$630,000,000 spent on contemporary art

Certainly there is a lot of money out there. One big problem in this country right now though is that the gap between the haves & the have nots is growing. You can buy any number of works of art for your offices & various homes but how many Manhattan properties does one need? AND the mega-rich are not generally in the market for studios & one bedrooms.

My point exactly. First off, the buyers were across the board, geographically - exactly the same way that buyers of prime Manhattan property are becoming on increasing basis. These are the type of people who can easily drop 5MM, 10MM, or more cash on a Manhattan place without even thinking.

Manhattan is, as you say, become bifurcated as well between haves and have nots. Have nots buy studios for $350,000 and one bedrooms for $750,000. The haves buy the best prime pre war and chicest new builds at $1,500 per s.f., $2,500 per s.f., and (way) up.

But I can bet you that the all these buyers who can spend $5,000,000 on a couple of pieces of wood nailed together with a piece of canvas stretched and stapled over them with, decorected with some brushstrokes of oil paint or acrylic from a tube probably want a place in Manahttan to hang that paint covered piece of canvas stretched over some wood bars in, and price is no object....

I think it is foolish to call someone buying a one bedroom for $750k a have-not. This not likely a family but a single person or a couple and this is not poverty. By have-not we are likely talking about bigger biurfications which then don't allow others who are nurses, teachers etc. to afford manhattan. Let's get real! The split is widest for the true have nots and a family is not buying a one bedroom.

I'll tell you about Little Black Arrows all day long. I'd warn that they're coming - but they're already here. As for your comparison: since I believe you are the Crain's quoter:

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070516/FREE/70516008/1044/breaking

And the Sotheby's auction was for 65 works. To #2's point: *one* hypothetical person could have bought them all.

Stop the desperate spinning and ask not for whom the Arrows fall.

If there's any desperate spinning going on, #5, we think you'd better look in the mirror! The current reality for prime Manhattan residential real estate isn't remotely congruent with the sad, sorry, jealous bile you vomit all over these boards in some misguided attempt to spin opinion. I think what everybody here REALLY wants to know is why are you so angry, and why (if the market WERE going down, which it isn't) do you seemingly take so much pleasure in schadenfreude? Are you a bitter renter? Are you an owner of a studio and you've been realizing that you'll never be able to upgrade? Or is it something else?

Sotheby's auction was 78 works evening, 500+ day
Christies was 74 evening, 500+ today
Phillips tonight is 70 evening, 300+ day tomorrow

Don't talk about things you don't know.

And by the way, this doesn't even take into account the $750,000,000+ spent LAST week on over 600 lots in the Impressionist Art sales.

You mean the same dumbasses who paid 1.9+ million for this painting

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=N08318&live_lot_id=186

(You may have to register to login in to see it, thought there is not much more to see than a bunch of dots......)

are the ones driving up Manhattan real estate? AHAHAHAHHAHAA, and you were trying to prove a point that prices were rational? You expect others to follow and match the same bidding blindness with more stupidity, instead of takin a step back and looking at the market?

If someone tried to sell a painting like that at anyplace besides Sotheby's they would be accused of being the world's greatest fraud and the people who bought the world's dumbest suckers. It would make headline news on CNN and the attorney general would be involved.

Enjoy your delusions, don't complain when the rest of dont reinforce them.

Check out this crap for 2.6 million

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=N08318&live_lot_id=180

FRANK STELLA

UNTITLED (BLACK AND WHITE MAZE)

Ewwww, definitely bid low on that one.

The tiles in my wood floor have a more interesting pattern on them then the concentric squares in that Frank Stella piece.

Hmmmm, with those prices and that many suckers maybe you can splatter a few cans of paint on a canvas and then try to pass it off as a Pollock.

What's great about these posts (#7 - #11) is that they show how glib people are when they post about things they don't know, don't understand, or can't participate in.

These same posters must be as stupid about real estate as they are about contemporary art. Which is why they'll never do well in the art market, the real estate market, the stock market, or any other market. Bulls and bears, pigs and sheep....

The same people would have said Van Gogh was terrible in his lifetime, Picasso was a hack in his lifetime, Matisse's color choice was awful in his lifetime, Rothko or Pollock were fakes in their lifetimes, and wouldn't have bought a Warhol painting of Marilyn for $225 in 1962 because he wasn't an 'important' artist. Of course, when the same person sells that $225 Marilyn for $28,000,000+ 45 years later, the poor little sheeps still go bahhh bahhh....

About 30% per annum compounded (bahhh bahhh....)

Whoa, getting a little bit ahead of yourself their #12........ problem with your sense of proportion? big difference between spending 225 - even 45 years ago and 2.6 million dont you think? And we are comparing van goghs to frank stella...... dots and squiggly lines versus some kind of image to look at.......

And although you may need to believe just because someone doesnt splurge on art.. they avoid or are poor at picking real estate or stocks..... doesnt make it true.

Wow your brilliant #12, picking a few extraordinary examples and making them a trend. I wonder if you can pick today's artist whose paiting you can buy for a 1000 that you will be able to sell for millions in a few decades. They should hire you to do some late night informercial hocking the latest greatest gee whiz business/investment opportunity in art.

"Come to our art sale. If you had bought a Warhol in 1962 you would have made yourself gazillions of dollars. Some poor old lady did it then, you can now too. You may have to wait until you are on your deathbed to see a return, but your grandchildren and great grandchildren will thank you."

Whoa - showing your ignorance yet again, #13.....problem with your common sense?

"Dots and squiggly lines versus some kind of image to look at" - do have any idea how stupid you actually sound? If you knew even a little teeny tiny bit about art history you would know that van Gogh's "...some kind of image to look at..." was considered FAR more radical, FAR more shocking, and FAR more stupid/puerile in its time than Stella's work - even Stella's crucial series of black paintings created while he was still in his 20's. As I said before, "What's great about these posts (#7 - #11 [you can now include yours]) is that they show how glib people are when they post about things they don't know, don't understand, or can't participate in."

And contrary to your assertion, there is definitely (in my experience) a correlation between markets, understanding them, and being able to be successful with them. Those that understand and excell and stocks usually are pretty good understanding the particulars inherent in the real estate market, and (in my experience) have a good sense of the art market (depending upon the type of art they collect, of course). After all, who has historically created the great collections of art in US history? Carnegie, Rockefeller, Frick, Morgan, etc. - all men who understood markets and how they work. Risk takers. People with a big vision.

Certainly not small minded, ignorant people who comment on things they don't understand and have opinions about things they don't know about.

KnowwhatImean, jellybean?

