The Modern Art Idiocy, page 1

What you see here are some of the most expensive and revered "masterpieces" of art the world has to offer. These particular ones are by the world-famous Mark Rothko.

The last one is called White Center:

The work was sold in May 2007 by Sotheby's on behalf of David Rockefeller[1] to the Royal family of Qatar; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, and his wife, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al-Missned.[2] The painting sold for 72.84 million (USD), setting the record of the current most expensive post-war work of art sold at auction.[3][4]

I cant believe what Im reading here! Something that, in my estimation, any gradeschooler could paint, a mere blob of stripes, sells for 72 Million??????????????????

Or am I missing something? Am I ignorant? Do I "not have the eye for fine art"?

After yesterday's sale he said he (Rockefeller) bought the picture on the advice of an old friend, Dorothy Miller, the first curator of MoMA, New York's Museum of Modern Art. "Dorothy told me Rothko was going to be important because of his bold stripes and vibrant, almost luminous use of colours. She was absolutely right."

*

So because someone paints "bold stripes" in bright colours he is an important painter? I did those paintings in Kindergarden. Or is he only important because some expert, says he is? Here is what the painter says about his own work:

The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point.

Seriously? Religious experience? I find it rather depressing that anyone could paint random stripes and view it as a profound act of genius. Maybe Rothko found it depressing too because...

On February 25, 1970 Rothko’s assistant, found the artist in his kitchen, lying dead on the floor in front of the sink, covered in blood. He had sliced his arms with a razor found lying at his side. During autopsy it was discovered he had also overdosed on anti-depressants. He was 66 years old.

*

The guy had severe drug and alcohol problems throughout his life, which could be a reason he thought his paintings look great. And yet everyone raves about him in self-important, pseudo-intellectual art-speak...

At the root of Rothkos presentation of archaic forms and symbols as subject matter illuminating modern existence had been the influence of Surrealism, Cubism, and abstract art.

The year 1946 saw the creation of Rothko’s transitional "multiform" paintings. In viewing the catalogue raisonné, one can recognize the gradual metamorphosis from surrealistic, myth-influenced paintings of the early part of the decade to the highly abstract, Clyfford Still-influenced forms of pure color.

I insist upon the equal existence of the world engendered in the mind and the world engendered by God outside of it. If I have faltered in the use of familiar objects, it is because I refuse to mutilate their appearance for the sake of an action which they are too old to serve, or for which perhaps they had never been intended. I quarrel with surrealists and abstract art only as one quarrels with his father and mother; recognizing the inevitability and function of my roots, but insistent upon my dissent; I, being both they, and an integral completely independent of them.

Say what?

___________________________________________


I singled out Rothko is merely one example. If you check out this list of the most expensive paintings of all time you will find quite a number of other painters who believe and made the world believe that painting on a pre-school level = fine art.

To me these paintings are so obviously nothing special that I have speculated as to whether there is some kind of Conspiracy to make a Mockery of the populace by paying reverence and mind-bogglingly large sums of money to mundane smears of paint.

Please, could someone out there help me and show me what exactly Im missing?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

It's another artificial commodity...





Yet, should we tear into those that are willing to pay millions for a piece of canvas, oil and the few days of narcissitic solitude it takes the artist to create it..?


No, they have already paid the price...

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

You're obviously not a member of the Chosenites


or you'd understand

Modern "art" has always been a bandwagon. People love you when other people love you...or if you kill yourself. Therefore, I would like to submit this little piece of art from Duchamp, "Fountain."

The work is regarded by some as a major landmark in 20th century art. Replicas commissioned by Duchamp in the 1960s are now on display in museums.

...he purchased a standard Bedfordshire model urinal from the J. L. Mott Iron Works, 118 Fifth Avenue. The artist brought the urinal to his studio at 33 West 67th Street, reoriented it to a position 90 degrees from its normal position of use, and wrote on it, "R. Mutt 1917".

No joke, he bought a urinal, nailed it to a board sideways, submitted it to an art show, and it is a major landmark in 20th century art!

Although, to be fair, he did this to spite the critics; to actually point out how absurd most modern art was/is.


-Crazy

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

WTF

Ive seen chimps paint better stuff than that rubbish

More, the reason Picasso was so lionized was that he was the mid-20th century urban professional's dream. Think Kate Winslet and Leonado di Caprio in 1950s 'Revolutionary Road.' Their dream is to get out of their Connecticut suburb and go to Paris to live.

Though I have never been sure it is so much 'inspiration' as 'cribbing.' After 1914, Picasso had no fresh ideas. So he recycled other men's work, and packaged it up for the market

Indeed - and I wouldn't be the first to say it - if Picasso had died in 1914, modern art would have continued exactly as it did.
The trouble is, Picasso lived another 66 years, dying in 1973 at age 92. All he did in all that time was develop himself into a celebrity who painted.

More at link:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

TV presenter and artist Rolf Harris has said controversial modern artists are conning the public and frightening them away from art galleries.

The 71-year-old star, famed for the huge landscape paintings he did for children's programmes, took a swipe at artist Tracey Emin, and her infamous work My Bed.

