The Modern Art Idiocy

I dont think the high prices have something to do with the quality of these paintings, but rather with rich people dumping money to evade taxes or launder dirty cash.

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
I dont think the high prices have something to do with the quality of these paintings, but rather with rich people dumping money to evade taxes or launder dirty cash.

sometimes, but trust me, they usually buy it because they think it will make them look sophisticated. Like a status symbol of being rich, something useless and incredibly expensive.

Originally posted by davesidious


What's a "nuclear trash dump"? And yes, it is subjective.

a place for radioactive trash

reply to post by MoothyKnight


What's market got to do with art?
Price tag is there because of the "market value" not because of artistic value.
Also, "historical value" is important, but it too has nothing to do with art.
Learn how to distinguish what is what for once. Make an effort.

The problem with art vs. society is that society is not the source of art. It has no means to understand art and it only pollutes it by applying its own corrupted standards to it. That is the source of confusion, the uttermost ignorance and lack of criteria.

Art is "priceless" because it belongs to a totally different sphere of existence.

Since this thread is still rolling I thought I might point out that Art (drawings, paintings and sculpture) actually does have rules and discipline.
For those of you who say "I don't get it" here are my suggestions for HOW to approach an artwork and hopefully come away with a different impression than you had initially.

There are several factors that come into consideration when viewing a work of art:
1) - The viewer. Each being an individual with differing life experiences we all have unique histories that may or may not help us to relate to, or understand any given work. This is also where the effects of the culture we were raised in will possibly bias our interpretation of said work. If an artwork "reminds" us of some place or time in our own lives then what happens is called "Tangential reveries". where our memories are resurrected and brought to the fore of our thoughts. Think of old people looking at a painting of a farm scene circa 1940 and how that triggers an emotional response from them because they were raised on a farm similar to what they see in a painting as an example.
Perhaps it's not the scene but just a single element within it that can trigger memories. These things are within us before we even look at a painting. This is one of the main reasons artists have turned away from realism due to the cultural and personal bias that may color one's impressions of an artwork.
Another reason is that realism requires a great deal of discipline and an eye for accuracy. An earlier post mentioned that photography has taken some of the reasons away from even creating realistic works.

2)- That said, there are elements to every work of visual art that anyone can use to derive enjoyment and meaning.
These are the visual elements or the elements of design. They are as follows:

Line -
Shape -
Color -
Value - the relative lightness or darkness of a work and the interplay between areas of different value.
Texture -

Each one of these elements is an avenue of expression and is manipulated by the artist to acheive an overall effect or to enhance the meaning of the total work. When viewing art it is helpful to consider EACH of the elements and decide for yourself whether they are being skillfully used or if they are enhancing the work. This really is a checklist and can help you get a better understanding of any visual work. Unfortunately, the elements of design are sorely underused and not reinforced by many Art teachers today. When you look at an artwork remember those elements and give them indivual consideration.
There are rules to the elements of design which must be mastered by the artist before they can create good artworks. Many artists (including children) have an intuitive grasp of these elements and can create designs that have beauty and meaning. Others have to learn them painstakingly to acheive the same end.

Try viewing a work from different distances, some works are quite specific about where they should be seen from for artists' intended effect to work.

Give each work your full attention and allow it to speak to you through the visual elements. Take it apart element by element then allow the whole work to flow into you. Ask yourself "what does this make me feel?" and what about the work makes you feel that way. If you do this you will have given the artist the opportunity to communicate with you and perhaps expand your world and excite your mind and soul. The artist could ask no more of the viewer than this.
I hope this helps those who would like to view art and perhaps see the value that others do in a given work of art.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Art is a source of energy and as such will outlive you.
Because you are simply a consumer and not a creator.
Change yourself and you will understand. Otherwise, it will escape you.

I do create, I work creativiely every day. When I see or sense that love and effort were invested in something, I consider that something art.

A lot of modern art appears cynical to me, as if the painter is saying "Here you idiots, I smeared a piece of paint across a page and its art"

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Okay Skyfloating.

You, as a skilled member/moderator, knew how to make a "crappy" OP, but it worked fine because the real need for an OP to be successful is to be OPERATIONAL! You started a very interesting thread because you knew of the "difference in potential" which exists between those who understand art and those who don't.

So tell me, how can this OP, be at the same time praised and denounced, the same way Rothko and Pollock provoke similar opposing judgments?


In the same manner, using the same method you did, artists create art. Art is a "source of energy" just because of the fact it creates "difference in potential", a current of energy which feeds without a fail.