And to #14: Ummm, actually, the answer to your question is yes. I have, and continue to pick artists who I have purchased for very low prices that have sold for a massive multiple of their purchase price. It's what I do for a living.

In fact, I have charted my return rate over the past decade. On a point to point basis (not counting the work I continue to hold but only considering the works actually sold) I have returned just over 28% per annum. You read that correctly - it's not a typo. That means for every dollar my clients and I have invested in art over the past decade, I returned that dollar plus almost eleven more. This is based on 150 works bought and sold over that decade, and does not include the hundreds of works we continue to hold. Most recently (to illustrate a low value deal and high value deal), I purchased a work on paper for 900 GBP (about $1,550 at the time, give or take, in 2004) and sold it at a NYC auction in 2006 for $50,000, and we purchased a painting for $95,000 in 2003 that sold at auction in London for $2,000,000 in 2006. These examples are, obviously, not unusual.

And don't worry about that late night infomercial you mentioned - you don't have enough money to play this big league game. Sadly, once again, I have to state the obvious "What's great about these posts (#7 - #11 [you can now include yours]) is that they show how glib people are when they post about things they don't know, don't understand, or can't participate in."

Bahhh bahhh...

#15 says "If you knew even a little teeny tiny bit about art history you would know that van Gogh's "...some kind of image to look at..." was considered FAR more radical, FAR more shocking, and FAR more stupid/puerile in its time than Stella's work - even Stella's crucial series of black paintings created while he was still in his 20's"

all that means is that we live in confused and deluded times, people dont know whats good or what's not.

Stella's work (and the work of the guy who painted those dots) is not radical or shocking..... it's pretty boring actually....... unless he is some kind of mathematician trying to disguise some message in his patterns. Somehow I doubt that though

As for Carnegie, Rockefeller, Frick, Morgan, in their time there were no movies, primitive cameras, nothing like we have to today....... so shelling out a little more dough for some nice paintings was probably a little more justified.

In my experience, people who know their markets well, traders, investors, developers, etc. do not know the difference between something that's renaissance, impressionist, surrealistic or whatever other artsy fartsy label you want to put on a period/type of art. The money they make they like to spend on a nice pair of big tits or a firm piece of ass even though they are depreciating assets that sag and lose appeal over time.

Going to bed now, but my god #17, you sound more puerile and ignorant by the minute (if that's possible).

The problem is that you think that anything created now can't compete with historical precedence - which is precisely why you have no vision, and are truly a sheep. The future fifty years from now in 2057 is being created right now in front of your very eyes in 2007, but you won't recognize it (sadly) until you're standing right there at that time. Then you'll just repeat the same litany - "oh that stuff created in 2007 - now THAT was something - THAT was REAL ART - not like the confused and deluded times we live in now, people don't know what's good and what's not here in good ol' 2057..."

Stella's black paintings were indeed shocking when they first appeared in the early 60's - they changed the course of art history (admittedly, his more recent work has become much more formulaic and far less lively) whether you like it or not. But since you know NOTHING about art history at all (and once again prefer to offer informed opinions about things you don't understand or don't even have simple, basic context to make an informed decision about) all you can do is sputter and spew about what you see - and not what it MEANS.

As to Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al., are you actually as stupid as you sound? Photography was created approximately in 1850, 50 years before these men were collecting seriously at the turn of the 20th century and beyond. It had well passed through its infancy (for god's sake, what about all the civil war portraiture we see every day...) and was quite common in the middle upper classes by that time. Your knowledge of history (and art history) truly is embarrasing and appalling. At that time, between 1900 and 1920, it was not an uncommon occurance for these men to pay between $50,000 and $100,000 for an artwork (and sometimes vastly more) - and that's in 1905 or so when Van Gogh had killed himself only 15 years earlier and most collectors thought his work absolutely atrocious!

And finally, as to your assertion that "...In my experience, people who know their markets well, traders, investors, developers, etc. do not know the difference between something that's renaissance, impressionist, surrealistic or whatever other artsy fartsy label you want to put on a period/type of art..." you do now finally clearly illustrate that you know no one in the financial world operating at a high level. These people (mostly men) who collect (you must have read the articles recently about hedge fund collectors like Steve Cohen, Daniel Loeb, David Ganek, Adam Sender, etc. - you can READ, can't you?) know their art history quite well (artsy-fartsy...really...are you kidding me, you douchebag?!?).

Not that they don't appreciate a nice piece of ass, as you noted.

Now go to bed little sheep, and maybe you should only offer opinions on these boards about things you know - like where the toothless HIV+ streetwalkers in Newark are located on Saturday nights at 3:00 a.m. - bahhh bahhh bahhh....

I get it fully #16. You are a socially acceptable scam artist who found a niche playing a shell game that capitalizes on auction fever. Similiar to the way some people will pay more than retail for an item on EBay even though they can go get it cheaper at a local store. Keep putting an item up for sale and eventually some sucker in the gullible crowd will come along and buy it.

#18--- Stella's paintings are a shock to some people because they are surprised by what some people will try to pass of as artwork.

"The problem is that you think that anything created now can't compete with historical precedence"

I never said that or implied it........I see plenty of contemporary or modern art that I personally think is better than historical paintings and much cheaper. I was referring to crap that passes off as art like Stella or Pollock and prices for art in general.... Van gogh may be a good artist, but it doesn''t justify spending tens of millions of dollars on one of his paintings. Because the people who are buying it are rich, other people begin to think it's ok, when it reality it's just another form of insanity disguised as an appreciation for "culture". Maybe with the amount of money flowing around some enterprising psychiatrist will finally attach to it a new specifically labeled psychosis and starting raking in the dough.

Hedge fund managers are always looking for new opportunities, they spotted a critical mass of suckers in the art market sending prices higher and higher so they decided to ride the wave. Similiar to the way people build casinos so they can part fools from their money. (plus, they may have been a little bored with other forms of investing.) As for who I know in the financial world, I am not going to embarass them by dropping names in this forum. They are too busy enjoying that nice piece of ass to be bothered with overpaying for artwork.

I know you had a tough time in college trying to find a real profession and had to do something with that art history degree (when it comes to basic context the rest of use our eyeballs, we dont need the education to be brainwashed into what it means) because you probably can't paint yourself so you have to justify all this insanity in order to continue operating in this world (with no job in the artworld you might have to join those toothless hookers on the streets of Newark and the clientele there arent going to be satisifed with artsy fartsy musings). Not everyone else though buys into this higher order of convoluted bullsh*t.

#16 what makes the art you select for your clients any more original than the illustrations in a newspaper or magazine that someone can pick up for a buck or two?

#19/20/21: Boy - you must truly have crucial jobs in the finance industry, seeing as you're up at 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning typing responses on streeteasy...

