Talk:List of most expensive artworks by living artists

Based on the discussion in the above RfC, I propose the following changes to the article (specifically the "All Time" section). I'm working with WP:CONFLICTING and WP:RS in mind, based on my conversation above with Hocus00.

There are three changes here:

1. I've removed the sale of Merge from this list. The few existing WP:RS describing the sale^[1][2] have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale. The only source I have found which states it should be considered among the highest-selling artworks by living artists is a Nifty Gateway press release, the vendor who facilitated the sale. This is a primary source: It is not sufficient to qualify the item for inclusion.
2. I have added a bit more to the comment at the top and bottom of the table which alert people to propose NFTs for inclusion on the talk page before adding them to the table.
3. I've added a note next to the line-item for the sale of Everydays. Many WP:RS describe this sale as the "third-highest by a living artist at auction". Not much to argue with here. That said, there are many WP:RS which do not consider this an artwork sale, but something else entirely -- either a promotion or different category of sale. I've summarized these sources in WP:NPOV as part of this note. Here's what it looks like on its own:

Taken together:

I am open to ideas and suggestions! The discussion above has been productive and it seems like we are getting closer to a consensus supported by Wikipedia policy. SiliconRed (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have amended the above table based on the discussion and added Merge. The relevant discussion on this talk page initially centred on the inclusion of NFTs and it seems there is a proposal to include them which then means Merge has its place. In the above statement justifying Merge's removal SiliconRed states that "The few existing WP:RS describing the sale have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale" however one of the sources provided is from Barron's whose title is "PAK’s NFT Artwork ‘The Merge’ Sells for $91.8 Million", the article title describes merge as an artwork. If this list is for the most expensive artworks, Merge has been recognized as an artwork by secondary sources; its status as an artwork is even in the title. The argument that "at the time of sale, the artwork did not yet exist" is a Red_herring. Pak's Merge is also referred to as art in Gotham_(magazine) ^[25]. Articles in Artnet also recognize Merge as an artwork. As for the dollar value, that has also been published. We find us coming full circle if NFTs are to be included on this list - and I support of that - both Beeple's Everdays and Pak's Merge have a place on it. Pmmccurdy (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there is consensus above to add merge, Pmmccurdy. I'd recommend waiting for the RfC to be closed before adding any NFTs to this proposal, as it will lead us to having the same conversation in two threads. Additionally, your own sources don't seem to clearly support merge's inclusion in the list: The price was a record for an artwork sold publicly by a living artist, according to Nifty Gateway, a leading NFT marketplace. [...] However, the claim is debatable, depending on whether The Merge is ultimately considered to be a single piece or a series of artworks. (Barron's) and in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator,” (and other ways of calling it art using others' words, i.e. not in their editorial voice) (Gotham). I will grant that Gotham called Pak the highest selling digital artist, but that can refer to his whole collection of works and not necessarily a single art work. The fact that RS are not sure whether to classify it as a single artwork or a group of them means we should probably use caution and wait a few months at least for academic consensus to form on the issue. Many of the sources are from 2021 and NFTs are a terribly new technology, so I suggest we avoid preemptively adding in recent and badly understood types of art (if it can be considered as such). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit the proposal in-line. SiliconRed (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I amended the proposal in line and then stated my rationale and provided sources, could you kindly point to the guidelines for amending a proposed table so I may amend accordingly. It's my preference to offer a visual representation so other users may see what is there. As for the current RFC, my understanding A. C. Santacruz is that it already has NFTs included by way of the Beeple work, hence my amendment was to add Merge. With respect to answering the question "Is Merge a single artwork", it has been reported as such in the media such as in Artnet^[26] and by the artist ^[27]. Also, viewing Merge as a work of art that uses the blockchain as its medium, one can look at the smartcontract - which is available publicly - which shows clearly that all the pieces are indeed part of a larger work ^[28]. So it's clear Pak's intention that it's a single work and the contract don't he blockchain shows how these are all a single work.Pmmccurdy (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am utterly confused at what you mean by "work of art that uses the blockchain as its medium". I'd appreciate some clarification on that. Secondly, we need to base what we do here by what the RS say, and not original research. Statements like "one can look at the smart contract" or "it's clear Pak's intention that it's a single work" [sic] are, in my opinion, original research when determining whether Merge is a single artwork or a collection of them. The artist's own intentions, while useful, are also not the end-all be-all in art. The pieces are not sold as a whole, but rather individually or in subsets of the series, continually and infinitely into the future by a possibly infinite number of sellers and buyers. I strongly believe we should assess Merge in the same way that Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints are assessed. While they are part of a series, and gain value and meaning as part of this series in addition to individually, they are not parts of a single