Everyone recognises ‘The Scream’ by Edvard Munch. Even those people, who are not even remotely interested in art, will know its title.
It was announced this week that Munch’s most famous piece will be on display in London this April, before being sold at Sotheby’s in New York the following month. It is expected to be sold in excess of £50million, a crazy amount of money for, let’s face it, a pastel sketch!
Is it crazy to spend this much money on a piece of art? Cézanne’s ‘The Card Players’ broke the record for expensive art being sold at an astonishing £158.4 million. Maybe I am just jealous because I can’t afford to buy an original Hirst or Picasso but something doesn’t seem right, to be able to spend so much money on artwork, when a lot of the time, only the private collector will be able to view it.
I am in favour of public art: those pieces that have shaped art history should be on display for everyone to see. They should not be kept in storage, insured to the hills and out of sight of the public for fifty years, until the art collector dies. Art is supposed to be appreciated by the masses; it should be displayed in perfect light and contemplated in awe.
Anthony McNerney, head of contemporary art at Bonhams, spoke to the Independent this week with his concern, that art is merely becoming an investment to buyers, rather than bought out of an interest or passion for the work. I think that this is probably true. There is usually little comment from the buyers of such fantastic (and fantastically expensive) artworks and I do wonder: do they see the attention, care
or violence put into these pieces? Can these buyers possibly understand what this artwork means, when they are blinded by the millions of pounds that they paid to obtain it?