The artwork, which was shortlisted for the Turner Prize, was a recreation of the scene where she spent four days contemplating suicide.

"I don't see how getting out of bed and leaving the bed unmade and putting it on show and saying that's worth, I don't know £31,000... I don't believe it, I think it's a con," he said during an interview with the unmissabletv.com website.

The bed did not win the prize but it was bought by art collector Charles Saatchi for £150,000.

More at link:
news.bbc.co.uk...


And you'll LOVE this next:

Two abstract works by the American (Rothko) are displayed at the Tate Modern in London but there have been claims that they are being displayed on their side, against his wishes.

The two paintings from the Black on Maroon series have been hung vertically with bold stripes running from top to bottom.

....

However, Rothko is thought to have wanted the works - which he donated to the Tate before committing suicide in February 1970 - to be hung with the stripes running horizontally and the location of his signature on the back of the paintings is believed to reflect this wish

Further complicating the issue is which of the two possible horizontal displays is the correct one, creating a risk of hanging the paintings upside-down.

and finally, LOL

The artist himself appears to have changed his mind more than once. A deed of gift he signed in 1969 lists the two disputed paintings as vertical portraits, while the direction of the paint dribbles shows that one of the works was painted at least two different ways up.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



So. The artist's dribbles (that's a sophisticated and 'arty' term, lol) reveal that Rothko turned the painting upside down and back again while painting it

Rothko himself described the 'work' as a 'vertical portrait' --- but ALSO wanted the stipes to run 'horizontally'

He was confused ?

Curators still don't know which. Nor can they tell which is top or bottom (if the painting is supposed to be vertical). Ooops, sorry ... Rothko also wanted it to be hung 'horizontally' --- but again, which is bottom and which is the top ? Does it matter ? After all, he switched it back and forth while painting it, so he didn't care either

Main thing is, it's 'something to stick on the walls in the hope of impressing'

Is it wallpaper ? Expensive wallpaper ?

Was Rothko merely a dabbler as well as confused ?

Again, it doesn't matter. The art-cons have inflated the perceived 'value'. And let's face it, Rothko's suicide helped. He must have believed the adage about an artist's work only appreciating in value after his/her death (although the unmade bed made a packet and the 'artist' in that instance didn't need to die --- only 'think about dying', lol )


Controversial topic which I'm sure will garner many posts and opinions

And must admit, I bought a stack of 'abstract/modern' art on Ebay for next to nothing (the frames at least are good) and slung them around the place because hey ... you don't have to think about abstract art, although it persuades people that you're really 'clue-y' about art, plus sophisticated

But the truth is, any old rubbish in a frame is regarded as 'kewl' ... as 'good' ... as 'better' ... as 'valuable' (in fact, the more rubbishy the better)

when the truth is, it demands nothing --- yet is perceived as 'deep and meaningful'

and it's a hell of a lot easier than repainting and re-wallpapering








[edit on 14-2-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Couldn't agree more...

Take for example this garbage from this Picasso character. It's Obvious the man has no talent and probably wont go anywhere with his doodling and scratchings Sheeeesh!



I know what I like.
It's not always whats popular or perceived as "cultured"

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Re: the Picasso of the prostitutes which you posted:

Picasso: 'Excitedly anticipated?' Why should he be? Surely by now even the British art establishment - you know, the people who spend your tax money on their own intellectual prejudices - must admit that Picasso was the biggest piece of over-hype of the 20th century.

Yes, he was 'influential' around 1900, and in particular his cubist 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon' of 1907 did influence a lot of other painters.

'Desmoiselles' is that eight-foot tall picture of five prostitutes of the rue d'Avignon with two of their faces portrayed like African masks.

If Picasso had been allied to the rightwing of society instead of the left, doing that to naked women, taking away their identities and substituting blocks of cut-up wood, would have been condemned as misogyny, even sexual perversion.

But because Picasso was a man who had formed himself into the ideal leftwing 'bohemian artist' of the time, even now the Museum of Modern Art in New York, who own the picture, just present it as a 'pivotal work in the development of modern art.' (Where are the feminazis when you need them?)

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Overhyped

Sexual perversion

Misogyny


Yes, I can agree with that

Plus it's ugly


Picasso played the system -- was part of the system

The truth about him was revealed in his last will and testament which pitted his 'beloved' descendants and beneficiaries at each other's throats. Apparently it's still raging, with lawyers as usual the real winners

reply to post by Dock9

---

You know whats funny?

Just last weekend my Gal Pal and I went on a trip to Portland. While there we stopped by the Art Museum. We saw many great works of real art.

Then we came to the main hall there She and I saw this large 8 foot by 10 foot painting prominently displayed.

It was RED. Nothing else just Red.


Some of the crowd while looking at this {RED} painting acted like it was manna from heaven or the second coming.




[edit on 14-2-2010 by SLAYER69]

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 16 days ago with 276 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 12 days ago with 138 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 1 days ago with 127 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 12 days ago with 122 member flags

STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 18 days ago with 115 member flags

Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 17 days ago with 96 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 15 days ago with 85 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: