If you click on "Wtawt" ("What the Artist Wants to Tell" or "What the artist wants to tell us"), you can expect fun. Pure fun, crazy fun, idiosyncratic fun - and yet again no fun, which does not require background knowledge. You can have fun without background knowledge with your dog on the playground, but even with the joyful interaction with another person, it would be good if you have an idea of what you are doing ...
And when it comes to presenting the most famous paintings in the world in a fun way in Wtawt , this is not possible without any background knowledge about these paintings. But don't worry, we keep the ball very flat, most of the text is really only there to stimulate your imagination and best make you laugh.
This time we want to introduce you to the work of an artist who the most expensive work of art on November 12, 2013 that has ever been auctioned in the world. And since the highest prices for works of art are only achieved at auctions today, this picture is currently the most expensive picture in the world.
With the following restrictions: It could be that another picture has been auctioned even more expensive, you will soon find out when another article from the WTAWT category treats this work of art. It could also be that a mafia boss or a dictator for a work of art fled to exile has paid even more, but unfortunately (thank God) that takes place outside of our knowledge of our knowledge and can therefore not be treated in the WTAWT category.
So the most expensive picture in the world . By whom, with what motif, why painted (and why is it so expensive)?
From Francis Bacon , it represents Lucian Freud three times because it is a triptych . It also means "Three Studies of Lucian Freud (Triptychon)" , and Francis Bacon was painted in 1969. 44 years later, at the 2013 November auction at Christie's in New York, this triptych was auctioned for $ 142.4 million .
Francis Bacon (October 28, 1909 - April 28, 1992) is an Irish painter who developed into one of the most important painters of the 20th century in the time after World War II with growing international importance.
Francis Bacon painted this picture because he mainly deals with the representation of the human body in his (figurative) works, and it probably shows Lucian Freud because he had been friends with it for over two decades.
by Reginald Gray [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Each single image of the triptych has the bacon-typical canvas size 198 x 147.5 cm, which it mostly used. The reason should have been that his studio did not allow greater dimensions. For every curious person, the question immediately arises as to why his studio did not allow a larger extent than 2 x 1.5 meters, Bacon certainly had most of his career over sufficient financial means to afford a generous studio.
Justified objection, surprising answer: Bacon really had a studio that was too small for larger screens (with interruptions) for around 30 years. It is the upper floor of an old carriage house in the Reece Mews in the London district of South Kensington, with a tight wooden rod as access and rather small windows.
Bacon had made it really comfortable in this carriage studio, with a simple and modest living space and a tiny but totally focused studio room, which had a window on every side and a skylight. Almost chaotically full with work utensils and pictures, this small room in the middle offered just enough space for the easel with the picture on which Bacon was currently working, this working atmosphere is said to have promised him very much and spurred him on.
If the 147.5 cm is confused: the canvas measures 78 × 58 inches, a canvas common in the application area of this length unit, the crooked dimensions arise from the conversion, an inch is 2.54 cm. Incidentally, the canvas is 198.12 x 147.32 cm in size.
Like all pictures of Bacon, the triptych painted in oil has no protective coat with varnish, but was framed and glazed. As can be seen frequently at Bacon, Lucian Freud, sitting on a wooden chair, is surrounded in the center of the picture of line constructions reminiscent of a cage, a kind of space in the room that excludes the viewer. Even if it is a triptych, the picture, like all of Francis Bacons, should not tell us a story. It simply shows Lucian Freud three times, without a relationship with each other, without references to meaning or hint of a dramaturgically well thought -out act.
of Procsilas (Flickr) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Bacon himself once said that he was brought up with the three-part images by the Cinemascope format of the wide wall cinema. Such an explanation is far too simple for some art scientists, they see a deeper meaning behind the three -part canvas and feel reminded of altarpieces with hinged wings.