#19: Amazing to see you simply give up and blindly lash out, flailing away just because you have neither an understanding of, nor appreciation for fine art. It's so funny. If you were to understand and appreciate fine art and the art market, and you had the money to participate, you'd say "what a terrific market - this is just great." But because you don't and you can't, you're just reduced to name calling because you can't stitch together a cogent line of reasoning, like a little child on a playground stamping their feet when the other kids won't play with them. To bring it down to your level so that you can understand what I'm trying to say to you, "sticks and stones...."

#20: I would LOVE to hear you name the artists you refer to when you state that "...I see plenty of contemporary or modern art that I personally think is better than historical paintings and much cheaper..." Now that would be a laugh, I'm sure. Care to be bold enough to name names, their, sport? And your comment that "...I was referring to crap that passes off as art like...Pollock..." Well now. Really? Pollock..crap...hmmmm. In retrospect, I think maybe you'd be better off NOT naming names, after all. And perhaps my favorite commentary of yours is "...when it comes to basic context the rest of use our eyeballs, we dont need the education to be brainwashed into what it means..." Ohhhh - I see - education BAD, what you think GOOD, states the massed-low-foreheaded-knuckle-dragging-cro-magnan-art-appreciator. I'm sure when you buy stocks (if you can afford to buy them at all) you do no research on the companies involved and simply buy 'what feels good' without the benefit of knowledge gained from basic eduction of what those companies do and their financial health. I'm sure that why you're such a whip-smart-razor-sharp-no-margin-for-error investment genius.

I don't have to justify anything to anyone. I can honestly say that I get out of bed every day, and absolutely love what I do. And in addition to that I get paid very, very well to do it. There's just no reason for you to be so threatened by and angry about things you don't
know, and things you can't understand. Just let it go - relax - in your case, I would probably have to agree that ignorance IS bliss!

And finally, to #21: I don't know what makes it "..any more original..." (well, actually, I do - I'm being disingenous, but obviously, it's not a point worth arguing about with someone of your limited mentation processes). The difference, if that's what you really want to know, is that the newspaper or magazine photo is worthless the minute you throw it out. If you try to sell it to someone, they won't buy it.

The artworks I have purchased and resold over a ten year period have returned on average 28% per annum, compounded.

That's the difference.

To #16: I work in the Banking industry and art investing is often a topic that comes up in casual conversation with clients, associates. I am not an expert in the field so usually the topic remains that way, casual. Many people are missing a reliable guide in this field. I personally have not been able to trust the opinion of many art dealers I have met. I hesistate to put my email up in the thread, but if you would like, when you have time, shoot me over an email and we can continue this discussion. My email is uesholdings@yahoo.com. If you can deliver some kind of return on art or show me some specific examples of what you are referring to above, I might be able to recommend you to a few people I know.

Hahahaha, this is funny, I was right, Miss Art Dealer does have a late night infomercial audience. Start talking about 28% returns and people (suckers) like #23 start lining up. Maybe you should put together a $300 book course. Throw some pamphlets together and you can be the Carleton Sheets of the art world. You wont admit to doing on here....... but I expect to see one hit the market soon.... hahahahahhaha.

Here ia a link for a Frank Stella piece almost identical to the one that sold for 2.6 million for all those who do not want to take the time to log in to Sotheby's

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=13816&tabview=image

Cannot blame people for thinking they wandered into Home Depot.

Look at this one:

http://www.josephklevenefineartltd.com/NewSite/StellaRabat.htm

I wonder where the inspiration for that one came from, the back of some kids kite?

#23, it would be cheaper to jerk off to the nude pics in Playboy than some overpriced painting. Playboy uses real models and at least the proportions are right compared to some of the nudes I have seen painted.

And for all of you who are reading the thread and wondering what a Pollock is, here is an example:

http://www.abstract-art.com/abstr_expressionism/ap04_pollock_32_1950.htm

Before you splurge millions on one, I suggest dropping by a kindergarten class somewhere and picking up some kid's doodlings, or bring them a canvas and a can of paint and let them have a go at it.

Uh huh.

That's why David Geffen, who just sold his Pollock for $140,000,000, is as successful as he is. That's why Steve Cohen, who just bought Geffen's Pollock, is as successful as he is. That's why you are as 'successful' (*ahem*) as you are....

Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life, son....

Hmmm, I always see these big numbers come out around this time, is May a big month for art sales?

May/November are auction months in NYC.

Hedge-Fund Manager Cohen Buys Warhol's Marilyn

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge-fund manager Steven Cohen bought an Andy Warhol image of Marilyn Monroe titled 'Turquoise Marilyn,' according to Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesman for Mr. Cohen. Cohen, of SAC Capital Advisors LLC, is among the biggest collectors of contemporary art. His holdings range from a Francis Bacon screaming pope to Damien Hirst's pickled shark.

The collector paid an estimated $80 million for Warhol's 40-inch-square Marilyn picture, acquired from Chicago collector Stefan Edlis, the New York Times reported earlier. Gasthalter
wouldn't confirm the details.

I don't know about art but I know what I like.

Ha, I love it the art "experts" or "consultants" throw these articles up about hedge funds as if most hedge fund traders truly give a sh*t about a piece of artwork. Who are you kidding? As mentioned before, most hedge fund managers are in this because its a new game, a new way to make money with something a little different. Here is a little bit of a reality check:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000088&sid=aCTxxmKVlgWI&refer=culture

"Hoffman, a former finance director at London-based auction house Christie's International Plc, says his fund isn't about beauty, truth and passion; it's about making money.

``We take a completely cold view,'' Hoffman says."

I am sure most the artists, dead or alive (some are probably rolling over in their graves), whose work is being traded would love that quote.

What a deep art discussion. Warhol! Stella! Pollock! Rothko! VOICEOVER: "This has been a Quinn-Martin Lawrence Galleries Production!"

#34:

Ummm, you DO realize that this has ALWAYS been the way things have been....right? Going back to the time that the first art market as we now know it began (in Amsterdam, mid 17th Century) the merchants who made their fortunes in the Dutch Indies Trading Companies bought and sold works by Vermeer, Dou, de Hooch, Rembrandt, and many other artists of their day in EXACTLY the same way. And as I noted under my earlier post #15, this continued at the turn of the 20th Century as well. This isn't a new paradigm, and these supposedly 'new' hedge fund art buyers today are doing exactly what financial market participants have always done. This is the way things have worked for over 350 years. But as you obviously know nothing about art history, nothing about art appreciation, and nothing about how these things relate to financial markets from a historical perspective, you're simply offering uninformed opinions about things that you know very little about to begin with. Furthermore, the idea of wealthy financial syndicates buying art as an investment play ALSO goes back to the mid 17th Century in Amsterdam - many wealthy guilds at that time put a certain amount of their investment monies in art to be traded at a later date - very common.

