a lot of so called culturally important art is garbage anyway.

The museums and other bods only value it's importance based on some shill bid price at auction.

For the record, this is unfair and misleading because it isn't something Gerhard Richter said. You made similar references about the artist a couple of times earlier in the year, although I didn't previously challenge these.

[The comments stayed in my mind because your posts are among those by forum members I look out for and read. In particular, I appreciate your militancy regarding:

(i) the accuracy of condition descriptions for works on paper, and the impact that condition has on financial value;
(ii) the limited use of quoting a secondary market price without also describing the condition of the art; and
(iii) the importance of examining works outside of their frames, since appearances can be so deceiving and framing often hides minor or serious condition issues.

The warnings you've repeatedly given are, in my opinion, slowly having an effect. They make people more conscious of purchasing risks, especially framing-related — and this is helping to initiate a desirable culture shift in buyer expectations on the forum (something that has already happened in relation to Pest Control COAs for Banksy prints).]


Your perception of what Richter said seems to be based on a March 2015 piece in The Guardian. It's worth emphasising this article is only a summary in English of a Die Zeit interview conducted with Richter in German. So there's been both translating and paraphrasing involved in the English article. The German text itself would most likely have been edited also, rather than being a faithful word-for-word transcription of the full interview.

In addition, the attempted recap by The Guardian changes the original context to the point where I believe it misrepresents and distorts what Richter actually stated. When reading it, the impression one gets of the artist is sometimes at odds with the general tone of the Die Zeit interview. At least in this respect, the article in The Guardian is a failure. And Richter does not himself use the words "moron" or "foolish".

In case you haven't yet seen the source interview, I do recommend it — using an online German-to-English translating programme if necessary. It's a measured, engaging and refreshingly candid exchange covering Richter's ambivalence about the contemporary art market:

www.zeit.de/2015/10/gerhard-richter-kunst-preise

As a related but separate issue, when considering Richter's viewpoints, it's worth factoring in his background as well. He grew up both during the War and the period of post-War economic hardship. His young adulthood (until his late twenties) was spent in a country with a socialist centrally-planned economy. This shines a different light on his market-related comments than it would if the same comments had been made by an artist raised in the US or Western Europe.

Not a sour kraut then?

Would he say the same if he got the 40 odd million for the painting?

I guess the point he made is that the artist has no control over the selling price.

A lovely piece, one that I would find a space for on my wall.
Such a rude vulgar question to ask but how much is it?

I'll PM you now.

My price is very close to £2,500.

Christ, next time I'm having mine sent to the US.

I think they sold out quite quickly, at least I was told so by a third party.

Bloody hell I should of gotten mine sent to the US. Just checked my bank statement and with VAT etc it came to £1,849.

Where are you based?

Very nice frame, congratulations!

Can I ask how the framer attached the metal picture to the frame without damaging the image?

still FS? Message me if so.

Bump Still available. Price $40,000