[ksaj]

Time will tell. If he manages to auction it off at a profit some time in the future, something is definitely up.

In London Ontario a few decades ago, there was a furor over a million+ dollar painting purchased by the museum. The artist wasn't and still isn't famous. It was entirely blue with a single red stripe down the center. But at least it was a real thing.

[moistly]

Barnett Newman was huge in the abstract movement. Like, founding member, broke new ground, legit The Man. “Wasn’t and still isn’t famous” is bs.

Voice of Fire cost less than $2M and is now worth over $40M. The furor was also bs.

VoF/B.N. were not scams.

https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman

https://www.moma.org/artists/4285

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

[gpas]

But abstract paintings, controversial as they may be, are still paintings.

Even if no painting is involved, take Fontana's "Tagli" (cuts), at least you have something in your hands.

I mean, as a museum curator, after investing some money, I have something to attract guests and sell tickets. Imagine going to an exhibition to admire an invisible artwork, that requires a whole new level of faith.

I rest convinced that buying nothing, even if this nothing is backed by a certificate of authenticity, is a stupid thing to do. But since auction houses are everything but stupid I feel that's something else going on, and no, it's not abstract art.