As I also wrote above in post #29, stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life, son....

And to #35:

I don't think Martin Lawrence Galleries sold $72,000,000 Warhols or Rothkos. They sell prints. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Just a thought, how about a few of you take your hands out of your own pants? Have a peaceful weekend.

Just a thought #37 - nothing constructive to add? Then piss off. Peace out, baby, peace out...

Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky aren't we #36? Did you really think the people on this thread are really 100% clueless on art history (granted, they dont study it all day, but you completely underestimate them) ? Shame, shame, shame..... thinking you could slip Vermeer, Dou, de Hooch, Rembrandt, into the argument where people are making fun of the prices paid for Stella, or Pollock. In Vermeer, Dou, de Hooch, Rembrandt, we at least have real artwork..... there is no comparison there. Historically they may have always been an art market, and a connection between art and finance. I doubt the old traders however were so blunt to make a statement similiar to one by a hedge fund trader expressed in the article above. Even if they thought it, they probably had class enough not to say it, or at the very least, censor the thoughts within themselves. All this focus by modern day hedge funds and wealthy investors has very little to do with their "appreciation" or "understanding" of the works they buy, sell, trade and flip. It boils down to two things in most cases, profit and ego. It's either about the expected monetary return, many don't even hang the works on a wall to be appreciated, or it's a pissing contest to see who can brag about who owns what. The works themselves are just trophies, their message or meaning not really relevant.

O no, a streeteasy thread is going to crash the art market.

Let's have the other reader's decide:

Here is the piece of chickscratch known as number 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, which sold for 140 million. Bargain? a little overpriced? an offense to real painters around the world? Click on the link to see the picture and you decide. Votes weighted towards people without art degrees, to be a judge the only requirement is a little common sense (I realize that may be a lot to ask, but I am sure the typically, reality challenged, market hyping, need help from the doorman to change a lightbulb, too weak to carry your own luggage without a porter, don't know the right end of a hammer, my parents bribed my way through ivy league education, financial experts only in their own minds, crowd of streeteasy can muster some up)

http://www.answers.com/topic/no-5-1948-jpg

#41 you forgot....... takes a cab five blocks to work through midtown traffic even though its faster to walk.

#39:

You state that "...people are making fun of the prices paid for Stella, or Pollock. In Vermeer, Dou, de Hooch, Rembrandt, we at least have real artwork....." I have bad news for you there, kiddo, but Rembrandt's work was considered as outre and bizarre in its day to the hoi polloi as Stella seems to be to people on the thread. Vermeer was traded the way Cecily Brown or Lisa Yuskavage is today - as pretty, decorative painting, and nothing more.

:...Historically they may have always been an art market, and a connection between art and finance. I doubt the old traders however were so blunt to make a statement similiar to one by a hedge fund trader expressed in the article above. Even if they thought it, they probably had class enough not to say it, or at the very least, censor the thoughts within themselves." Wrong again! Do you just keep writing stuff that you make up in your head and is in no way based on historical fact? What's up with that - won't your ego allow you to admit when you don't have the requisite expertise on a subject? In mid 17th C. Amsterdam (just to take an early example, though it goes throughout history of the past 350 or so years) guild and syndicate members as well as wealthy merchants were VERY blunt - they bought at auction (just like today), fought for the best works on the primary market (just like today), and were quite clear expressing themselves regarding their viewpoint regarding art as an asset class. I've got news for you - the general mindset of businessmen then and today towards fine art of their own generation has not changed one whit.

"...All this focus by modern day hedge funds and wealthy investors has very little to do with their "appreciation" or "understanding" of the works they buy, sell, trade and flip. It boils down to two things in most cases, profit and ego. It's either about the expected monetary return, many don't even hang the works on a wall to be appreciated..." WRONG AGAIN! The people that I named above (and others like them in my post #18) are actually QUITE educated about art, and a simple part of the reason is that when this much money is involved, they don't WANT to just hand over that much money based on what an advisor says (as they shouldn't - an informed client is the very best kind, always!). And as to not hanging works on their walls, what are you, stupid?! First off, if they're as egotistical as you say, you can BET for that amount of money they're going to hang that work on their wall. So you're just contradicting yourself. Secondly, the majority of these buyers are now building private museums specifically TO hang their work, or are donating major purchases to institutions like MoMA.

I mean, how do you think the MET or MoMA survive? They need the wealthy to donate the quality works the institution can't afford.

Nothing 'sneaky' here. Just the facts. Perhaps you should learn them before opening your mouth or sitting down at a computer keyboard. Once again, stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life, son....

Since you're so adroit at Googling, can you at least quote Animal House correctly, Century 21 jacket-wearing #43?

to #41 (whom I'm guessing is also poster #19) -

Since you're so puerile ("...the typically, reality challenged, market hyping, need help from the doorman to change a lightbulb, too weak to carry your own luggage without a porter, don't know the right end of a hammer, my parents bribed my way through ivy league education, financial experts only in their own minds, crowd of streeteasy..." - boy nothing like STEREOTYPING when you're reduced to having no reasonable argument), I'll just repeat an earlier post -

Amazing to see you simply give up and blindly lash out, flailing away just because you have neither an understanding of, nor appreciation for fine art. It's so funny. If you were to understand and appreciate fine art and the art market, and you had the money to participate, you'd say "what a terrific market - this is just great." But because you don't and you can't, you're just reduced to name calling because you can't stitch together a cogent line of reasoning, like a little child on a playground stamping their feet when the other kids won't play with them.

To bring it down to your level so that you can understand what I'm trying to say to you, "sticks and stones...."

#44:

I cannot comment on whether the other poster(s) is/are fat and/or drunk.

They ARE stupid and ignorant, for sure.

It's called paraphrasing.

And no googling necessary, TYVM.

#45 Your mind is so bent out of shape trying to wrap your mind around a can paint thrown up against a wall (or slowly spilled all over the floor like a Pollock) in order to find some earth shattering meaning in it, that you can't recognize a cogent line of reasoning when you see it.

Whoa, look at the Rothko that sold for 72 million:

http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic2a.html

Seriously, all kidding aside, this is worth that much because David Rockefeller use to have it under his bed?

#47:

And exactly what would be the whip-smart-razor-sharp-no-margin-for-error line of reasoning that you're referring to?

You've clearly proven you know nothing about art history.

You've clearly proven you know nothing about the art market.

You've clearly shown you know nothing about art appreciation.