artwork but rather iterations of a theme. How different is Merge to this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I’d say it’s common courtesy not to go about editing other people’s comments. If you have suggestions for improvement, you can make that clear (as you have…) without modifying my comment such that the proposal makes no sense (I propose to remove merge, then you add it back in… seems like there is just a mistake in the proposal). SiliconRed (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted re the revised proposal SiliconRed will devise and submit an amended one shortly. Concerning the point raised by A. C. Santacruz it's an interesting question. There are articles such as the Artnet one cited above which refer to Merge as a single work and there maybe more (I haven't looked). I would have thought a link to a statement by the artist about the work wouldn't constitute original research but it certainly is in line with secondary sources like Artnet. With respect to the similarity and difference between Warhol's Monroe prints, the difference here is that Merge is a single work linked to a single smart contract (link provided above), as much each piece of Merge is related to and impacts each other. Artnet describes them as "shares" (I think that may not be the best word) but they all work and exist under the same mechanism - thus they are not a collection of say PFPs or even a bundle of pictures as was the case with Beeple or Andy Warhol's series; Merge is a single work owned by many. This is clear in news articles and the artist's intention. Related, and using the argument above A. C. Santacruz, Beeple's Everydays which is on the list is not a single work but a collection of 5000 images. The difference is, Everdays has one owner, Merge has many. Pmmccurdy (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what adding another proposal section will do beyond crowd the page. It's clear that the change you are interested in: The same as above but with Merge included in the list. Just my 2¢. SiliconRed (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As a follow-up A. C. Santacruz here's a piece which describes Merge as a single artwork published in Forbes^[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Pmmccurdy (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that an article about this talk page conversation could be used as an RS for whether an artwork should be included in this list. Barring that, the article does not even declare whether Merge should be included in the list of highest selling artworks by living artists, as other RS for works in this list do. RS & NOR are the foundations of Wikipedia, a handful of sketchy sources doesn’t amount to something being documented here. SiliconRed (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell NOR does not appear to be an issue here. With respect to using Forbes as a source a Wikipedia named user once told me SiliconRed "It's not the job of Wikipedians to make up information to compensate for global media bias." I'd extend this to calling sources "sketchy" when they meet Wikipedia RS guidelines. Pmmccurdy (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the sarcasm and deliberate misreading of my comments -- I'm not taking issue with Forbes the publication, I'm just reading and repeating the contents of the article. I'll repeat again: There are no secondary sources about this sale which have described it as among the highest-selling artworks by living artists. Coverage from Forbes, Barron's, Gotham, and ArtNews all refuse to support the claim from Nifty Gateway. By "sketchy sources" I specifically am describing the lack of support in clear writing. Phrases like "debatable" and "may or may not be accurate" or pull quotes from primary sources mean that the claim from Nifty Gateway is not verifiable. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say this. SiliconRed (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from Gotham_(magazine) whose headline reads "NFT Artist Pak Sells New 'Merging' Art for Record-Breaking $91.2 Million" ^[30]; the record being broken is the same record this very long thread is discussing. And FWIW, my comment was not intended to be sarcastic your use of sketchy was unclear and appeared, to me at least, to be a comment on the source. As for the Forbes article, I cited specifically in reference to Merge being a single work as that issue was raised. Hope that clears things up.Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote directly from Gotham: Case in point: in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator” This is from the second paragraph, I'm not digging to get this. Read your sources. SiliconRed (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I would just remove the word "dismissed" from the note so that it reads ". . . or as a separate category of sale." Hocus00 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, this proposal makes sense to me. There's a lot of wiki jargon on this talk page that I don't understand, but big picture, it seems clear that works like this need to be in this article. The only thing I'd tweak is the claim that the Beeple work was sold "as a nonfungible token." Christies (https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-NFT-to-come-to-auction-11510-7.aspx) says that it was sold WITH a non-fungible token. The NY Times also describes it the same way (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html) - it's the artwork/JPG file that sold for the money, not the blockchain link. This page is incomplete as written. Amplifysound (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I hear you on this (and stand by this proposal), but NYT says: Beeple’s collaged JPG was made, or “minted,” in February as a “nonfungible token,” or NFT, no separation of the idea of the art and the NFT. I don't see the "with" syntax in that article. Are there any WP:SECONDARY that say "with" rather than "as"? SiliconRed (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is becoming quite extensive, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on it in the next The Signpost. Anyway, I removed from the template Twitter, because come on, and Hypebeast, because WP seems to say it's a blog.

