This Piece of art was purchased for 43.8 million dollars

[Eunös ✈]

So it's an attempt at trying to draw the Norwegian flag but they couldn't be arsed to finish it.

[Some Guy]

[Incognito]

This reminds me of an article I read last year about this painting by Basquiat that fetched 5.8 million....

[J is Justice]

I wonder what it means...

[BRV]

[OldDirtyBernie]

The thing is, art is subjective. Something that's worth $6 to someone may be worth a million to someone else. It's asinine to judge a piece of art by the "effort" one puts into it, or in the previously mentioned context, time. There is meaning behind it at some level.
I wouldn't say Jackson Pollock put a LOT of time into some of his paintings, but I really enjoy them.
I had a friend who put a piece into a gallery at the same time I did that sold for $700. It was a white canvas with a few ants crawling up one side, done in oils. I'd say he actually put less time into that than I'd put into the photos I was showing, especially being film processed in a dark room rather than digital.
I sold a couple prints for around $200.

[Spider2024]

That thing's gonna look great in the new Impact Zone.

[King Ghidorah]

This painting portrays a meritorious metaphorical representation of the social divide in conscious thought in shown in today's youth. The broad strokes of purple give the viewer that lackadaisical yet intensive rearing in the mind of the populace while the brazen teal line constructs a staunch divide of the clashing ethos depicting our place in society.

Truly remarkable, unforgettable piece if art

[SEAN CARLESS]

Nov 10, 2013 16:57:27 GMT -5 Sektor said:

Nov 10, 2013 16:08:51 GMT -5 Koda, Master Crunchyroller said:

Well that's probably because when people typically think of art they don't think of lazy things like this. I don't care who the artist is, it is literally two pinkish-purple rectangles divided by a blue line.

I know art isn't easy, but things like this don't help art's image.

How is it lazy? What should it have been instead that would have made you think "Wow, this guy worked really hard on this". I'm not saying that this painting took decades to complete, but "lazy" is a weird complaint to have since art can be literally anything.

Because it's of nothing. It's made up bullshit pulled from the farts of some artist's mind, that bears no likeness to anything, and is only worth something because people with too much money pretend it is. From the artist's point of view, it's his expression, and that's cool. But to anyone else, it's just pretending or buying into abstract art's emperor's new clothese-seque world of make believe. It's literally pink with a blue line.

Just like music without harmony and rhythm is just noise, art that's just blobs, is just blobs. People just buy into hyperbole. Real skill is emulation or recreation.

[Deleted]

The best way to judge art is how expensive the art is with the least minimal effort put in. Think about it. Everyone strives for the perfect career of doing the least amount of work possible and getting the most pay as possible. This painting reflects on humanity's ambition therefore it represents humanity in whole. This piece of art is literally the expression of life imitating art except this time it's art imitating life. Truly a double entendre.

[The Sam]

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."
~ Frank Zappa

[Ryback on a Pole!]

I hate that garbage like that can be considered art. I also hate that there are people in the world who can literally throw away nearly 48 million just like that.

Some people should be banned from having money. As soon as some pleb spends millions on an "art" piece or thousands on a bottle of wine, their money should be taken from them for been a twat and given to people needy.

Even if I was a multi-billionaire I'd never throw money away like that. In fact I would STILL only wear £15 band t-shirts and £20 combat trousers. I'd use the money for more worthwhile things, I'd make sure I live in comfort... certainly and have some saved away for vacations and such. But I'd also want to do something worthwhile with it... fund a rescue centre for abandoned animals or open a sex education centre in one of them 3rd world countries where they keep churning kids out they can't look after. I wouldn't be able to live with myself looking at my $48 million piece of turd hanging on my wall before turning on the TV and seeing starving kids in Africa or homeless on the streets or abandoned dogs been put down because rescue centres can't afford to care for them.

Saying that though, when you see the amount of multi-millionaires who do constantly waste money on shit... maybe it's me whose the mental one for wanting to do something worthwhile with money and they're the normal ones for wanting to throw their money away on crap.

I even get annoyed when I walk past shops and see things like Rolex watches for sale for a couple of grand. That annoys me. That somebodies got enough money to throw away on a watch that does exactly the same thing the £15 one I bought does.

[Incognito]

^^x2 Good post.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Judging from the reactions in this thread, you'd think he headline was "EVERYONE HERE IS OBLIGATED TO PAY $43.8 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS PAINTING!"

[Next Level was WRONG]

There's a beauty to flat colours. There's a stimulation that comes from the contrast and dividing of the spacial structure. I like it.

[Sparkybob]

Meh if someone figures that painting is worth $43.8M of value to them so be it. I don't find it to be worth a lot but if somebody does, so be it.

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

Nov 11, 2013 14:43:48 GMT -5 Incognito said:

You know who was really bad at art? The earliest humans who founded civilization. Anyone can trace his or her hand on a cave wall. There's nothing artistic about that at all.

[Glitch]

Nov 11, 2013 15:00:42 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Judging from the reactions in this thread, you'd think he headline was "EVERYONE HERE IS OBLIGATED TO PAY $43.8 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS PAINTING!"

And also most of the guys who drew these paintings are long dead after they're pieces have been sold for insane amounts.

[salsashark]

Nov 11, 2013 14:43:48 GMT -5 Incognito said:

^^x2 Good post.

This picture is such all-or-nothing BS. This is the art equivalent of dumb music memes like this:



This is very much picking and choosing from something that's way too broad to make a point. Just like years and years ago, they were both great musicians and bad musicians (just as now), there is great art and bad art from any era--just based on what you choose to compare. Like what if I compare this:



to this:



And say that "Art now is so much better than art then." This kind of oversimplification without much context or real meaty opinion is such a silly road to go down. There will always be bad art. There will always be good art.

You know those people who say that there is no good music nowadays? (Not pop music, not rock music or whatever, but music.) Well, they're full of it because there is loads of great and interesting music of all kinds being made--just that they aren't making a point to find it or prefer being curmudgeonly and wearing only blinders about the good ol' days BACK WHEN MEN WERE MEN AND MUSIC WAS MUSIC!!! (For people who want to get a chuckle out of this attitude, check out this amazing Subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/lewronggeneration. This is my favorite image I found from this place: i.imgur.com/EsEInoS.jpg)

Some modernist and postmodernist art has its head wedged right in its ass, absolutely. But a picture like the above says little that's insightful about art overall.

(Also, yes, I took this simple picture way too seriously, but it's a pet peeve.)

[Non Banjoble Tokens]

Nov 11, 2013 20:47:58 GMT -5 salsashark said:

Hahaha!!  Look at the dude at the top with the huge boner!