as an artist myself I could imagine doing a likeness of "the Donald" on a piece of cloth covered in curency with bills to represent his true identity only using monopoly money for his mouth and hair. I would stand his figure in some mud. The work would need to be high enough so that the real currency was out of reach of the fans who profess to think he's so cool.I also think that anyone with that much money could afford a decent barber . It is also abvious that his many wives cannot find a competent hairdresser with the talent that should be appriate to the the money they charge. Mr. Hamiliton produces his worst dressed list every year, someone should come up with the worst hairstylings of the year. THE Donald and his wives would be top of the list avery year.
 

Read the Observer, thanks to Arts Journal.com, and have seen the Neue Galerie exhibition twice. I say Neue Galerie exhibition rather than Klimt because one will have missed a vital part of an exciting experience if one fails to look seriously at the works from the permanent collection of
Austrian and German artists also being shown.
As to THE klimt portrait for which the megabucks was supposedly paid, it is in one of three galleries devoted to Austrian art.The exhibition which will go from NYC to the West Coast, I believe it is, consists of the golden coated portrait (much as The Kiss and other works of that period in Klimts life) and another,larger portrait of B-B, and three landscapes,all on load from the heirs.
I suppose it is inevitable that one's first look at the gold piece will be influenced by the price tag.However, if one is devoted to art rather than price tags and the ability to say, " I saw..or I was there, etc." take a look at these pieces, go through the rest of the rather small number of pictures that the NG can display, then come back and "view", that is, really look at the pictures. Doing that will allow you to see in the two portraits archetypal Klimt painting (the next gallery has fine examples of his drawings, along with Schiele, Kubin and one or two others). Each is an outstanding representation of what Klimt was all about. I could not say to myself that the now-fabled one was any better (or worse ) than the other. Both repaid the contemplation which was possible despite what for the NG was a large crowd. A little patience is all that is required to overcome the tendency of some to stand in front of a picture and kibitz about the time they were in Vienna or the latest fashion at Bloomingdales or wherever. The three landscapes are also good examples of his work in that genre, with my favorite, an excellent, what shall we call it, townscape ?, giving me much pleasure, particularly seeing it in conjunction with an exciting Schiele townscape of almost identical composition (though more buildings) in the next gallery.
Of course, if, as was apparently was true of the Observer writer, one is there only to see the money without a taste for Klimt, it is bound to be a disappointing experience for most of us for whom anything over a few hundreds or thousands enters the illusory realm of Monopoly money.The nice thing for most of us who can see the pictures despite the dollar signs is that once they enter a public collection (if they do) they quickly merge into the context of Rembrandts, Monets, Picassos, or wherever it ends up being placed, and one can settle down to being gratified (or not) by what it is not by what it might have cost or might be sold for now.
As an aside, since the NG almost uniquely among NYC museums does not permit children below a certain age to enter. This saves a parent the problem, if it is one for you, of explaining to your, well, not littlest ones who will not know, perhaps what is going on,to your somewhat older ones, how they should react to attractive women masturbating. (At this time, I don't recall any of Schieles portrayals of men similarly engaged being shown).
Happily that is a topic on which we need comment here since I have nothing wise or foolish to say on the subject.
 

I wish I lived a bit closer Irv. I think I would be heading straight to the Schieles, where there is probably less of a crowd.
He gets my vote for favorite Austrian artist (even though his paintings may be a little clumsy).

Dion
 

I think there is a really simple component to the answer, namely recognizability. It's the same principle as why people are willing to pay more money for a shirt that shows how much it actually costed them (p.e. by a big brand-logo).
If you are going to spend that much dollars on an artwork, why not buy one that is really recognizable so people instantly know you bought an unbelievably pricey artwork. The previous record-prices were paid for a Picasso and a Van Gogh, who happen to be two other easy recognisable painters, what of course goes hand in hand with their succes. A work of Picasso that could be confused with a Braque (as many of his collages do) will never be sold for as much money as one that is undeniable a Picasso.

Besides this, Klimt's most known works all share the same characteristics as the Portrait of Adele Block-Bauer, so for a famous art gallery dedicated to Austrian art, it is simply a must-have.