The guidance at Template:Press is a bit fluid, what should be considered "press" is not always clear, but Twitter ain't it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just found this talk, an article from The Smithsonian ^[1]Pmmccurdy (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I have created this second proposal in chart form as much of the discussion has centered on the potential inclusion or not of Pak’s Merge on this list. As such, it is better to offer a visual representation of the chart with Merge, its relevant sources and reasons for inclusion. This can also allow for more transparency in discerning between the two competing proposals. With respect to SiliconRed other additions, I support these and there seems to be agreement NFT artworks should make this list (a position I have taken from the very beginning). Where we differ is on Merge, this section adequately addresses all of the concerns rasied.

Reading through the objections or questions raised around Merge various questions have been raised. If we accept the premise that NFTs are artworks, as per SiliconRed’s proposal then Merge qualifies as an artwork to be considered on this list.

A. C. Santacruz asked if Merge was a single artwork. Merge is indeed a single work and cited as such in Artnet ^[2], it was described as a single work in a Forbes piece ^[3] and, of course, the smartcontract shows it as a single work.

With respect to dollar figures, Merge has been recognized as a 91.8 million dollar sale. Fast Money described Merge as "the most expensive NFT ever sold". The full quote is: "You are looking at 91.8 million dollars. That's how much this NFT, Merge, by the artist Pak that auctioned earlier this month. It is the most expensive NFT ever sold" ^[4] (I can find the video if required). If we accept NFTs as art – which we should – Merge qualifies. Related, a December 27, 2021, Artnet article recognises Pak’s Merge as a single NFT sale of $91.8 and continues, “Based on that sales total, Pak is now the world’s most-expensive living artist, eclipsing his fellow crypto-art master Beeple, who landed in the number three spot with his record-breaking Christie’s sale this spring (more on that below), as well as more traditional blue-chip artists such as David Hockney and Jeff Koons, whose sculpture Rabbit (1986) holds the current benchmark, selling for $91 million sale in May 2019.” ^[5]. The Barron’s article discussed already supports this reading ^[6]. The fact that Merge is a single NFT Artwork that sold for 91.8 is a fact supported by multiple sources and such entitles it to be on this list. Given this list is focused on dollar value, its sales total qualifies it to be on the list.

Recognizing and proposing Merge does not violate Wikipedia’s “No original research” policy; all of these facts have been published by secondary sources and directly support the argument that is deserving of a place on the list of most expensive artworks.

Taken together:

Constructive discussion welcome Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely don't see what the point of this is. Let the RfC close. Then we can discuss proposals. There's no point in this proposal before the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I have upset you A. C. Santacruz. As no one objected to the initial proposal, I assumed it was de rigueur to propose them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Pmmccurdy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't upset, Pmmccurdy. I hope I didn't sound passive aggressive, it is clear that you are making these proposals in good faith. It's just a bit premature to make the proposals now. The RfC ends in a week, in any case, so we won't have to wait long to discuss proposals. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The list article from ArtNews does not include Pak because it considers the sale in a different category: It calls him the world’s most-expensive living artist and explicitly distinguishes this from most expensive artwork. The Forbes citation isn't a reliable source, WP:FORBESCON. We've already discussed the other cites repeated here. Adding Merge does violate WP:NOR if there are no secondary sources to back up the claim... Generally, this proposal seems nonconstructive. SiliconRed (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent press^[1][2][3] suggests that the $100mil sale of Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God" may have never actually happened, as the artist appears to still own a large portion of the work. From NYT:

That $100-million skull, called “For the Love of God,” was Hirst’s ultimate test of whether artistic and financial value could be the same thing. It now languishes in storage in Hatton Garden, London’s jewelry district, Hirst said, owned by him, White Cube and undisclosed investors.

Hirst owns an undisclosed portion of the work and the actual $100mil sale reported in 2007 did not happen as publicized.

It's going to be impossible to verify the actual sale price of the work (which I guess would be the portion owned by "undisclosed investors"), and it would makes sense to remove the work from the list or add it in an appendix of some sort -- any other thoughts? SiliconRed (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)