WHY SO EXPENSIVE?

I really still struggle to wrap my head around the supposed reasons why certain paintings cost so much, running into scores of millions of dollars. I do understand antique value, and as an artist, I appreciate artworks, their aesthetic value, more so, the effort that goes into them. However, the insane prices attached to a lot of the so-called classics, and recently certain 'modern art' still leaves me breathless.

Being a mostly self-trained artist with little formal education in the field, I might just be exposing my chronic ignorance here. However, the value attached to paintings, like the value attached to diamonds (which of course has a lot of practical usage being perhaps the hardest substance in the world, and having unique refractive properties) is ridiculous. I think certain people just conspire to give certain things unreasonable value, then expect the rest of us, the unsuspecting public, to go along with their schemes. Hollywood is definitely in on this ploy too. There is no doubt in my mind that the most popular painting in the world is the 'Mona Lisa' by Leonardo da Vinci, which owes a portion of it's fame to Hollywood.  Please, do pardon my paranoia and comical conspiracy theory. But, take the works of the now famous Vincent van Gogh for instance into consideration.

'Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers'

By Vincent van Gogh

Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) reportedly sold only one painting, 'The Red Vineyard', in his entire lifetime for a value projected to be about $1,650 today (400 Francs). He lived out a very ordinary life, austere infact for stretches, and squalid at other times, and must have been disillusioned at some point. He was just 37years old at the time of his death, after years of mental illness and 'painful anxiety'. He probably killed himself, since it was reported that he died from a likely self-inflicted gunshot wound. The gun, however was never found.

"In just over a decade, he [Vincent van Gogh] produced more than 2,100 artworks, consisting of 860 oil paintings and more than 1,300 watercolors, drawings, sketches, and prints. His work included self portraits, landscapes, still lifes, portraits as well as paintings of cypresses, wheat fields and sunflowers."
---wikipedia.org


In 1987, almost 100 years after his death, his painting, "Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers" sold for £24,750,000, more than tripling the previous record held by Mategna's "Adoration of the Magi". This criminally insane amount of money translates into a projected value of at least $83,000,000 today!

I do admire his perseverance and tenacity even when things didn't work out. His art was hardly appreciated and he kept on trying to improve his works by studying under several 'masters' and trying out varied techniques. But this guy, was probably a little beside himself; he literally painted 37 self-portraits in a space of less than four years. He got financial assistance from his younger brother, Theo, but the money was soon spent up without even breaking even, a scenario that played out repeatedly. He had a really hard time. Fate, or should I say, the conspirators, played a fast cruel one on him. They waited for him to die before they started appreciating his works, and by mid-20th Century, he was considered one of the greatest artists that ever lived. Today, he has seven (7) paintings in the Top 50 most expensive paintings in the world, with a combined estimated value of almost 800 million dollars!

Now, like I said, putting antique and aesthetic value into consideration, this is still a misnomer.

I do like to mention here David Choe, a graffiti artist, who accepted to be paid in shares for graffiti he painted at the Facebook headquarters prior to their Initial Public Offer. At the time of Facebook's IPO, those shares were worth about two hundred million dollars!

What really makes paintings this expensive, and should they be?

Please drop your comments.

THE REWARD

“Million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen. The determination to see the idea through is what's priceless.”

---Robert Dieffenbach

We could always come up with 'reasonable excuses' for doing or failing to do something. If, for instance, we wanted to set up a coffee shop, we could come up with scores or 'reasons' why we shouldn't attempt the venture ... general decline in coffee consumption, too many people in the industry which translates to too much competition or an already saturated market, inadequate funds, not enough time to put into it, economic downturn, increase in security threats, unavailability of fresh coffee beans, 'staff management hazards', unpredictability of market forces, to mention a few ...all sorts or reasons would come up.

China's richest man, Alibaba's Jack Ma claims he discussed starting his online business with 24 of his friends. 23 of them said he should drop the idea since it was silly and undoable. The last one said he could give it a try since there was no harm in trying...if things turned out wrong, he could just go back to what he was doing initially.

An all too familiar story, I guess; at least for me it is. There are naysayers at every turn. When I say naysayers, I refer not only to people, but also to circumstances and conditions surrounding us. Our default setting is to remain where we are, maintain the status quo, and do nothing.

"Every wealth has its story; none came by wishful thinking."
---Dahlin Chigozie Ilechukwu
>
Like the footwear giant's slogan goes, "Just do it!" Start something. Bring that idea to life. Don't look at the half-empty glass, see the half-full one. Start with what you have, from where you are. You are sure to grow if you persist and stay on the right track. Life has principles. Financial success has it's too. Just do it. Start! This is the first principle to follow if you are to succeed at anything at all. You must take that bold first step.