What in modern world (in all times actually) often passes as art is not art at all. It is a simulation of art, pornography (porne - sell, graphein - drawn or written material) - which is actually a consumers goods posing as art! Art, on the other hand, cannot be confused, because it is the source of energy, it cannot be digested and turned into garbage.

Andy Warhol was trying to prove that consumers goods are also art. But it cannot be. What he was doing is dethroning art and establishing MARKETING, the art of manipulation, in place of real art, which is the epitome of ethics - totally opposed to marketing.

Because the aesthetics of art is the ethics. And ethics cannot be sold or bought with money. But it can be desecrated and mocked and polluted by attaching ludicrous price tags on it.

What a hypocrisy! Van Gogh never sold one painting during his life. He was humiliated by the society and the "connoisseurs" of art, and now, they sell his paintings for huge amounts of money. And still, the amount of money does not come from artistic value of his paintings. It comes from the very same misunderstanding Van Gogh was facing in his own time. The price of his paintings nowadays comes from "historical" value inserted into the "mistreatment" of his art. This market is creating its own history of madness and tag/pricing its own narcissism.

The money attached to art is always the value those hypocrites attach to themselves, showing off to everyone how much they think they're worthy.

It is all mockery, and many ignorant people fall for it in all their ignorant sincerity.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ThrIII
If something appears ambiguous then educate yourself with regard to the subject to a clearer level, if you can be bothered. If it still doesn't interest you personally then move on to something that does.

Mundane trash such as the stuck-bubble-gum mentioned earlier being given high value does interest me.

Any heartfelt creation has integrity, however "ugly".

Is it heartfelt to splash some paint on paper or stick bubble-gum to a window and call it fine art?

Well, surely it can be...yes, the action of doing anything may be heartfelt in any number of ways. Can it then be called fine art? I guess for some, yes, for others no.

Sorry, I was talking about the appreciation of paintings not their monetary value, also was more focused on the original Rothko post. Maybe I came across as a bit dry, didn't meant to sound like that, was talking generally about paintings and wasn't arguing.

Good art is up to the individual viewer, what they want to pay for it is like anything else, sold to them, like t.v. ads only more sophisticated. There's one born every minute and some of them turn out to be artists and some collectors, some other things. Individuality and perceived value or bull, it's all just about what you, they, we want to believe.

Great post btw, I hardly ever comment.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Well, that's a nice instruction piece for art appreciation. But I think this thread is not so much about just the piece of artwork itself. It's the vulgarity of the prices for a very select few. Something about it seems very skewed. There are many good artists that barely eek out a living. How is it that a priveliged few, who show very little time and involvement in the work itself, end up raised to such an incredible level of worth?

Do you think the art world is above being corrupted?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ThrIII
Perhaps your brain is more attuned to the emotive content of writing (linear) than to abstract (ambiguous) art. Or, you have a lot more experience in translating emotions from words than from pictures...a combination of the quirkiness of being human mixed with a much more sophisticated knowledge in one thing over the other. Perhaps.

Or perhaps I can sense lack of heartfelt commitment in the artist who smears poo over a wall and declares it art?

Fine, yes you probably can, so would I, they are probably taking the mick and getting payed loads of money. I'm a professional artist, a painter, have been all my life, I was just adding thoughts...I should have hit 'Quote' and didn't when I replied, my mistake I rarely post. I was trying to seriously answer a question you asked by a previous poster about why you feel more emotion from reading than from pictures.

Obviously I'm out of context, I shall go back to lurking.

this is nothing but an attack on liberals! YOU SHOULD BE BANNED FOR ATTACKING LIBEARLS YOU FREE SPEECH HATER! Your speech should be personally banned! You must be one of those Bible thumper people who believes in only Bible art!

The price of that crappy striped painting proves only one thing: that the one with money can establish values.

When a king pays 1.000.000 ducats for a piece of crap, everybody (all those sycophants) will do the same! Because the value is derived from his AUTHORITY, not from art itself. Art has no political authority in society.

Political authority may favor art or / not. That is the reality. Someone has the authority to evaluate art even if he has no clue what art really is.

Thus, the history of art is often confused with history of violence.
And the "official" history of art is in most cases censored and adapted to serve the political agenda of the present political system. Remember how Nazis had their own "criteria" of art, or Stalinists, or during French Revolution.

Capitalists too have their own "criteria" of art, and it is all about them and their power to acquire (control) art, because art is the synonym of creation and freedom.