And that, in itself, is perfectly fine. Not everybody can (or should) appreciate art. The language and meaning of art has been refined and focused over centuries and centuries, and the truth is, to appreciate fine art, you HAVE to be willing to expend and invest a modicum of time and effort. Looking at a Pollock for the first time is no different than reading James Joyce for the first time or listening to Anton Webern for the first time - these things are acquired levels of expertise.

So exactly what are you basing YOUR "cogent line of reasoning on?" Luddite opinion? It's like saying "I read comic books and listen to Britney Spears, and therefore, James Joyce's 'Ulysses' and Anton Webern's 'Symphony (Opus 21)' are stupid."

If you don't like contemporary art like Pollock, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your 'opinion.' You should, however, be prepared to admit that you 'opinion' is based on a total ignorance of the context, meaning, historicity, technique, and appreciation of the painting. Then, I suppose, it's fine to offer your 'opinion.'

Although I don't agree with you, my mind MAY be "...bent out of shape trying to wrap your mind around a can paint thrown up against a wall...," as you write. But you know what? The difference between you and me is that at least I'm WILLING to use my mind. Yours just sits in your empty cranium, unused and unloved, while you spew your stereotyped and ignorant opinions without even being willing to TRY and engage your intellect.

#49

Ahhhh, I get it now, Jackson Pollock is an "acquired" taste, something I have to spend a great deal of time and energy acquiring hoping for that eureka moment. Maybe I have spent some time, and decided its no longer a "taste" worth "acquiring". It seems more like the most expensive example of someone claiming their overpriced shit dont stink.

As for "whip-smart-razor-sharp-no-margin-for-error" lines of reasoning, Its funny you mention them because it sounds like the typical response of art history majors ( I make a distinction here between art history majors and many artists. I have met a number of artists who do not know their history, they just have talent and can paint or draw). Many -art history majors- (granted their are some exceptions) of them dont like disciplines where you need a real answer (a "whip-smart-razor-sharp-no-margin-for-error"). 2x2=4, sorry, no margin for error. Dont program or know how to use a computer right, sorry no margin for error, it wont let you make up an answer. Mechanic doesnt put your brake pads on right, sorry, I guess you'll have to put up with that awful scratching, squealing sound, for your sake I hope he is not inspired by a Pollock. The rest of humanity is struggling for survival trying to come up with real solutions to real problems, forgive us if we cant devote a huge portion of our lives to develop an anal, ego driven, artsy fartsy, useless appreciation for the chicken scratch that some people try to pass of as artwork.

And no, I dont listen to britney spears, but judging from a lot of artwork I have seen, comic books are filled with much better art and someone like you who would probably claim he/she would like to see an appreciation for artwork spread shouldn't be complaining. Its affordable for the rest of the masses and gets kids hooked at a young age. You seem more interested in exclusivity and walling it off from everyone else or putting art up in some Ivory tower where you can piss your snobbery down on the rest of us. Captain America's recent death created a much clearer, widespread message in tune with the times, than anything I have seen recently in a Chelsea art gallery.

When I was younger half the kids I knew learned how to read because of comic books, what did that 72 million dollar rothko do to inspire anyone? You might as well stare at a bar of soap for inspiration.

And as for who is the luddite? Sorry, I have met more art history majors in school who are rebelling against modern progress then other folks. Shame, shame, shame, thinking you could slip in and make stick a term that probably applies more to your colleagues..

Whether or not one thinks Pollock is art or not, I think everyone can agree that Manhattan's RE bubble is about to pop.

Whether or not one thinks Pollock is fine art or not, I think everyone can agree that Manhattan's RE bubble is about to pop.

#49:

"...Ahhhh, I get it now, Jackson Pollock is an "acquired" taste, something I have to spend...time and energy acquiring..."

Bravo (or Brava, as the case may be). Exactly.

"...Maybe I have spent some time, and decided its no longer a "taste" worth "acquiring"..."

Yes, of course that's true. But as I said earlier, even if you HAVE expended some requisite time and energy (which we both can admit, being honest about it, that you probably haven't), it's pretty clear that you don't understand the context, meaning, historicity, technique, and/or appreciation of the painting. And as I said above, that's perfectly fine. But please - at the very least, be honest about it! If your opinion is (largely) based on total ignorance, at least have the gonads to say that you don't like the painting just because you don't, that you DON'T understand it, and that you haven't truthfully taken the time to TRY to understand it! BE HONEST!

"...it sounds like the typical response of art history majors...many art history majors dont like disciplines where you need a real answer..."

Really? And just how many Art History majors do you know personally and well enough to have had meaningful exchanges with? Or are you just commenting on a knee jerk stereotype that you know nothing about? Again, at least have the gonads to admit that you probably don't know many Art History majors and probably don't hang out with then and have long term conversations - BE HONEST!

"...The rest of humanity is struggling for survival trying to come up with real solutions to real problems, forgive us if we cant devote a huge portion of our lives to develop an anal, ego driven, artsy fartsy, useless appreciation for the chicken scratch that some people try to pass of as artwork..."

This is the first comment I can say that I think you ARE being completely honest about. But since as you just have said that you can't devote the time to understanding the artwork, we're back to my initial point - if you don't like contemporary art, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your 'opinion.' You should, however, be prepared to admit that you 'opinion' is based on a total ignorance of the context, meaning, historicity, technique, and appreciation of contemporary art. Then, I suppose, it's fine to offer your 'opinion.' But on one hand you keep commenting like you've dug deep to try and understand the work and then offering your ("learned") 'opinion,' and on the other hand you write (which I think is your more truthful response) that you can't "...devote a huge portion of our lives to develop (a)... useless appreciation for the chicken scratch that some people try to pass of as artwork..." I don't have a problem with your 'opinion' - I just don't like that you're being dishonest, disingenuous, and lying about the educated position of your 'opinion.'

"...Captain America's recent death created a much clearer, widespread message in tune with the times, than anything I have seen recently in a Chelsea art gallery..."

Really? And exactly when was the last time you spent significant amounts of time in Chelsea going through galleries, having again already stated that you can't "...devote a huge portion of our lives to develop (a)... useless appreciation for the chicken scratch that some people try to pass of as artwork...?" Again, don't lie - BE HONEST!

"...when I was younger half the kids I knew learned how to read because of comic books, what did that 72 million dollar rothko do to inspire anyone?..."

First off, I also read and collected comic books (Silver Surfer my personal fave) as a kid. But your comment clearly illustrates the divide that you won't be honest about. If you can't take the time to understand what is so beautiful and moving about that Rothko (and BTW, have you ever stood in front of that Rothko and seen it in person? I'm guessing the answer is 'no.'), then again, at the very least, please be prepared to admit that your 'opinion' is based on a total ignorance of the context, meaning, historicity, technique, and appreciation of the painting. BE HONEST!