"A sluggard says, "There's a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!"
---Proverbs 26:13 (NIV)

Does every rose have a thorn? Well, yes! I guess every blessing is accompanied by its baggage. My dad is always quick to say that risk and reward travel side by side. To make more, you have to do more. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. If you stake more, you have the chance to win more.

I stumbled on a poem by exactly that title, and can't resist sharing it here:-

"Every Rose Has A Thorn

The beauty of a Rose, its pure innocence,
The glee it brings when it’s greatness is gifted.
The heart of the beholder filled with wonder,
The senses are taken and one by one are lifted.

The eyes compare this single and individual flower,
To other types, different kinds and breeds.
By far it exceeds its expectations, its presence causes delight,
By comparison other flowers are weeds.

The nostrils take in this pleasing aroma,
The smell of perfection oozes even from its very name.
The inhaled pollen gently nests inside the smeller;
The Rose and the lover become indistinguishably the same.

But alas, perfection, beauty, love, all only mask what is hidden below, A secret that must remain.
The reality of the Rose shows a sorrowful being,
Saddened by its curse, the potential to cause great pain.

The happiness and the joy, the eternal unquestioning love,
The Rose can turn all this to scorn.
The beautiful creation, the sad and scared soul,
Only too aware of the truth; Every Rose has a Thorn."

---Daniel P Martin

There are obstacles and risks with embarking on any venture. Research 'The Greats'. They all had one thing or the other to contend with in getting to where they are now. They only arrived at their destination because they started, persisted, and kept at it. Don't let the obstacles on the path to your goals stop you. Look at the reward, that final goal, and the thorns won't hurt that much.

Jack Ma & his friends

HOW TO TRAIN THE BEST

All through recorded history, man has sought various ways to pass acquired knowledge and skills to succeeding generations. It is an established fact that the ability or inability to achieve meaningful and sustainable development in any society is tied to it's ability to pass knowledge, information and acquired skill to others within the society and to future generations.

For development to take place, one has to study, and as quickly as possible, absorb what has been already 'established', then build upon it. It would be a total waste of our time and those of our predecessors to start every process or procedure all over from the scratch.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
---Sir Isaac Newton

In chess, the works of François-André Danican Philidor in the 18th Century made it easier for players like Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderson to develop much more rapidly than they probably would have without his influence. Morphy's style of play influenced others and so did Wilhelm Steinitz through his games and published works.

The works and games of Siegbert Tarrasch and Aron Nimzowitsch, the fathers of the hypermodern school of chess, in the early part of the 20th century, paved the way for rapid chess development over the next decades. In fact most of their teachings would still remain relevant as long as the game of chess lingers. These two players radicalised the way chess development and study was viewed. Whether one accepts their scientific approach to the game or not, their well-documented journals ensures a wider grasp and understanding of the chess discipline.

"The best chess player of his day was Francois Andre Danican-Philidor... His published chess strategy stood for a hundred years without significant addition or modification. He preached the value of a strong pawn center, an understanding of the relative value of the pieces, and correct pawn formations..."
---GM Boris Alterman

In the world today, it is arguable that the 'Western World' is still ahead in development because they kept, and still keep, better records. The foregoing arguments will probably meet little resistance, if any. Where most of us won't align will be in our approval/preferrence of one teaching/training method over the other. What is the most efficient way of passing across knowledge and skill in our rapidly evolving world, where concepts, innovations and products, in certain cases, become obsolete in years, or even months, after hitting the scene? Like with every other discipline these days, the chessplayer has to quickly learn the basics, then constantly update his knowledge; more pertinent now that theory considered accurate decades ago would probably be grossly flawed or inadequate today.

> The world record for the youngest chess Grandmaster ever is held by the now 24year old Sergey Karjakin, who achieved this feat when he was just 12years and 7months old. It is no longer considered a spectacular feat to have a child trained to become a chess grandmaster by age 16. In 1991, Judith Polgar broke Bobby Fischer's long-standing record, by becoming the youngest chess grandmaster in history at age 15years and 4months. Fischer's record had stood for 33years! This was 'news' more so because she was female and Bobby Fischer was considered an exceptional genius. Bobby Fischer though had the arduous task of being his own personal trainer for the most part. Judith, on the other hand, was homeschooled with her major being chess by her chess coach dad. These days, the new normal for becoming a chess grandmaster is 15/16 years of age. In fact if by 20, one still hasn't achieved the GM title, he is considered a self-made GM - a term reserved for late bloomers, who like Fischer, probably had to organise most of their training/study themselves - if he eventually does attain the title. At 30, most chessplayers begin to relinquish hope altogether. To produce a GM within the limits of our perceived timetable is therefore something sought by chess coaches the world over. I guess the same, or at least similar 'time-cages' plague other fields of endeavour.

