Not long ago, I visited the Neue Museum and saw Gustav Klimt's portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, which (at $135 million) had broken all previous records for paintings.

I love Klimt, and I loved the painting.

Today I see that the record has been broken again -- this time for Jackson Pollock's "Number 5, 1948":

Hollywood mogul David Geffen sold it for $140 million, and according to the Chicago Business News, the money may fund his bid to acquire the LA Times. (Reflecting this well known rumor, parent company Tribune's stock went down in response to the sale).

The New York Times also joins in the speculation about Geffen's possible LA Times takeover:

Just last month Mr. Geffen sold two other 20th-century paintings -- a Jasper Johns and a Willem de Kooning -- for a total of $143.5 million. Given that he is among many business figures who has expressed interest in buying The Los Angeles Times, media industry analysts speculated that he was trying to raise cash for a potential bid.

Not that it's really my business, but I've never especially liked Pollock's stuff and I definitely don't like the painting. Nor am I enamored over the idea of huge MSM titans being manipulated by paint droppings on canvases.

However, I'm fascinated by Geffen's previous remarks about Hillary Clinton:

Geffen, a generous supporter and pal of Bill Clinton when he was President, trashed Hillary's prospects last night during a Q&A at the 92nd St. Y. "She can't win, and she's an incredibly polarizing figure," the billionaire Democrat told his audience. "And ambition is just not a good enough reason." Geffen's dis was met with hearty applause.

But what does that remark have to do with Geffen checking his brake lines? Honestly, some of these conspiracy theories are too much.

And to think I was trying to write a post about art! I was all set to point out that while taste is a personal thing, I nonetheless have trouble seeing spilled paint as fine art.

What, I should search for political nuances behind every canvas?