[Alina Albu]

And I´m off to my studio now to see if I can knock up a few of these...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-21857435

Sigh.

[TJR]

Who has this kind of money? If I wasn't still doing my taxes, I'd hop on my wheel and whip out a couple dozen as well.
John, I am just kidding! Maybe one dozen.
TJR.

[Frederik-W]

"Sotheby's said the bowl is a "remarkable and exceptionally beautiful example of Song pottery, celebrated for its thin potting, fine near-white body and ivory coloured glaze".

$2.2 million paid.
I think it is ugly. It is at best very plain.
It is one thing to have cultural/historical value or technical merit for what was achieved 1000 years ago, I do not doubt that, but it is still ugly.
The value of something in monetary terms has never been a good indicater of artistic merit.

[OffCenter]

Frederik-W, on 22 March 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

"Sotheby's said the bowl is a "remarkable and exceptionally beautiful example of Song pottery, celebrated for its thin potting, fine near-white body and ivory coloured glaze".

$2.2 million paid.
I think it is ugly. It is at best very plain.
It is one thing to have cultural/historical value or technical merit for what was achieved 1000 years ago, I do not doubt that, but it is still ugly.
The value of something in monetary terms has never been a good indicater of artistic merit.

The $3 the original buyer paid was a bit low. I'd put its worth at about $10.

Jim

[OffCenter]

DifJuz, on 22 March 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

One of you should surely contact the buyer, the other collectors, and Sotheby's and inform them of their ignorance, and of the grievous error they have made.

I have and they said they'd look into it. Worth is a relative thing. as a collectable it is worth whatever you can get for it. In this case that must be about 2.2 million dollars. That has very little to do with its aesthetic value. Obviously that is subjective, but if I saw the same bowl at a pottery sale and needed a new oatmeal bowl I might pay $20 if I was desperate. We just had this discussion over the film "Who the ######## is Jackson Pollock?" A truck driver bought a painting that friend pulled out of a dumpster for $5 but someone saw it and had "experts" come in and some were absolutely sure it was a Pollock worth several million and others said it wasn't a Pollock which made the same painting worth $5. There is no relation (or very little) between artistic merit and collectability. Sorry if this is over your head.

Jim

[Claypple]

OffCenter, on 22 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

DifJuz, on 22 March 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

One of you should surely contact the buyer, the other collectors, and Sotheby's and inform them of their ignorance, and of the grievous error they have made.

There is no relation (or very little) between artistic merit and collectability. Sorry if this is over your head.

Jim

I agree! Ever thought about why French expressionists' art was so cheap during their lives and became so expensive after they died?
Partly because people who make investments rely on somebody's opinion, not their own taste.
Even in the modern time, there are a few painters whose art is highly appreciated and paid for, but I, personally, could not care less about it.
I do not see what others see in it, and most likely they do not see anything either! The power of suggestion is a big driver there.

[TJR]

In this case, the value increased because there were 5 people in a bidding war. If there was no one who wanted it, it wouldn't be of any value.My buddy just came back from Costa Rica. His brother owns a hectare of property there with rental cottages on it. Two years ago it was worth a million and a quarter. Now that he wants to sell it, he can only get $850,00 for it. The economy has tanked. Make you wonder how a bowl can be worth 2.2 million, and a piece of land with tangible buildings on it can be worth less.
TJR.

[Chris Campbell]

I think this is a case where you have to see it in person, hold it. Then you would appreciate that it was created 1,000 years ago when " Europe was beginning the manufacture of pottery vessels which allowed direct-heat cooking and food storage, replacing the older practice of hot rock cooking."
The amount of skill required to produce this vessel comes from the previous 19,000 years of Chinese pottery making.

[OffCenter]

Chris Campbell, on 25 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

I think this is a case where you have to see it in person, hold it. Then you would appreciate that it was created 1,000 years ago when " Europe was beginning the manufacture of pottery vessels which allowed direct-heat cooking and food storage, replacing the older practice of hot rock cooking."
The amount of skill required to produce this vessel comes from the previous 19,000 years of Chinese pottery making.

I would have an appreciation of the age of the pot and its historical value but that just affects collectability not the beauty of the pot. Seeing Ai Weiwei drop a Han Dynasty vase upsets me even though it's an ugly pot. I don't know the purpose of the quote but I assume it's not there to imply that European pottery is only 1,000 years old.

Jim

[Chris Campbell]

I don't know the purpose of the quote but I assume it's not there to imply that European pottery is only 1,000 years old.

I was only comparing what European potters were doing 1,000 years ago. : > )
These pots are from 5 to 6,000 BC in Eastern Europe and since the forms are so lovely and they appear to know about burnishing I would expect they had been involved in pottery for a long while.

Attached File(s)

•  pots.jpg (94.62K)
  Number of downloads: 33

[Amy Waller]

Archaeologist Damien Huffer has written about the provenance issues raised by this bowl:

Hide and Go Seek?