"...I have met more art history majors in school who are rebelling against modern progress then other folks. Shame, shame, shame, thinking you could slip in and make stick a term that probably applies more to your colleagues..."

Really? Again, exactly how many art history majors do you know?!? My god, by the sound of your posts, you LIVED NEXT DOOR to the art history major dormitory! For someone who doesn't really seem to care for, and is largely hostile towards contemporary art, based on your commentary, you sure seem to have intimate relations with bunches and bunches of art history majors! BE HONEST!

The only person shamed here is you. Not because you have your opinion. You're entitled to that, of course. Not because you don't like, or realistically, don't want to invest the time trying to understand and/or appreciate something you don't know or understand. I don't think you should have to do that. There's no doubt that art (whether contemporary or not) isn't for everybody - nothing is.

You're shameful because you're a liar. You attempt to pass off your 'opinions' as if you've come by them through thoughtful consideration. You haven't. You contradict youself at every turn, whenever it suits you to make a point. You constantly revert to name calling and personal attacks when no other reasoned argument will suffice. You're sloppy, arrogant, rude, and stereotype people and things simply to suit your pathetic attempt to try and stitch together a cogent argument - about things you won't be honest enough to admit that you don't know enough about to offer a reasoned opinion in the first place. Your posts undo and expose you for the sad, sorry person you actually are.

"...

Can we please take this B.S. debate off this RE board and talk about something much more meaningful - such as when this market is going to tank?

I agree with number #54.

But having read a fair portion of this thread, I have to say that #39/41/47/50 is pretty self-contradictory and doesn't make much sense. I only know a little bit about art (one class in college and the occasional visit to MoMA), but even if you don't like something doesn't mean it's not important - it just means you don't like it. Arguing whether Rothko or Pollock are important artists is like arguing whether or not the Beatles or Stones were good bands. They just were, and recent history has proved this out, even if you happen to hate popular music and only listen to Bach and Mozart.

Now, going back to our regularly scheduled programming, I STILL don't think the market is tanking, period, but a correction is a definite probability. But I don't think that's happening any time soon....

Then you haven't really followed the whole thread #55, in order to get #39/41/47/50 you have to go further up to 17,20, 34 and some of the others. Most people just hit the links and see some of the pictures and that pretty much settles it. Beattles, Stones, Bach, Mozart are all good music to me, produced by real talent, not fair to compare them to Rothko or Pollock.

Yada, yada, yada #53, when I said I spent some time I wasn't being dishonest, I took some art history in both high school and college and I dated an art major for about 3 months..... she though could actually produce some nice paintings and drawings (and as plus to the art majors, - not art history majors- I mean people in arts programs trying to learn to paint,draw, sculpt etc, - she was pretty good in bed.) Plus from time to time I do drop by many galleries, read some art publications, follow some auctions, etc. I can quickly spot what I like and most people I meet agree with me on stella, rothko, pollock and the rest of the chicken scratch school of art. I am not being dishonest at all, if something turns me off, and keeps turning me off every time I revisit the topic, how long should I keep coming back to it? as always it winds up to be a waste of time.

You on the other hand sound like those Scientologists who hang around on 42nd street, trying to hook people, telling humanity its ignorant, when you call it bullshit they keep coming back and saying, "no you just haven't read all the works of L Ron Hubbard. If you just took the time you would understand." No matter how much you tell them your not convinced or just don't care for their peculiar little universe and sideshow...... they just keep going, and going and going. Bummer, I guess from the cultist perspective I am just beyond help......

Brought to you by the Sotheby's Scam House

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982204&page=4

It's, it's, it's?.............. almost a blank piece of canvas?

Sold....... for 468,000

If someone needed a spreadsheet, they could have got it much cheaper elsewhere:

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982343&page=17

Sold for 228,000

Did we wander through Home Depot again? for a few seconds I thought it was a countertop.

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982279&page=11

Sold for - 78,000

Nope this one is not a ceramic tile from Home Depot...... I cant even get decent home improvement ideas or inspiration from this artwork:

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982345&page=17

Sold for 108,000

I have to stop going through these catalogs, because it's gets worse than I think:

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982347&page=18

Ok, art history majors explain that one to the masses.

More dots, I keep seeing dots..... this guy at least titled them dots.

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982390&page=22

Sold for 96,000. You dont need to be a hedge fund trader to conclude that's a high price per dot.

Wow.

You took art history in High School?

You dated an art major for three months, and she was pretty good in bed?

People you 'meet' agree with you about Stella, Rothko, and Pollock?

You spend your extra curricular time dropping by galleries (which ones? - name them) and
reading art publications (which ones? - name them), even though you already stated in post #50 that you're simply "...struggling for survival trying to come up with real solutions to real problems, forgive (me) if (I) cant (sic) devote a huge portion of (my life) to develop an anal, ego driven, artsy fartsy (sic), useless appreciation for the chicken scratch that some people try to pass of (sic) as artwork..."

If, as you say, when something "...keeps turning me off every time I revisit the topic, how long should I keep coming back to it? as (sic) always it winds up to be a waste of time..." then perhaps you should take that as your cue to drop the discussion right here. As I said before, you contradict youself at every turn, whenever it suits you to make a point. You constantly revert to name calling and personal attacks when no other reasoned argument will suffice. You're sloppy, arrogant, rude, and stereotype people and things simply to suit your pathetic attempt to try and stitch together a cogent argument.

Scientologists? Puh-leez. Is that the best you can do? Why not invoke Nazis, pedophiles,
serial killers, or whomever else is handy for you to try to make your lame arguments?

But I will admit, you ALMOST got it right. You stated:

"...I guess from the cultist perspective I am just beyond help..."

What you MEANT to type was:

"...I guess from the cultural perspective I am just beyond help..."

On that, we can agree!

Someone's attempt at printing money......

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982406&page=23

Looks like some sucker bought into it. That buyer was so dumb the Secret Service or Treasury Department wont even look into it. Its something that can only happen once and at a place like Sotheby's.

It may be a good thing the government largely stays out of the art market. Otherwise some official or new commissioner at the Dept of Consumer Affairs would take a stab at boosting his career by having a field day with this sale:

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982478&page=30

Sold for 168,000

It's not fair that Giuliani use to arrest the squeegee men at bridge entrances who sold junk better than this for a few bucks, while Sotheby's put's this scrap piece out there and makes a huge commission:

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982190&page=2

Sold for 656,000

Ok, Ok, Ok, I'll be fair, I have to hand it to Warhol, he was a brilliant counterfeiter..... I must grudgingly admit, he did get away with it. I see the perverse genius in this second example.