A viewer of the picture that is not a preliminary educated also often considers why this work consists of three pictures, but he previously has to deal with some other thoughts about the "Lucian Freud", depending on his personal situation:
Alexander Steinfeld sees the artwork as a three -part poster in front of him, every time he trains on the complicated machine to use the Musculus Lumborum, the Iliopsoas muscle, the Musculus Rhomboideus Major and the Musculus Latissimus Dorsi at the same time. It probably therefore hangs like a screw in the device, deep abdominal muscles, the large back muscle and the large diamond muscle at the same time, almost a thing must be impossible.
He would also have thought it could have been possible that he had to hang upside down at the half -slave in order to train all of these muscles at the same time (and he would have done that if it should be, if you want to look good, you have to do something for it).
The "Ultimate Workout" is the absolutely trendiest fitness club in Düsseldorf, and Alexander Steinfeld is happy that he gave access here through a business friend. Alexander Steinfeld always understood the poster as a usable incentive, even because of the physically well -trained and strong shape in the three pictures.
After he just heard that the original was auctioned for over $ 140 million, it works even better with the incentive. If it is possible to achieve such income with a few such banal images, it is also possible for a good -looking person with an optimally brought body to conquer the Olympus of the business world.
Alexander Steinfeld, as a motivational trainer, looks after other sizes of the business world, for € 85 per individual hour, € 2375 per seminar, he comes to a good € 15,000 net per month. But if you want to get high, of course, you also have to maintain a corresponding lifestyle ... Care is actually too much, your apartment is tiny and far out and no one gets to see it, but the office costs a lot, and the parties and the business lunches, and the clothes with the labels very specific brands, and the leasing-BMW also ... more than 5,000,- € are never actually left for it.
In a particularly nasty training sequence, he is misleading how long he would have to work until he was connected to the purchase price of the image, in Euro 106 million ... In the case of a complex, unfortunately no longer reaching everywhere with a 10 % interest, for the optimist of the highest realistic interest volume of around 4 %, or even longer, or much longer, then the sums are much slower - Alexander cravates, Alexander has lost the desire to calculate.
Although, Alexander Steinfeld thinks, and quickly raises high how much the 150 places in the studio according to the prospectus bring up. 350,- € a month x 150 training stations, are € 52,500 a month, € 630,000 a year, a much promising start, but that will only be almost 11 million in 30 years, at 10 %. But wait a minute, the 150 places have to be cleared every 2 hours, between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m., so there are 700 places of € 350 = € 245,000, € 2,940,000 a year.
Oh nonsense, they are not all completely occupied. But when he trains, it is always fully in the studio, and even if it is empty during the day, you can probably start from a 75 % booking, i.e. a good € 500, € 2,100,000. Of which they drink a bottle of Cristal in the lounge after the training, mostly two, for 345,- € and thus at least 180,- € profit, are 300 x 360,- (eating, etc. at all not calculated, the lounge is buzzing correctly), € 108,000 a month, € 1,296,000, + the € 2,100,000 = 3.4 million, are almost the 60 million Half still missing.
Such sales prices for pictures should simply be forbidden, and the painter could not have put this bill in the head in the dream, life is simply unfair, Alexander thinks and treats himself to four bottles of champagne in the course of the evening, with a very sweet but unfortunately also very thirsty mouse.
Nathalie Bruchmüller should give a presentation of Lucian Freud for her art studies and is currently looking at a representation of the triptych by clicking. She lets the picture work on her and wander freely.
Not exactly a flattering representation, Lucian Freud looks a bit like Rocky would have looked like if he hadn't defeated Ivan Drago. The face is an unarmed color porridge in all three pictures, was Lucian Freud (except for the inherited psychotherapeutically slightly confused look, which he bears in many photos), in contrast to Francis Bacon really good?
It was probably precisely that, a fellow student, especially in the breast tone of the conviction, explained that men were just as vain as women, especially artists and homosexuals, and maybe Bacon did not get on the fact that he was already gravely believing, while the 13 -year -old Freud did not even have a tender wrinkle on his face ... Bacon was able to paint the body positions from the wrist, on which she has been working in vain for over a year.
