The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by lastmanstanding
If you did some research on color theory, linear psychology and understood the general motive behind modern art Im sure your perspective would change quickly. A true piece of art is priceless but yes unfortunately there are exploiters everywhere. A work of art is a theory and has a narrative, you just have to discover it. Creative people make the world go round, not closed minded people like yourself.

Color therapy costs $15 Dollars a session, not 72 Million. I guess the act of paying 72 Million makes it that valuable from that point forward.

Maybe thats the whole point of paying that much for art - to be someone who defines value.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Eek ... I don't mean to pick on you but there's all kinds of wrong with that particular statement imho. Does one have to take music lessons to appreciate music, or does one have to be a musician to have his opinion considered valid?

No, but it IS quite likely that someone with either academic or practical experience within a field will have greater appreciation for difficult works than a layman. Non-musicians judging John Cage or Philip Glass pieces are on par with non-artists judging Rothko or Pollock.

Bro. Skyfloating, if you ever find yourself in Houston, I recommend you visit the Rothko Chapel. It is one of the most spiritual places I've ever been.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
No, but it IS quite likely that someone with either academic or practical experience within a field will have greater appreciation for difficult works than a layman.

I would personally use the word 'different' instead of 'greater' as I would find myself most hesitant to appropriate quantitative value to the experience.

[edit on 14 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]

MONEY LAUNDERING?
That's got to be it!
It never occurred to me before.
I think the above poster who said that is definitely onto something!

There is not one thing on this earth that has not been corrupted. The art world is no exception. It makes perfect sense that something like money laundering could well be behind the hype and exorbitant prices of easy made art. I imagine many, no matter what their vocation, will go along with lucrative sinister opportunities that promise wealth and status. Never mind if it's ill gotten; the general public respects fame and fortune...and they don't ask a lot of nosey questions. They accept the critics word for it. The mans got ribbons---he must be good---'everybody' says so.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by Alethea]

While I agree that paying such large amounts of money for art is absurd, a few people here who seem to be insulting the artists works are just as absurd. Who are you to question how someone expresses him/herself? If a canvas with horizontal lines of colour on it speaks nothing to you or doesn't conjure up any emotions, I'm sure it may speak volumes to others, and may mean a great deal to the artist himself. Rather than insulting the works, claiming that a two year old would be able to recreate them, question why these paintings are sold for such a high price, and what type of people are buying them.

reply to post by dPD89


Yes i did state a 2 year old could do better. Let them get messy

And how about a nine year old. Akiane

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by JoshNorton
No, but it IS quite likely that someone with either academic or practical experience within a field will have greater appreciation for difficult works than a layman.

I would personally use the word 'different' instead of 'greater' as I would find myself most hesitant to appropriate quantitative value to the experience.

I see your point, but I wasn't really meaning discounting the experience itself, so much as the depth or granularity one could get from it. I'm thinking more in terms of a "30 words for snow" situation. Someone who's more learned on a given subject will doubtlessly have a vocabulary and associated understanding of distinctions and subtleties that might be overlooked by someone just casually engaging the work.

On the flip side, there's a curse associated with knowing too much on a topic... My friends and I joke that one of our friends can't enjoy watching movies any more, because he's a film-maker himself, so all he sees are the nuts and bolts that made the movie, and can no longer enjoy it for its own aesthetic sake.

That's ridiculous!!! 72 million for that? I swear to god I can make a more attractive drawing with a few crayons.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The 3rd one on the list ...now that is talent......some of the others , not so much...


People who think they are right and know what they are talking about surround themselves with the same types of people...

Then if somebody who has a lot of money and " influence" says something is good, then those other douches think it is good too...

They are all lost in their own world...


Now, some on that list are really good...

And I Love paintings and art and wish to paint my own some day but I mean he is basically painting like countries flags and selling them for millions...


= ignorance

Originally posted by whaaa
Don't blame the artist. A true artist makes what he wants and stays true to his sense of aesthetics.

Blame the agents, and the scum that hype and market Art.

As I write this, I am working in my co-op gallery hoping to sell wonderful, beautiful and affordable works of art and craft. People have free will and have diverse opinions as to what is beautiful, valuable and desirable.

I don't pretend to know what drives the high end art market but I can tell you that it's not the artist. And no one is twisting the arms of the collectors to buy anything; they make their own decisions as to whats valuable or not.

What do you have against the free market system? If anything.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by whaaa]

That makes more sense...

He can paint what he likes......it's usually not the artist going around saying " O my painting is soooo good " it's usually some airhead suck up...

I mean the colors and texture are pretty cool on some of his paintings but they are not great...

Yea i'd pay maybe $100 to have one of those in my house ..it would look great..

but millions?


It's always the people who are not the "talent" that ruin it and blow things out of proportion..

I'm not suprised artists are always begging for government assistance. Nobody wants to pay them 72 million for their fingerpaint.

reply to post by JoshNorton


I agree with what you are saying ... I have extensive personal experience with the cinematic aspect of your analysis and I agree with your friends' observations. Going to the movies is a tangibly different (not better or worse) experience for myself than the general audience as I find myself absorbed with the technical details of the cooperative creative vehicle that is film making.