"A teaching method comprises the principles and methods used for instruction. Commonly used teaching methods may include class participation, demonstration, recitation, memorization, or combinations of these. The choice of teaching method or methods to be used depends largely on the information or skill that is being taught, and it may also be influenced by the aptitude and enthusiasm of the students".
---wikipedia.org

What then is/are the best training method(s)? How do we ensure students get optimal training? Numerous training curricular have sprung up all over. Various studies and researches have been carried out on this matter, mostly inconclusive or conflicting. The truth is, just like I attempted to state in an earlier article, a method that works for one student might fail when applied to another. That is why even when monozygote twins are subjected to the same environment and training, they still end up slightly different. For training to be effective, it must be subject-specific. This fact not withstanding, there are definitely certain general methods that work across board. One of this is actual practice. Someone training to be a world-class player in any sport must play in world-class events or at least simulate them. A child having the world's best coaches on his team, with the best training materials and conditions will almost certainly fail if he gets no practical feel of what he is training for. This is more so evident in a game as complicated as chess, where psychological and numerous other 'non-chess' factors like nutrition, physical fitness, number of hours spent sleeping/resting, marital/relationship status, age, as well as a lot of other mundane and sublime things, have a huge say on a player's tournament performance.

A trainer must first strive to understand his student and his needs, and only then develop a tailor-fitted regimen. We are all unique creatures, but mostly, man is what he repeatedly does. There is no substitute for practical experience. Personally, I totally believe in the 10,000 Hour Rule:- For one to become a Master in any field he/she must spend a minimum of 10,000 hours on it.

No matter how good the training methods used on a student, his interest level and passion, or absence of it, will play a major role in his development. The role of mentorship cannot be over emphasized either. The student must have an 'image' of that which he wants to become, equal or surpass. Then both the trainer and his student must believe it is attainable. The rest will turn out, as they say, like magic.

Truth be told; there is no magic formula. However, there are methods that work well for most. Once you decipher your student and his training needs, it becomes easier to train him at optimal capacity and speed.

Be Prepared!!!

Going through the Forbes List of the Fifty (50) Richest People in the World, I was astounded by the sheer percentage of those who inherited the wealth that earned them a slot on it. I guess financial success isn't tied solely to hard work, training, education, or any of the numerous other virtuous tenets we are usually encouraged to imbibe or abide by afterall. Well, we aren't all evenly priviledged. Palpably, over 90% of the world's estimated 7billion humans have to earn their own 'bread'.

Most people have to be productive in order to earn a living. More than 90% of earth's population aren't interested in being on the Forbes list. Surviving day to day proves to be a formidable distraction from this vain goal. It is arguable that there aren't enough jobs to go round. The opposite case is also arguable. Whichever side of the divide you belong to, you will be able to draw up a convincing argument. Most people won't accept certain jobs because they feel they are overqualified. Some label certain jobs as demeaning. Then for others, certain jobs are beyond reach because they don't have the requisite qualifications.

We must learn to look beyond being employed as a means of earning money. If everyone thinks this way, it's obvious that we will conclude that money-making opportunities abound. What are you good at? What do you enjoy most? With the vast, and ever increasing 'needs' of the human race, money can be earned from almost anything imaginable. Find a 'need' then meet/fill it. Be the best at whatever you do. The nuggets will come naturally. There is hardly anything as gratifying as making money out of something you love doing.

Whether one desires to be gainfully employed or earn money one way or the other, depends a lot on 'preparation'. Preparation could mean getting formal or informal education, practicing, getting a mentor/role-model, etc. Whatever the case may be, there must be ways of improving at a task that was followed by people who previously took that route. If it's a new idea, it could still be improved upon, one way or the other.

"A good (chess)player is always lucky."
---Jose Raul Capablanca

A popular saying goes thus, "Luck is when opportunity meets preparation." How true this is! The difference between competence and incompetence is preparation. No matter the field of endeavour one would like to use as a case study, we will always arrive at the conclusion that the more prepared we are, the more likely we are to succeed or excel.


