Why would someone pay $140M for Jackson Pollock's "No. 5"?
Jackson Pollock, "No. 5" (1948). Image credit: JacksonPollock.org.
Tim Schneider’s answer: Most of the answers so far are correct, in that they orbit the two clearest factors in attaching a $140M price tag to “No. 5”: art historical merit, and 21st century plutocracy. Combining those two threads, the argument unfurls as something like, Pollock revolutionized art…
Been sort of an unorthodox week, so I’m linking to my answer to this question on Quora in lieu of writing a from-scratch post. Follow me on there if you dig it. I’ve only started to dive into that platform in the past week or so, but I expect to be answering (and asking) a lot more questions there going forward.