A Monet Sells for $110.7 Million, an Auction High for an Impressionist Work

A picture speaks a thousand words. Helps one to understand how some political cartoonists get into deep trouble. The "Money"(That's not a mi$-$pell) is incredibly beautiful. But, like a new Bentley convertible or the Mona Lisa, I just don't need it in my garage or house. One would have the joy and the burden of securing the art safely. I don't wear a Rolex either. I feel much more at ease without one. I love art but I can quite enjoy this beautiful image on the internet. In fact I can visit all the major museums here on the internet without an admission charge. How much did that person pay again?

Which sovereign wealth fund was raided to finance this acquisition?

For those who lament that the money should have been spent on charitable causes, this sale created the money to do just that. The proceeds will go, in part, to fund non-profit institutions in science and music; the Sotheby's catalogue so specified (I was at the auction; these auctions are open to the public). The seller bought the painting in 1986 for $2.5 million and sold it for $97 million (the actual bid; the rest is Sotheby's commission). Assuming that a sizable chunk will be donated, the money was created for these institutions that would not have been there. And we don't know the identity of the buyer; only that she (the bidder was a woman) bought other paintings at the same auction, seemingly without consulting anyone by phone. It may be intended for public display, though sadly, likely not in the US.

I can recommend the painting but I can't recommend the price. I would love to have it but I think a printed poster would suffice. Nice to be able to say you have a Monet but even nicer if like many commenters have already stated do more good for the world with the money.

This person 100% doesn't care about art. They care about their own ego. If they cared about art they would put that exorbitant amount of money into art schools for scholarships. They would donate it to public museums so they could do free programming. They would help high schools and elementary schools get the art programs they lost in the recession back. I have about $200,000 in student loans from art school. This person could pay off my whole debt and still have $110.5 mil. to spend on a Monet. Their money could have a much greater impact helping artists like me than stroking their own id whith this nonsense.

Sorry for the following bad joke, but sometimes one cannot resist: A group of art thieves were pulled over by a traffic cop and asked why they had just robbed a nearby museum. The driver responded: "We needed the monet to buy degas to make the vangogh."

If this sale was to a private buyer, I have only one thing to say. Really, it's a question to ask. How can you rest your head easy at night, drift off to sleep knowing you've spent a vast fortune on the self-indulgent privilege of having a masterwork hanging on your own wall? Whoever you are, wherever you may be, you are no one to envy.

Your Trump-GOP Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 hard at work ! Jobs created ? The artist has been dead since 1926. A few picture hangers and movers got paid a few hours labor to move and display the painting. An auctioneer got paid a few minutes of his salary. And the obscenely wealthy got another hard earned trillion or two and charged it to the country's credit card. What an economic boom ! Remember in 2020

I don't think that "grain stack" makes much sense. A "meule" in French in this case is a "hay stack" or "straw stack".

Greed and Lucre are destroying Mother Earth , There will be no more Haystacks to paint or feed anything , it’s obscene that a sweet and tender love of painting is so twisted into a horror show of wealth hanging in isolation In someone’s inner sanctum.

Isn't it amazing how well the GOP "trickle-down" theory of economics works?

it's ironic to read about the "unidentified buyer." my questions are: who is the buyer, and how did they become so wealthy? if the buyer is a human trafficker, a drug lord, an exploitative capitalist, a russian oligarch, a saudi royal cousin, then i read this article to mean that art auctions are just feeding on criminal inequality.

Sadly, so many of these works of art wind up in storage facilities, not being viewed and enjoyed. Such a shame.

Truly beautiful painting. But perhaps $110.7 million would be better spent on food, medicine, shelter and school supplies for children in impoverished parts of the world?

Art discussed in these terms makes it sound so crass, the thought of picking up a paintbrush again makes me feel sleazy. Never mind the glow from the tips of the grain and the subtle illumination of the shadow side bearing the light. It costs nothing to feel a painting, moneybags, give it to feed starving orphans instead.

I’d rather have anything by Ran Ortner. The high end market is an alt-nasdaq. It’s a game.

Those who lost deductions in the last tax "reform" and paid more (Wisconsin homeowners as one example), you can now be pleased that your contributions to the 0.1% will lead to more employment for long dead artists. Monet can now afford more paints, canvasses, and maybe a few models.

Original works of art, unlike currency, cannot be printed - the art is unique and to some, a store of value.

Things, including art, won't make you immortal.

I'm happy that all is well with the rich. Even their minions at places like Sotheby's are shocked with the hyper valuations for "masterpieces". In the meantime 45 is waging unnecessary wars that will impact lower and middle income folks the most, in direct contravention with his so called "populist" persona. What a bunch of nonsense.

In terms of Monet's body of work, I think this piece is pretty far down the list. Then again, if you've never had to work for your money, $110 million is pocket change.