"Any opening that you know well is good no matter what its reputation".
---Dan Heisman (Chess Coach)

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times".
---Bruce Lee

Improve at whatever you do. Strive to be the best at it. You can never be sure when the opportunity to show your worth, or usefulness will arise.

Be prepared!

YOU CAN BE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BE

When I stumbled on an article, on the Forbes website on the success story of Judith Polgar, and lessons learned from it, I just couldn't resist the urge to post it here. This stems largely from the fact that it is closely related to a bit I posted recently: "THE PROBLEM OF TALENT". Besides, it highly resonates with the 'blog's theme'.

Given below is the article:-


«WHAT THE QUEEN OF CHESS CAN TEACH YOU ABOUT BEING SUCCESSFUL


This month the greatest female chess player in history decided to retire.

Judit Polgar has beaten the finest male Grandmasters of the modern era, including Kasparov, Karpov, Anand and today’s world number one, Magnus Carlsen.

She is so good, she rarely even bothered entering the women’s chess championships, preferring to duke it out with the men because it was more fun.

She has been the sole female in the men’s top 100 for an astonishing two decades. She even broke the record set by Bobby Fisher to become the youngest Grandmaster in history.

She is, quite simply, a chess genius.

But it’s how she became so great that is the tale most worth telling. Because every one of us could learn a lot from it, no matter what field we aspire to be successful in.

You see, Judit didn’t reach the very top of her world by natural talent. She was part of extraordinary experiment carried out by her father, Laszlo.

Although it is commonly believed that Chess Grandmaster’s are born not made, Laszlo believed that he could train anyone to become a Grandmaster. So he advertised for a woman to partner with him with the aim of having children that he could train to play chess. Incredibly, he found someone and 3 sisters were born. Laszlo then went about the task of teaching them everything he knew about the game, and designing training methods that would constantly enhance their skill levels.

> Here are the results. Incredibly, all three became Grandmasters. And Judit became the best female player the world has ever known.

What’s the lesson from this astounding story?

I think it’s the following. Don’t rely on your natural talents – they matter far less than society believes. You can learn virtually anything. Especially in the business arena. If you’re scared of doing sales calls, you can learn how to do it well and even learn to enjoy it. If you’re bad at business financials, you can learn to handle them excellently too. If you’re chronically disorganized that’s not a genetic trait. You can study time management and end up a world class productivity expert.

There are virtually no skills you cannot acquire, particularly business skills.

But the Judit Polgar story also shows that great skill only comes after three elements are added: a) great effort, b) many years of practice and c) aiming high. Without these three components our skill levels would still improve, but not to the point of mastery.

As authors Daniel Coyle, David Shank and Geoff Colvin have each shown with their meticulously researched books on high performance, there is a path to greatness and it sure ain’t about innate talent.

It’s about constant learning, huge aspiration and putting in the hours under an excellent teacher."

---Simon Reynolds

WHY CHESS?

 "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find outside an advertising agency."
 ---Raymond Chandler
>
My dad, after years of kicking against my 'addiction' with chess, realised I was inseparable from the game, and accepted it in 'good faith'. But he always wondered how a simple board game could take up so much of my 'study time'. One day, after having been at it, again, for several hours, he asked me a question which is pretty hard for me to forget to this day: "What are the practical applications of chess?" As I began to mumble my reply, "... it helps develop one's problem solving skills, ...enhances our intuition and pattern recognition, ...it...", I suddenly realised I had never given this any thought at all. However, not to be undone by this unexpected question, I kept on explaining the best I could, and listing as many advantages of playing the game that I could muster at the time. But we both knew I hadn't answered the question.

I probably would have stopped playing chess after that incidence, had it not taken hold already. I analyse chess openings for fun, the way others would watch a movie. I read chess books the way most others would a novel. The volume of work an individual needs to do to become a master is staggering! There is probably more literature on chess than there is on most regular disciplines. Then to do well at tournaments, one would have to be physically fit, psychologically balanced, and have as few 'everyday life' distractions as possible. You have to eat right too. Today we have computer chess engines that can process billions of variations in a second; but chess still isn't solved. There is no "truth" in chess. There are numerous general rules of thumb, principles and guidelines but they all seem to have exceptions, some in a staggering 35% of the cases.

"The old rule of always capture with a pawn towards the center is widely followed, but a good 30% of the time, it is good to capture away from the center."
-Jeremy Silman
>
Why spend so much time on an endeavour which is so complicated and tasking, but has little or no practical application in actual living? The same though can be said for most other sports like soccer, ping-pong, lawn tennis, golf, basketball, etc.

