Rice Crispie Treats Refreshments Might Be NiceJun 19th, 2006 - 18:23:13

Frankly this news invites careful scrutiny by those who love a good mystery: What is the secret to enticing people to view pictures of a hostess appreciated by a talented guest? Who really is exchanging art treasures these days? How are certain works cited beyond the auction house catalogues for popular perusal by the curious public? Where are the benevolent donors of the past with charity for artists like those who gave us fabulously rich glimpses of elegant living?

Report this comment

C. Ikehara (ikeharac20044@yahoo.com)Jul 8th, 2006 - 04:56:48

What becomes a painting most?

by C. Ikehara

- Teach us that wealth is not elegance, that profusion is not magnificence, that splendor is not beauty. (Benjamin Disraeli)


That quote came to mind when I saw all those news items proclaiming that Austrian Gustav Klimt's 1907 portrait of a Viennese aristocrat is now the most expensive painting in the world for having recently been sold for $138 million, over $30 million more than the second most expensive painting (which happens to be a Picasso).

It is impossible for me to conceive of that much money except to say that I probably won't be running into the painting's new owner at a fast food restaurant while waiting in line to order from the 'Dollar Menu.'

When I saw a photo of the painting, I could only wonder if all that gold and silver leaf used in the background accounted for its appeal(?) to 'art' collectors:

- The superior gratification derived from the use and contemplation of costly and supposedly beautiful products is, commonly, in great measure a gratification of our sense of costliness masquerading under the name of beauty. (Thucydides)

I was reminded of the album cover of one of Joan Rivers' recordings-- 'What becomes a 'semi' legend most?'--which had a photo of her head and shoulder emerging from a black mink while trying her best to look ravishing, seductive and frankly erotic.

Well, I hate to say this, Joan, but frankly you looked decadent at best and at worst, a tad vulgar. And so does that Klimt painting.

Couldn't it be thought of as being like those Faberge eggs which were made during Klimt's lifetime for the Czar of Russia to give to the Czarina each Easter while the masses faced growing desperation?

Aren't we better off having left those times behind?

Or do people's fantasies these days include death wishes where they find themselves being pelted by sparkling gemstones, slowly sinking into a quicksand pool of glowing miniature pearls, drowning in an olympic-size bathtub of bubbly vintage champagne or being smothered by layers and layers of fur--mink, ermine, fox--you name it?

Whatta way to go, you say?

Well I say why not come around to my own aesthetic criteria?:

- Rather than become addicted to the thrill of discovery, why not cultivate the pleasure of rediscovery--of the simple, basic, natural, traditional and small-scale.


(C. Ikehara is a freelance writer: 'It might be well said of me that here I have merely made up a bunch of other men's flowers, and provided nothing of my own but the string to tie them together.' [Montaigne, 1533-1592, French philosopher])

Report this comment

Compare Adele and JoanJul 8th, 2006 - 05:35:10

http://goldfish.pe.kr/klimt/image_01/02portait/Portrait%20of%20Adele%20Bloc h-Bauer%20I%20%20%20(1907).jpg

http://www.antique-hangups.com/joan.jpg

Report this comment

Here is AdeleJul 8th, 2006 - 05:41:44

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/klimt/klimt.adele-bloch-bauer.jpg

Report this comment