The Modern Art Idiocy

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c18e64f08ea.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/383bc3d5494c.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/829c9482edc1.jpg[/atsimg]

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]

I never understood "true art" what ever that means, and always left it up to the "experts" as i myself am ignorant to art but what you bring up is in my eyes blatantly stupid.

Either the "artist" has good connections in the art world or art has become soooo sophisticated that most of us just don't understand the fuss.


edit: i re-read the comment and it could be interpretted being against your view and i asure you that im with you on this one.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by colloredbrothers]

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

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]

Ever since the modern era, art has been on a trajectory of increasing politicization at the expense of the aesthetic.

There are no more Klimts and Chagalls. Too much utility has been injected into the aesthetic. Beauty, as Plato and I would both have it, is a form to be inherently valued, and a society that does cannot recognize that principle is more far-removed from its natural impulses that previously imagined.

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

I firmly believe that some modern art is sold for huge amounts for the purpose of money-laundering.

I also believe that something that is called "art" that needs an explanation is not art but the interpretation of thoughts through that explanation and the artwork in question is irrelevant.

People who "rave" about modern art and go to great lengths to intellectualise it are usually living in self made bubbles where ignorance is bliss and snobbery usually rules the day.

Here's some modern art for you:
----------------------
******
----------------------
I call this piece "thumb up snobs ass" and it represents the ignorant opinions of a dillusioned mind (20 grand ono)

[edit on 14/2/2010 by nerbot]

reply to post by Skyfloating


WTF

Ive seen chimps paint better stuff than that rubbish

You're missing what a madhouse this world really is, of course you're here on ATS so you already know.
I agree with basically everything your saying, this is not great art in my eyes, there really is nothing to it, nothing spectacular or genius about it at all. Like you said, a preschooler could paint just as bold stripes with just as vibrant colors.
Art critics hailing this is reading something else into it, they could spout the same rhetoric about other paintings if they wanted.. seems they just randomly choose schmucks to hail as geniuses.

I don't really believe in "experts" when it comes to art, when they themselves know how to paint for real, then I'll take their opinion seriously.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The guy had severe drug and alcohol problems throughout his life, which could be a reason his paintings look so dull. And yet everyone raves about him in self-important, pseudo-intellectual art-speak...

uhhh, what? Have you never seen or heard, like all artwork ever created? 99% of art, regardless of the medium is put out there by drug users. It sounds to me like you're trying to blame your perceived dullness as this dude's former drug usage, sorry it doesn't work that way. As someone who has actually seen a bit of bad artwork, this dude is good. If for no other reason that he's doing something not everyone is. I'd prefer to have an H.R. Giger print hanging on my walls, but this dude beats Thomas Kinkade by a mile.

I guess you don't "get" art.

Originally posted by whaaa
Don't blame the artist.

I respect the artist

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

Nothing. Just not sure thats the only thing at play here.

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!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dcf972b9b2a9.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6b885f49bb2.jpg[/atsimg]

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

Originally posted by buttking
I guess you don't "get" art.

Ive been told I "dont get it" because I dont embrace stuff like the urinal posted previously.

Im really glad I posted though because I can see Im not the only one who doesnt "get it".

Help us out then - what are we "not getting"?

Originally posted by buttking

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The guy had severe drug and alcohol problems throughout his life, which could be a reason his paintings look so dull. And yet everyone raves about him in self-important, pseudo-intellectual art-speak...

uhhh, what? Have you never seen or heard, like all artwork ever created? 99% of art, regardless of the medium is put out there by drug users.

I'm no expert, and certainly no world renowned artist, but i'd love to know where you got that statistic from.

I can totaly see the OP's point, when it comes to many pieces such as the ones mentioned here, you have to wonder if the artist was having a giggle when he offered it up as a serious piece.

Maybe like you say we don't "get art". It does amuse me though when people get all emotional over a piece that my kids could do.

I myself am into arts and crafts of different kinds, but whilst i am no professional (if there is such a thing), i know when i have shown something that is far below my ability, i am well aware of it and usualy stop myself before showing it.

You'd think world class artists could do the same.

Then again, whilst i appreciate that the most simple of techiques and pieces of artwork can be the most beautiful, i look for obvious skill and talent when i think about decent art.

CX.

Awesome posts all, thanks.

Originally posted by crazyinthemiddle
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!

:shk: Unbelievable.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
increasing politicization at the expense of the aesthetic.

Indeed.

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
art has become soooo sophisticated that most of us just don't understand the fuss.

Yes, so very sophisticated...

Originally posted by nerbot
I firmly believe that some modern art is sold for huge amounts for the purpose of money-laundering.

If true that would explain a lot.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Ive seen chimps paint better stuff than that rubbish

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]

Originally posted by Dock9
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.

Amazing.

For a moment there I was shy of posting this thread because I thought maybe Im too dumb to appreciate Rothkos brilliance.

But those worshipping him dont seem to be too bright either.

__________________________________________________

Same with Picasso - like SLAYER said, I know what I like and its certainly not Picasso.

I find more appeal in some of the ATS-Avatars posted here than in Picasso.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Skyfloating]