It is art that was is service of Immoral regimes.//

    Not all of it. It’s hard to see what kind of immorality this fine painting is serving – Still Life with Pravda

    There were in fact cubist and even impressionist movements in the SU most of the time, and they served no regime at all.

    Besides, art is to be judged on its aesthetic merits. Are we to reject this because it was created in the service of an immoral regime?

  15. “Soviet Artwork to me is very much like Triumph of the Will. It is art that was is service of Immoral regimes.”

    I take your point, Mahons, but I’m not sure I agree with it. Art is art. To extend that point, should we reject art by dubious/immoral/criminal individuals? Quite a lot of them were deeply unpleasant to say the least.

    Not quite the same thing but…there was a wonderful book on local history written about a neighbouring town and surrounds where I am from. The author was an unknown name but the book was a magnificent achievement. Everyone bought it and was talking about it…until it was revealed the name was a pseudonym and the actual author was a convicted paedophile. Soon no-one admitted buying the book; let alone its merits.

  16. Of course most of you do realise that your art choices as evidenced here would be considered “degenerate filth” by our Aberdonian friend and would be dragged out and burned in the street were he in a position to do so.

    Now where have we seen that done before ? 😉

  17. “I am not rejecting art by dubious individuals
    I am rejecting it’s use for Immoral purposes”

    Fair enough.

Comments are closed.