Why was "No 1 (Royal Red and Blue)" able to sell for $75 million?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_(Royal_Red_and_Blue)
Mark Rothko's painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" just consists of two rectangular shades of red and one rectangular shade of blue. Any ten year old could have painted it. Other than the fact that "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" was painted by the famous artist Mark Rothko, why did the painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" sell for $75 million in 2012? What am I missing here?

fourthindiana said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_(Royal_Red_and_Blue)
Mark Rothko's painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" just consists of two rectangular shades of red and one rectangular shade of blue. Any ten year old could have painted it. Other than the fact that "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" was painted by the famous artist Mark Rothko, why did the painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" sell for $75 million in 2012? What am I missing here?

It sold for that much exactly because someone was willing to pay that much. This is how ALL art is sold. One man's junk is another man's beauty. Have you ever looked at a Jackson Pollock "painting"?

Supply and demand are certainly in play. From a supply side, there are only a very small number of pioneers in the color field genre. And there is (was) only one Rothko. And only one No 1 (Royal Red and Blue) in the known universe.

From a demand side, art can be considered to be either an asset or an investment. You could put your 75 M in worse places. Clearly, as phinds indicated, there is a demand at that price level.

Finally, 75 M is not as outlandish as it seems. It is probably a conservative choice (low risk) compared to spending 330 M over 13 years for the Philadelphia Phillies right fielder, Bryce Harper (high risk).

fourthindiana said:

Any ten year old could have painted it.

While it may be true that a 10-year-old can do something like this, copying it after having seen it, not everyone (including 10 year olds) can create a new genre. For fun (and profit), why don't you try it sometime?

I have never seen this work in person and I probably would not value it that high. But you might be astounded at subtleties involved in the color and also in the amount of care and layers of technique required to get it just right. Personally, I remain amazed by the craft of most representational and abstract artists I have known.

Minimalism in general and color field paintings specifically, teach important lessons about the limitations of representational fine art. When I prepare a fresh canvas or panel with several layers of gesso prior to actually painting, I often think, "This surface is the epitome of sublime beauty; perfect, uniform and receptive, without error."

Painting color onto this "perfect surface" risks marring it introducing error. Ignoring for the sake of argument layering techniques, texture and impasto; even the most skilled brilliant painting remains a flat 2-D surface where small applications of color, tint, and shade fool human senses to perceive an image.

With that said the origins of determining the monetary value of fine art likely lies closer to the philosophies of P.T. Barnum and Carlo Ponzi than in principles of geometry. In a sense we are all in on the joke (when pedestrian art commands inordinate monetary value in excess of similar contributions to society).

fourthindiana said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_(Royal_Red_and_Blue)
Mark Rothko's painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" just consists of two rectangular shades of red and one rectangular shade of blue. Any ten year old could have painted it. Other than the fact that "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" was painted by the famous artist Mark Rothko, why did the painting "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" sell for $75 million in 2012? What am I missing here?

Everything.

You don't understand the difference between an artistic idea and craft. In this case the image Rothko sought and his means of creating it. Painting is not just expertise of technique. I doubt any 10 year old could make a reasonably good facsimile of the painting but let's extend this criticism to other creative fields. I bet you could score any Beethoven symphony, if you were provided with the score. You are about 119 years late but Einstein's Nobel is yours. You can write E=MCxMC can't you?

With Rothko, the content and the form are bound. Avant garde art often leaves people asking the same question, but keep looking and looking, and eventually you will see.

The 75 million price is the monetary value the buyer placed on it. It tells you guys with a lot of money will compete with each other to buy Rothko's work. It won't tell you anything about the work. Price never necesserily reflects aesthetic value. Rothko's work in his lifetime, his mature period from the mid 50s major paintings sold for 3,000 and rose steadily and by the time he died in 1970 prices were about 40,000.

Artiebaer said:

aesthetic value

Care to offer a definition of that term??

hutchphd said:

Care to offer a definition of that term??

It's like what a supreme court judge said about pornography ... "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."