Chess does aid cognitive reasoning. Research has shown that playing chess actively, pushes back Alzheimer's disease for about 10 years. The positive benefit for school kids are numerous. Children who play chess competitively are able to focus and concentrate at tasks much more than those who do not (generally speaking, of course).



"The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it. By playing at Chess then, we may learn:

1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action ...

2nd, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: - the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations; ...

3rd, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily...."

---Benjamin Franklin

It is a fact that 'good' chess players have better memory and imagination. Playing chess certainly has it's merits!

THE PROBLEM OF TALENT

 “When I looked at the life stories of geniuses” during his student years, “I found the same thing….They all started at a very young age and studied intensively.”

---Laszlo Polgar

I got enganged in a discussion with a friend who seems to know, a little, at the very least, of everything. Chess being no exception. He had apparently read extensively about the Laszlo Polgar 'Experiment'. He doesn't play chess himself, but comes by the club where we do regularly. He has a vague grasp of what it must take to become a master at the game, but that was enough to get him wowed by the achievements of the Polgar sisters.

He is of the opinion, though, that we are all born with varied talents; probably the reason why Sofia wasn't as successful at chess as her sisters, Susan and Judith. This brings us back to the 'problem' Laszlo Polgar had set out to solve, or maybe understand, decades ago: Are we born with talents or do we acquire them as we develop, through nuture? I guess no one can honestly give this a straightforward answer. Are we born with a blank hard drive or do we have some apps/programs pre-installed?
>
Children exposed to the same conditions turn out differently (at least marginally) ten out of ten times. This is true even for monozygote twins. Are certain people more suited to certain tasks from birth? Can we really say that they were exposed to exactly the same experience whenever we subject them to the same conditions? Do they end up assimilating exactly the same thing from the exact same experience?

I am of the opinion that an individual's eventual ability is influenced by talent (which is a difficult word to define) and environment. However, there is a third factor which most of us who have engaged in this debate usually fail to notice or mention. This factor, which in my own opinion, is as formidable as the other two, is CHOICE! We are not machines that can be easily predicted strictly based on input. Man's actions cannot truly be predicted.

Unfortunately, I have no conclusion on this matter, even if the considerations are strictly on my own thoughts and findings. This is the problem of 'talent'.

TO CONFORM OR NOT TO CONFORM

My chess coach once said to me, "Learn all the principles of chess, apply them religiously, obey all instructions and your game will improve". He was right! My game did improve; most people who follow the tenets above also get considerable remunerations. 

However, over time I found out that knowing when to deviate from laid-down principles sets you apart. In life just like it is in chess, one has to be outstanding in order to stand out! Truism I guess.

You must know when to go against the norm. You must know when to do more or abstain. This 'wisdom' usually emanates from experience, but is available only to those with an open mind. 

"I still maintain it's important to control the centre. But for top guys, it's all about the exceptions to the general rules."

...Grandmaster Jon Ludvig Hammer

Every great master in chess knows that you 'arrive' when you can instinctively tell when to go against the entrenched principles.

Don't be scared to stand out. Use the principles others have used to excel as guidelines, but never allow them form an absolute boundary around your thoughts and actions. History proves that most exceptional people did exceptional things.
>
"Conform" is the first law. Know when not to conform is the second.

Don't live your life in a cage designed by others. Be yourself. You were made to stand out! Live free.

PERSEVERANCE

In Chess there is a popular saying, "No one ever won a game by resigning". How true this rings in life. Life imitates chess, or is it vice versa? They are one and the same to me.

Giving up usually seems the easiest way out in most trying situations. It's probably our default setting. We hear of people committing suicides daily. We quit when we face difficulties, resistance or even the slightest challenge.

Some of us are cowards, others are just sluggards, while a vast number of us can't stand the shame or comments/criticisms of the ever ready nay-sayers or/and head shakers.

Most of us are people-pleasers and thus more worried about what others will say than what it'll take to pick ourselves up and try again, or harder.

If we keep at it, hope lingers. Once you resign, you are done! The universe has laws. Everyone succumbs to them no matter our religious, economic or social affiliations. For example, "You reap what you sow", "Everything that goes up must come down" , "You attract that which you think about, fear or meditate upon". These are all laws of the Universe! This is too, "When you give up, you fail, if you don't give up, you will succeed at some point". History is littered with proof if this law, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison.

Never give up on your dreams, goals and aspirations. You will definitely get 'there' if you keep at it!

Hang in there!


E. P. Chukwuwikeh, 20/08/2014

>