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982397&page=22

Sold for 264,000

I wonder if it was the same buyer (sucker) who bought the other one. Do they serve a lot of alcohol at these sales?

Here are those pieces mentioned above the in the thread with a better link to picture and price without the need for a Sotheby's login:

Lee Ufan - 1.9 million - dots again

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982258&page=9

Frank Stella - 2.6 million

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424982252&page=8

#55 here again...

okay dude, I read 17,20,34 (hike!) like you said, and after looking at your most recent barrage of recent artnet (whatever that is) posts, I can tell you that you have WAAAAAAY too much time ion your hands, and you're obviously don't have anybody to do it with on a saturday night over the holiday weekend. i guess the last time you probably got laid was that art major chick back in college, huh? you really need to calm down - the other persons posts look (at least somewhat) reasonable, but you are really starting to come off sounding like a crazed stalker. calm down, take a deep breath, and chill. take a walk. go see a movie. have a drink. smoke some good weed. mellow out a little, baby....I mean, scientologists? WTF?!?!

i'm going out to a joint now with friends, but let's get back to real estate tomorrow...

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. . .in the end not everyone likes the same art as you do.

Those artnet posts did not take very much time, as for crazed stalker, a little exaggerated don't you think? Did I just piss off your favorite artist? It's a message board and some threads get very long or have you not been on Streeteasy or connected to the Internet for a while. My posts in this thread were over a period of 10 days, not a short period of time. It kind of develops, I post one thing, he/she replies, I post another, he/she replies, expects an answer and I have to reply again. It's called a discussion. Plus you are probably attributing some posts to me that aren't mine. Why don't you blame him/her for replying constantly to me instead of the other way around? Or better yet, if you don't like it, why don't you just stay out of it because whatever I think of the other person I was debating, I am not going to stoop to calling them a crazed stalker just because you used the term. If someone goes further with your argument, Streeteasy might as well not have a discussion board.

As for Scientologists, that was inspired by his/her Newark streetwalker comment (42nd street use to have hookers, now it has Scientologists lurking around, Plus I ran into a few a number of times further south closer to Chelsea between 30th and 34th), except I was trying to be nicer, if you dont get the post, you just don't get the post.

wow #72, you *really* sound like a nutcase now. from the timedate on your post you're on line on a holiday weekend at 3:00 a.m. having a siezure? get a life. get a girlfriend. get laid. stop being so angry. chill baby, cchhiillll oouutt...

listen to #71 - eye of the beholder, man, eye of the beholder.

HAPPY VETERENS DAY everybody - remember our women and men overseas!

This is #71 again. In many ways - #72 is sounding like the emperor who has no clothes to those who dont agree with his taste in art. Try to see that perspective #72. If people dont appreciate the art you keep pointing out is so important for historical reasons etc, it doesn't matter to them. They see you as the emperor with no clothes. They dont see the beauty or have the same tastes. . . .that's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

That's Hans Christian Andersen for you.

Poster #71/74:

you're confused. the poster that you're referring to (#72) is the poster who's already acting all batshit against the person trying to offer the reasoned 'historical' arguments. #72 is also the same person posting all those goofy artnet auction results (58-63, 65-69).

the dude making the historical connections (for the most part, i guess) is the one simply saying that it's all a matter of opinion, but having an informed opinion is better than just offering an uneducated opinion - unless banging an art major in college for three months counts as 'education.' ;)

3:00 AM? and your point is? Have you ever went out, come back at 3 AM and the checked your email or posted a two minute reply to something? Talk about irrelevant arguments. At least with the other art dealer/consultant, whatever he/she was, I was having some type of discourse. Your posts are becoming more and more pointless. I think your the one who needs to chill out, because you are the one reading too much into many of the posts here. You might as well jump into any post on Streeteasy and start saying the same thing. Go back and read some of those artnet posts I put up, do those critiques sound angry? This thread developed over 11 days now, you are probably attributing more to me than I posted, #2,3,4,5,6 those are all different posters, I can scroll through and try to pick the others, but I dont want to waste the time on your pointless argument.

Anyway, as for real estate, given that art scene has a significant impact on development patterns, SoHo in the 80's, 90's, Chelsea and Williamsburg today, don't you think some discussion of art and how its related to real estate (and once you start there, the topic naturally turns to art itself) is bound to happen? New York in many ways, is the finance, art, media, fashion capital of the world. So don't you think a board with thousands of discussions on real estate, will eventually have a few on art (or fashion or the media industry - there is a category called "Anything")?. I haven't seen that many, so does one really bother you that much? What do you want one more thread on some other condo development? Given the people in this discussion are no more involved than any other thread I have seen, you are the one who comes across as a little batshit for trying to play forum cop on this one.

#70 Did you just recently move to New York City? If you don't get the jokes about Scientologists in, around and below 42nd Street (they have been there about 20-25 years at least) or the squeegee men at bridge entrances when did you move here? or are you just one of those Manhattan dwellers who doesn't go ten blocks beyond your apartment and never had a driver's license so they never cross a bridge?

57/72/77/78 - you're too funny, dude. so much anger. it's like blitzkrieg blast furnace intensity indiscriminately focused at anyone in your path. mellow out. it's just art and real estate. my opinion, your opinion, the curator's opinion - it doesn't matter - nobody's opinion is that important here. you make it sound like it's life or death, and everybody's out to get ya'. you really must indulge in some major mood stabilizers.

you're just a nutty guy!

Wow, #79, and your just too clueless to even notice the other side of the discussion, if you read the thread carefully, you would notice the other side has the same "blitzkrieg blast furnace intensity indiscriminately focused" responses.

breathe, #80, breathe....

#81 Go jump in and try to moderate a thread between sellers and renters or better yet, if art or real estate is too much for you, find a forum for things that are a little easier on your mind, like bicycles (since you probably dont' drive), or go fine tune your MySpace page.

Hah! The curator is back in town after a great weekend with my wife, kids, and good friends. Wow - we've been a busy bee, haven't we?!? Furiously googling artnet.com at 3:00 a.m., fending off other laid back posters, while all the time looking for more art majors to sleep with. Oh boy - mayhem!!

And to cool dude #79/81 - you CRACK. ME. UP.

Okay, but seriously. Let's just agree to disagree. We've all (probably) got more important things to do. I gotta get ready to leave for the Venice Biennale and the Basel Art Fair on friday for two weeks. Italy and Switzerland, here I come....

Bye, dont cheat on your wife with the homo boyfriends at the art fair.

