Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 11, 2013 20:53:50 GMT -5
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. Well that's very noble and all, but you can't really tell people what they can do with their own money. If the person who bought the art really felt the art gives him 43.8 million dollars of value who are we to say he wasted it. People value different things in society.
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Nov 11, 2013 21:04:06 GMT -5
Also, as someone in full agreement with both Sean's and KG's posts about the BS-ness of this style of art, let me play devil's advocate for a minute because these are the same kinds of things I had to say about modern art a while ago:
1. Context does matter. If someone created this during a certain time period or as a response to a certain kind of art or popularized this school or art, that does makes a difference about its value and place in history. There might be more than meets the eye.
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and though everyone has opinions, it's worth taking a second to sit back and evaluate yours and why you have it just for the hell of solidifying it. For example, I know people on FAN are generally into video games, but there are people out there will look at even BioShock or something and say that it is time-wasting bullshit for children who haven't matured. Some opinions absolutely hold more weight than others based on what you can argue, but still, try and see it from another's perspective for just a sec.
3. Even though a kid can do it, a kid did not do it. If a kid had done it, the context would be different.
4. If you go into modern art for the money, God bless, but it's a hard road to take. Like pretty much everything else in this world, these things come down to marketing and perception, so selling something like this (to put it in cynical terms) is easier said than done. Marketing is why certain people get opportunities and to make money in this world and why certain others don't. Society decides which talents get the money and which don't. It's why the Michael Jordan of handball is slaving away in a stock room right now and why the real Michael Jordan has enough money to make sure his grandkid's grandkids are set.
5. The time it takes to create something -- or generally, even consume it -- should have zero impact on whether something is actually good or not. People slave away for years on bad idea. People also come up with brilliant ideas in moments. In theory, time is a good indicator of quality, but really, it comes down to who is spending the time on it. I would rather see a movie Quentin Tarantino came up with in two hours than one Tim Burton spent six years on.
All this said, f*** Mark Rothko. He's the worst.
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Nov 11, 2013 21:11:53 GMT -5
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. As someone who currently suffers from a lot of class envy (I'm working on it) and general disillusionment/confusion about the way money is distributed -- I wonder why I specifically get the opportunity to post on an Internet forum from a tiny-ass apartment in New Mexico while someone else is sweating in a sweat shop for pennies and another someone else has seven digits in their checking account -- I understand what you mean, but people have different priorities. I don't know your interests, but maybe you like old punk records. Maybe you go and spend $75 on a rare piece of Ramones vinyl you found somewhere because you can burn the $75 and get away with it, and you like the record enough. Someone else who is poorer will look at your $75 purchase on a piece of old plastic featuring some lousy music as completely frivolous and wish they had $75 to put toward a student loan or groceries or whatever. You should do good by the world and do your part by paying back, but it's all relative. I love to spend my money on eating out when I do have it, and my father looks down on this as being wasteful when home-cooked food in cheaper. Meanwhile, he goes off and loves collecting firearms, which costs way more than my meals and also seems like a waste of money to me. (He doesn't even seem to fire all these guns.) But hey, it's a big world out there with many varied interests.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 11, 2013 21:59:17 GMT -5
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. True. But nobody gave 48 million pounds of fish and grains and furs for their cave painting back then. Expressionism is absolutely above scrutiny. Its a personal vision of the artist itself. I'd never say to anyone that they suck at art. HOWEVER, I will question the sanity of someone outside that perception pretending to relate to something that cannot possibly mean anything to them. All they can go on is the artist's personal (or often secondhand) explanation, and their own senses. You can look at the bottom of your tea mug and see the secrets of the universe being unlocked. But all I see is a mug that needs a cycle through the dishwasher. Neither one of is "wrong". But if you sold it for 48 million, I'd call the guy who bought it a fool who has way more disposable income than anyone human being could ever need/deserve.
|
|
|
Post by dada3345 on Nov 17, 2013 15:48:22 GMT -5
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. One judgement of a good artist is how much the artist is able to express (either realistic or abstract) in as little strokes as possible. I've seen napkin drawings that are more interesting than highly detailed landscapes that took infinite more time and effort to create. It was bought it as a status symbol, either that or as an investment. They'll probably lend it to a couple of museums for a period of time or just brag about how they own Barnett's "Onement VI" at parties. This is only two of this series (considered his breakthrough) in private ownership, all the other pieces are in museums. So you're talking about museum quality piece of which there are only two available for private ownership for an artist who is considered an influence on other famous artists. They'll probably sell it again well they feel the market can fetch them a pretty chunk of change. Art speculation is something that I'm not the biggest fan of in the first place because it normally involves people who aren't really interested in art just buying pieces that supposed to make more money down the road. at 8 1/2' x 10'. I'm sure it's even more immersive. Here's the painting that was actually sold
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Nov 17, 2013 16:19:06 GMT -5
Honestly it is pieces like this selling for so much that years ago I thought that "art is easy". Yet people who say "Art is easy" never come up with or create the "easy works" until after they've seen someone else do them first...hell, even AFTER they see them, they still can't create them. Meh, I was at the Met in New York 5 years ago and saw a piece that was nothing more than different colored dots in a row and columns (ie it formed a rectangle of them). I used to do that when I was bored in school with that one pen that had four colors on it. The difference is the guy at the Met is in the art community and I'm not. Much like if I played a three note melody on a piano it would be seen as a guy f***ing around on a piano, but if Beethoven played it it would probably be a masterpiece.
|
|
Incognito
ALF
Putting the fun back in funeral
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Incognito on Nov 17, 2013 19:25:30 GMT -5
Yet people who say "Art is easy" never come up with or create the "easy works" until after they've seen someone else do them first...hell, even AFTER they see them, they still can't create them. Meh, I was at the Met in New York 5 years ago and saw a piece that was nothing more than different colored dots in a row and columns (ie it formed a rectangle of them). I used to do that when I was bored in school with that one pen that had four colors on it. The difference is the guy at the Met is in the art community and I'm not. Much like if I played a three note melody on a piano it would be seen as a guy f***ing around on a piano, but if Beethoven played it it would probably be a masterpiece. Good point. Unfortunately the old phrase "it's not what you know it's who you know" holds true within the world of business and that includes the arts. It's not always like this of course but it's a reality.
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Nov 17, 2013 23:22:18 GMT -5
Close up of Grimace in a thong? I bid 43.NINE MILLION DOLLARS, SIR!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 23:48:22 GMT -5
Close up of Grimace in a thong? I bid 43.NINE MILLION DOLLARS, SIR! If that's how the buyer interpreted the painting the price makes more sense.
|
|