Not exactly a light bulb moment

Christie's auction house in London had its first science themed auction this week, but one of its star attractions failed to sell. Lots such as one of Einstein's first essays went quickly, but a box of lightbulbs that represented Thomas Edison's patented design failed to reach the reserve price. There's probably more too it than this, it seems like people failing to appreciate how important inventors such as Edison were to the lives we live today. I know it's not the same, but I just don't quite understand how people are prepared to pay $140m for a painting that looks like a big old mess of splatterings, and yet nobody would stump up £200,000 for an artefact that represents one of the most amazing discoveries bar none. Ok, so Jackson Pollock was a talented artist and his works are very attractive. But they're not that attractive. And yes, I am biased. Art is pretty and all, but science is different. And if Thomas Edison hadn't patented the commercially viable lightbulb we wouldn't have fairy lights, and how drab a Christmas would that be?

Via News @ Nature. (PHOTO: V1V6)

Comments

[Amara]

Maybe people still remember poor Topsy the Elephant and Edison's role in the invention of the Electric Chair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

[Matt]

Speaking of Pollock, here is a great story about one of his paintings that turned up in a thrift shop - resulting in a movie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/arts/design/09poll.html?ex=1320728400&en=64ddfced00b8a716&ei=509

Who knows, maybe that next light bulb you buy will be worth a load of money.

[Matt]

Sorry about that - the article is apparently archived at the NY Times and is available only for a fee - Google Pollock and Horton together for more info. about this story.

[Burrow]

As an artist/mathematician I tend to think that paying that much for Jackson Pollack's work is ridiculous. But then I was never a huge fan. Though to be fair I do think paying that much for anything is ridiculous.

[gerry rosser]

200,000 for an artifact that represents . .

Strangely, I find the whole notion of symbolism/representation to be odd. I have light bulbs, so do other people. I see no value at all in old light bulbs. The knowledge that someone invented something, and that the invention caught on, developed technologically, and influenced life as we know it in a major way, all that is worth knowing. Perhaps even remembering the person who did it is worthwhile factoid, and the date and place too. I'm just devoid of enthusiasm for artifactism.

As for mammoth prices for paintings and other such stuff, I guess those with huge piles of money get to spend it how they want to.

[Gavin Burgess]

Umm - I seem to recall that a number of Edison's ideas were purloined, thieved or otherwise adapted from those of Tesla - you remember Tesla, the guy who wanted to make electricity free for everybody.... (Now that was a truly great idea - but of course quite economically unsound - hence you won’t hear much about him today.)

By the way – great site – even if it seems to be aimed at girls – at least its relatively intelligent which beats 99.9% of the other websites in the world. It’s probably even cleverer than mine – but then I’m only a guy (although, rumour has it, so were both Edison & Tesla) – what would I know?