But still, Bacon and Freud were good friends, and why did Bacon paint a friend so much? Anyone who has friends who paint one in this way no longer needs enemies? Maybe Lucian Freud was an enthusiastic gambling as Bacon, and Bacon had debt with him that he wanted to "work through" with a portrait? But no, Bacon painted the first pictures with crushed faces around 1948.
And Lucian Freud was not only the grandchildren of Sigmund Freud (which probably spoils the fun anyway), he was also a very serious and very employed painter in 1969 that he would not be able to develop into one of the most respected portrait painters of the 20th century in England.
Freud was therefore also a competitor to Bacon, and the two regularly portrayed each other in their over 30 years of friendship (which, unlike in 1945)-until the forced bacon was forced to have a down-to-earth bacon in the mid-1970s fully from the snobbish, high-society joy.
However, it is known from Bacon that he didn't care who was actually sitting in front of him as a person, he was only concerned with the representation of the body in pose, not about his model, he did not want to portray it again. "This is important for a painter and nothing else," Bacon clarified shortly before his death in 1991.
So maybe not an affront to a friend after all, and actually these crushed faces are faces, the screaming, the scream has been committed to Bacons since the early 1950s? Wanted Bacon with this late cry in a time of the agreement with Freud at least ironically that he was the superior painter of the two? Or did he just use his friend Lucian Freud to wrestle him with a cry with which he put on his entire source studies around the cry?
Bacon dealt with texts and fragments around the screams, he was just as fascinated by Nicolas Poussin's "Bethlehemitian children's murder" as well as a stand photo from Sergei Eisenstein's film Panzerkreuzer Potemkin, which shows the nanny that is just getting into the eye.
He even created a collection of medical photos, from books and magazines, large -scale shots of distorted mouths, teeth and all possible mouth diseases. He is also said to have been impressed by Georges Battales article "La Bouche" (from 1930, in the magazine Documents), in which the mouth is revealed as the vehicles of the most important experiences of man, whether food or fluid, love or anger, pain or pleasure. If you see it that way, it may not be about Lucian Freud, but about the cry itself, anger or pain, fear or pleasure?
Nathalie shakes trouble. She simply cannot do anything with this picture, you are sure to be critical of life if you always do not know how to pay for your game debts and that too much alcohol doesn't make you happy is no secret.
Francis Bacon is also said to have experienced a lot of violence, from the insurgents of the Irish-Republican sense Féin movement (at that time the organization that was also called "political arm of the IRA" was not yet a party) and probably also from his long-term friend, who was as depressed as well-known as it is known.
But can't you process it differently? According to Nathalie, the triptych is anything but the best picture of Bacon, also apart from the fact that the viewer creates a depressive mood. Processing of painful experiences is certainly good, but can't the artists offer their audience a little service and emphasize the happier sides of life?
Perhaps the blog commentator is right, who recently smeared the triptych as a hasty smoke from three perspectives and is difficult to recognize from the ugly background color?
But he also considers the works of Jean-Michel Basquiats for moderate-medium sketches of a talented seven-year-old and Mark Rothko's pictures for boring, flat-rolled twinkies (small elongated cream cheek). In his opinion, Gerhard Richter painted freestyle and Jackson Pollack's pictures crushed in a blender in a mixer as a result of warm -up exercises.
Hard assessments, certainly not objectionable from the point of view of freedom of expression-if only this commentator would not make it clear at the same time that he does not have the slightest hint of an idea of art as an idea of a creative society (he interprets Warhol's "mediocre" work as an inorigal reproduction of advertisements, Lichtenstein's pictures as a comic art, and from Jeff Koons balloon dogs he has only one get).
Even if you do not necessarily have to come up with in the Jauchzer of Christie's auctionator Jussi Pylkkänen about the many bidders that can spend over 20 million for a picture-this is about as if a poem by Sappho does not call him a poem because the look of the Kola used (rhythmic elementary units) does not appeal to him, or a poem of Beaude in Criticized land because he has too many stanzas.
Now only one thing remains: Form your own opinion - here is the link to the picture:
publicDescription.Files.wordpress.com/2013/10/bacon2