These guys spend their lives researching and developing visual theories, creation methods, and further the commentary about art itself. You might not understand it but they still deserve recognition and respect.

Is it that we are "too dumb to understand" or that some of you have fallen for high-sounding descrptions and price-tags?

Sometimes art needs some background knowledge to be truly appreciated.
I'm not implying that people who are not appreciative of minimalist abstract art are dumb at all. It's simply a matter culture, taste and background.

Sometimes art is challenging, especially modern art by definition. Take modern dance. To me it all looks the same. A bunch people, sometimes in the nude, jumping around and flailing their arms on weird music or sounds. Personally I'd rather go to the movies, but attending enough modern dance with an open mind, I'd begin to notice the subtleties and enjoy the scenography because a lot of work actually goes into those shows, and the creators are really straining themselves to innovate. I just can't see it because I have no point of reference. But I'm not dumb for that.

People bashing art they don't understand as simplistic pieces of crap they could have made themselves are wrong and disrespectful - but not dumb.

Mediocre art and artists abound too, and some even get on the market. But as I said, I agree that the art market can be easily manipulated and fooled. Aren't all markets about manipulating and fooling?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Sunsneezer]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Sunsneezer]

I did actually visit the Rothko exhibition in London on a date, it was her idea. I have to say I was not very impressed. I didn't really understand it, well I understood it, but didn't appreciate it. I prefer paintings of places and people. Paintings that show a story and the hidden meanings within the paintings. Rothko's work just seemed to be the result of an angry man with too much paint.

Generally speaking, generalizations about art generate generic generalizations

Originally posted by piddlessometimes, but trust me, they usually buy it because they think it will make them look sophisticated. Like a status symbol of being rich, something useless and incredibly expensive.

So its not a mere suspicion that they are that dumb? They really do think it makes them look sophisticated? Something like "speaking French will make people think I am smart" - that kind of dumb?

OMG, we're doomed.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I appreciated your last post very much. But its almost as if only after so and so much talking and persuasion by people like you do I start seeing merit in Rothko and similar.

Its as if that merit is not inherent but has to be talked-into-existence artificially.

Originally posted by DangerDeath

You, as a skilled member/moderator, knew how to make a "crappy" OP, but it worked fine because the real need for an OP to be successful is to be OPERATIONAL!

I know from personal experience that crappy threads can go far and superb threads go nowhere.

The question to the people in this thread I guess, is: Are values of art-works being manipulated?

Manipulated in this sense would mean to take something that 90% would consider mundane and boost it so that 90% now think its great art.

Originally posted by Alethea
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Well, that's a nice instruction piece for art appreciation. But I think this thread is not so much about just the piece of artwork itself. It's the vulgarity of the prices for a very select few. Something about it seems very skewed. There are many good artists that barely eek out a living. How is it that a priveliged few, who show very little time and involvement in the work itself, end up raised to such an incredible level of worth?

Do you think the art world is above being corrupted?

First, thank you for your kind comments. It struck me that more than a few people didn't even know how to approach a work of art or on what basis they might be able to evaluate it. Particularly the works the OP presented.

Great works of art represent some of the very best of the creative genius of mankind. Sure, some things of poor quality are obscenely overpriced but what price could you put on the ceiling of the sistine chapel? Is it worth more than a B2 bomber at $1.2 Billion? I think so.

I don't think it matters how hard or easy any particular work was to create, what matters is the end result. It is easier to appreciate the artist that has suffered and worked diligently but to me it;s the work itself that should be judged on it's own aesthetic merit.

Is the art world corrupted? Sure, but no more so than the rest of world it is a part of. Great art has proven it;'s worth to investors over the centuries and I fully expect the trend to continue.

Here in America most schools do a very poor job of teaching an appreciation for the arts which is saddening. I don't mind hearing that cetain works of art "suck", including my own as long as they can tell me WHY it sucks, that's whats important.

Originally posted by Alethea
Well, that's a nice instruction piece for art appreciation. But I think this thread is not so much about just the piece of artwork itself. It's the vulgarity of the prices for a very select few. Something about it seems very skewed. There are many good artists that barely eek out a living. How is it that a priveliged few, who show very little time and involvement in the work itself, end up raised to such an incredible level of worth?

That was actually the original main-purpose of the OP.

Originally posted by ThrIII
Obviously I'm out of context, I shall go back to lurking.

Not at all - Ive found your posts interesting.