It's sad that brokers have so little to do these days -- as this thread demonstrates. Oh, well. At least NYC tanning salons must be doing well.

No, I am not a broker.......... but anyway, you are right this time, we all have better things to do. It was fun but sometimes posting like this does become a waste a time. I don't want you to walk away with impression I was angry, the way #79 is implying, I'm not at all. It's the forum posting bug that sometimes gets you to post a relentless stream of thought, that's it. If you are going on real business have fun, I dont want you to waste your time here then. I dont agree with the prices paid for some of this "artwork" but I am willing to write them off as some form of psychiatric disorder and if that's the diagnosis, for now I leave the neurotic individuals to themselves, since I don't have a cure. So I call a truce and have fun wherever you are going to cheat on your wife.

Even though we do not agree with each other, it was still in some ways an interesting discussion. Bye.

hi, everybody! i'm poster 84/86 and I wrote that "...I don't want you to walk away with impression I was angry, the way #79 is implying...,"

but i still managed to post this rather hateful and terribly stereotyped post:

"...Bye, dont cheat on your wife with the homo boyfriends at the art fair...So I call a truce and have fun wherever you are going to cheat on your wife..."

wow. but really - i'm smart. and well reasoned. and well spoken. even though i still use the word 'homo' and accuse people of adultry. i'm soooo funnee. and easygoing. and not angry.

I thought you were the sophisticated world traveler with better things to do. Did I push some button with the homo cheating on your wife comments? If you can't get away from the keyboard and need to wind down, go do what you usually do and pose for a nude with your homo boyfriend and satisfy the twitch in your tightass.

yo 88 - you're addressing your lame posts to the wrong dude, dude...

like you said it was fun but sometimes posting like this does become a waste a time, so why're you sill wastin' your time?

breathe, 88, breathe.

still so angry.....ccchhhiiillllll ooouuuttt.....

Take you own advice #89 and go back to fixing your bicycle and playing with your MySpace page.

and you're the only dude here with adulterous homoerotic anal fixation, artsux guy.

just contemplate the homoerotic adulterous sphincter that so fascinates you - focus on the homoerotic sphincter - be one with the homoerotic sphincter.

breathe in, breathe out.

cccchhhiiillllll...

see, you're not angry anymore, artsux guy! but you still could use those mood stabilizers.

but like you said - this is such a waste a time for you - you got better things to do....

#91 Just because some post that wasn't meant too have that effect inadvertently turned you on, don't project your fantasies on others. Go get your cheap thrills at some bar instead of a message board. You sound like you had too much practice focusing on buttholes.

As for adulterous fantasies, its not my fault Manhattan is filled with housewives whose husbands are out with their sissy boyfriends. My own fantasies start and end with the housewife. Your focusing and zeroing in on the homo elements show where your true interests lie.

yur still the only one talking fantasies, massage boards, buttholes, adulterous behaviours, sissy boyfriends, n' homo elements.

and all this when you state this is such a waste of time for you - i can see that now, being that you need to spend all your free time lookin' at buttholes on massage boards featuring socalled (your phrase) 'homo' elements of your sissy boyfriends.

maybe you're better off surfing that crazy art site instead - at least you're learning a little culture that way rather than being so angryangryangryangryangry.

smoke some weed dude.

cccchhhhiiiillllllll oooouuuutttt....cuz' you got better things to do - right?

Want to spot the top of another market - look how Sotheby's share price is correlate to Manhattan apartment prices.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=bid;range=my;indicator=dividend+split+volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined

The interesting issue in view of this comparison is to realize that Sotheby's is in effect, like a mutual fund. It represents about 30-40 different fine arts markets (but is heavily weighted towards Impresionism and Contemporary), and just because it stock slips, doesn't necessarily mean that every art market in its 'basket' has gone down...

Yada, yada, yada, you getting boring and repetitive #93, like I said you need to take your own advice. Man who lives in glass house should throw no stones.

Isn't there a marijuana message board where you can talk about weed somewhere? Go plant some seeds and watch them grow, since your so fond of weed.

darn - two good posts, and then artsux guy (who has already stated that she's got better things to do) has to jump in again. didn't you say "bye" already? i think you did, dude.

you're still too angryangryangryangryangryangryangryangry.

better to be fond of weed than be fond of fantasies including massage boards, buttholes, adulterous behaviours, sissy boyfriends, n' homo elements, as you referred to above.
but if weed isn't your thing that's cool. how about lithium? or depakote? or xyprexa? they'd probably be better suited to your peculiar psychological hygiene, anyway.

You know your drugs all too well #97..... too much first hand experience? Careful, weed and xyprexa may not mix well.

Your the one who needs to stop playing with different chemical combinations while posting dumb replies in multiple threads.

No matter how hard you try you still sound......

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

sadly, it seems we only have first hand experience with a certain wackjob who says it's all a waste fo time but still can't stop posting her ocd angry behavior, dude. and you would know how these drugs mix from what - personal experience? oof.

you gotta ccccchhhhhiiiiillllllllll ooooouuuuuttttt.

just. say. no.

The more and more your reply #99, the more incoherent you sound and the less sense you make, at this point your just rambling and rambling. Careful you dont hit your head when you pass out on the keyboard.

incoherent and rambling people say things like...

"... typically, reality challenged, market hyping, need help from the doorman to change a lightbulb, too weak to carry your own luggage without a porter, don't know the right end of a hammer, my parents bribed my way through ivy league education, financial experts only in their own minds, crowd of streeteasy can muster some up...

"...are you just one of those Manhattan dwellers who doesn't go ten blocks beyond your apartment and never had a driver's license so they never cross a bridge?..."

"...find a forum for things that are a little easier on your mind, like bicycles (since you probably dont' drive), or go fine tune your MySpace page.."

"...Bye, dont cheat on your wife with the homo boyfriends..."

"...we all have better things to do....posting like this does become a waste a time. I don't want you to walk away with impression I was angry...I'm not at all. It's the forum posting bug that sometimes gets you to post a relentless stream of thought, that's it...So I call a truce and have fun wherever you are going to cheat on your wife... Bye..."

"...If you can't get away from the keyboard and need to wind down, go do what you usually do and pose for a nude with your homo boyfriend and satisfy the twitch in your tightass..."

talk about makin' less and less sense!

nah - you're not angry! no sir-ee! just emotionally challanged, dude. and really seem waaaay too interested in adulterous twitching 'homo' (your word) boy's asses. you'd probably be better off smacking your head and passing out on your keyboard, as you so coherently put it. i know we would certainly be better off if you did that.

i'll just say it again - you gots to cccccchhhhhhiiiiiillllllllllll oooooouuuuuutttttt....