Yet in the end, when confronted with creative arts we all bring our own individuality as an audience to interact with the voice of the creator ... it really is a personal discourse, and like any discourse some are more stimulating than others. But that is a personal relative judgment in my opinion and not to be extrapolated to include the experience 'value' of others when faced with the same work.

I believe we are mostly in agreement.

[edit on 14 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Color therapy costs $15 Dollars a session, not 72 Million. I guess the act of paying 72 Million makes it that valuable from that point forward.

Maybe thats the whole point of paying that much for art - to be someone who defines value.

Considering the artist in question is dead, I don't think he has much say in what his paintings sell in truth.

But here's the problem-Value is subjective. To you that might not be worth 72 million but to some it is. As for the people proclaiming they can do better-Stop talking smack and do it.

Originally posted by JoshNorton


On the flip side, there's a curse associated with knowing too much on a topic... My friends and I joke that one of our friends can't enjoy watching movies any more, because he's a film-maker himself, so all he sees are the nuts and bolts that made the movie, and can no longer enjoy it for its own aesthetic sake.

When I first started taking singing lessons I had no issues. Then after about 3 years I couldn't stand to listen to ninety percent of what I used to listen to. The singing was just too horrid. I can completely understand your friends issue.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by antonia]

Originally posted by Whateva69
reply to post by dPD89

 

Yes i did state a 2 year old could do better. Let them get messy

And how about a nine year old. Akiane

It could be argued that children are the greatest artists of all, not because of their technical skill, but because of their inability to control (supress) their emotions, and what is art really? The expression of ones emotion with canvas and ink, or clay and water, etc.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Honestly if the rich want to pay obscene prices for something a drunken dog could paint by dragging its butt over canvas that is their business. I'm more worried about people who con the poor out of money like: politicians, corporations, new age/2012 cons, religion, generally anyone willingly perpetuating known lies to make a buck.

Sorry but I do have a problem with anyone wasting resources like that. As long as there are starving homeless children in the world no one should spend that kind of money on trash.

v + v = w

Oh look I created modern art!

I did that because in my hometown the city bought an abstract sculpture for millions. It was two half circles and a whole circle and he called it. "This + this = that."

[edit on 14-2-2010 by LoneGunMan]

You've just got to love the Rothko. He was at the right place at the right time in the art world. His ultra minimal approach was the first conscious attempt to call two colors on a canvas a finished painting. He didn't have bad taste in color compositions. It almost makes me want to paint my walls in a rothkosian manner.




like in my living room? what do you think?

reply to post by Skyfloating


wow this goes to show how sick and twisted some of the most very wealthy people are in this world. That kind of money being spent on crap like that while the guy across town who lost his job is living in a tent with his kids.

If I might make a comparison....

I absolutely detest Rap "music" but far be it for me to rag on Rap artists or disparage their efforts to express themselves. Some Rap artist are making obscene amounts of money. Guess what...."its none of my business"

I find it stupid to own a vehicle that will travel at nearly 200mph when the speed limit is 75. But buy what you want...."its none of my business" I also think it's dumb to
drive an ATV when you only go to the store and post office and never take it off the highway.

I find an amazing amount of reverse snobbery and arrogance coming from non artists or wanna be's.

It's time to "Live and Let Live" and lighten up a little bit and not be so critical of others in their self expression and those that value their efforts.

Mind your own business and you will be astonished at how good it feels!!













[edit on 14-2-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
I find an amazing amount of reverse snobbery and arrogance coming from non artists or wanna be's.
[edit on 14-2-2010 by whaaa]

Exactly, I'm known to get a bit snotty about what I like but at the end of the day it's just me. Many people ragging on these artists have never painted. Why all the hate guys? If you can do better stop posturing and go do it.

Its funny this came up, because I was almost "past the point of no return" so to speak with art (see, I wanted to become a graphic designer). But I couldn't put up with the absolute BS.

I understand the WTF?'s about "modern art" and "I could do that" mentality. And I think I can explain it a little clearer.

Throughout my year in the art program, I learned that getting a A meant having skills, AND a silver tongue, if you could come up with "the meaning" and how it "represents" all sorts of things, a finger painting would suffice. The people behind the plain canvases no doubt could write a book about each painting.

Also, people say how can things like that be art? Well Artists take from the society and the world around them. Renaissance paintings were religious, "real" looking and precise. Basically as society and culture changes, art changes. Now, we're at a point past modernism, Post-Modernism, and approaching even past that. Now we have the internet, everything is instant, everything has to be new. The plain canvases are instant, there isn't anything to take in, it's nothing like any major artist before has done. Realism has been done, expressionism, formalism, now its something else entirely. And painting is really not the main format anymore, mostly weird sculptures, video art, and I forget what its called exactly but one of the "artworks" were a bunch of workmen painting a room in a gallery, that was it... really crazy things.

One of my graduate student teachers told us that we had to learn the basics before we could do projects like he did, "learn the rules before you can break them" And essentially everyone is breaking the rules now.

As for the ridiculous prices... Its a rich persons game buying art. Any average Joe can buy a poster, but only the ultra-rich can obtain the original.