To: Daffynition
I’m not a huge fan of “modern” art, but this is iconic and really sums up the century that had not yet started when this was created. I don’t think $80M is out of line.
4 posted on
04/30/2012 7:23:33 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
To: ClearCase_guy
" I don’t think $80M is out of line."Munch created four "Screams" using different media including crayon and pastel (chalk?) and platforms including cardboard. One of them was a commissioned duplicate (triplicate? quadruplet?)
yitbos
5 posted on
04/30/2012 7:33:39 PM PDT by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
To: ClearCase_guy
It'll bring in some bacon.
6 posted on
04/30/2012 7:33:56 PM PDT by
Daffynition
(Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
To: ClearCase_guy
There are a bunch of billionaires floating around for whom 80 million would be a small price to keep their whores happy. For an iconic work of art? Instant specialness? Bargain at twice the price.
"Whatever the market will bear..."
To: ClearCase_guy
Aren't there a lot of royalties, copyrights and trademarks that go along with it? Is there a FReeper (of course there is!) that would know?
21 posted on
04/30/2012 8:45:46 PM PDT by
IllumiNaughtyByNature
($1.84 - The price of a gallon of gas on Jan. 20th, 2009.)
To: ClearCase_guy
“I’m not a huge fan of “modern” art, but this is iconic and really sums up the century that had not yet started when this was created. I don’t think $80M is out of line.”
I always thought “The Scream” was post-WWI. Was it earlier?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson