Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Modern Art Idiocy

page: 39
84
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I could never understand how something so simple could be worth millions. Personally modern art and modern architecture are boring.

I miss artists like Klimt and Van Gogh. Klimt is my favorite
and I am quite happy with my $20 dollar reprint. It is appreciated just as much as the original.

I always wondered what makes something so simple worth so much money.

I love art, always have but to have it worth millions? Kind of superficial to me. So one pays millions for a painting just to hang it and brag that they have an original? I remember reading about some owner who had a painting worth millions, a Picasso I think, and when he was trying to sell it he put a hole in it with his elbow. If I had something worth that much money I'd be extremely careful with it. It seems it's just a status thing to own these paintings worth millions.

This imo is true amazing art
fix pic


edit on 9/24/2010 by mblahnikluver because: pic not working



edit on 9/24/2010 by mblahnikluver because: (no reason given)



niv

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by krossfyter
 


This is my experience too. The right-winger doesnt really understand art. He's too dumb to understand art. And the left-winger doesnt really understand beauty. he's too hate-filled to understand beauty. Hence you have Nazis destroying good art,and left-wingers worshipping excrement (as seen in this thread).


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I assume you're serious. I'll avoid the obvious silly generalities about dumb right-wingers and hate filled left-wingers but I did want to point out how factually wrong the statement is. Soviet Russia destroyed and banned categories of art and routinely imprisoned offending artists. The Nazi's were notorious art lovers and routinely stole the best art they came across.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by niv
 


Of course the Nazis also destroyed any of the art that they deemed "degenerate" but that wasn't worth anything in the international market.

Interestingly (in the context of this thread) part of their propaganda campaign during their shows vilifying "degenerate" art was to post the prices paid for the works by the galleries they had been taken from


'Degenerate' Artworks Survive Triumphant Over Nazi Degradation from the NYTimes
Degenerate Art from Wikipedia

edit on 9/24/2010 by americandingbat because: ps to Skyfloating -- no, I'm not calling you a Nazi just because you object to the prices paid for certain abstract art and the Nazis objected to the prices paid for what they termed "degenerate" art



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I could never understand how something so simple could be worth millions. Personally modern art and modern architecture are boring.
Modern (or old) art, like all other things, has the monetary value that people want to give it.

Would you pay around 1.5 million dollars for this small piece of paper?


It was sold in 1980 for $935,000.


I always wondered what makes something so simple worth so much money.
The fact that people are prepared to pay large amounts of money for it, just that.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by niv
The Nazi's were notorious art lovers and routinely stole the best art they came across.
Hitler was an artist himself, although not that good.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Rothko isn't much to look at visually, however I was looking at some images and most of my experience of it is that of a potpourri of spicy scents-- mostly cinnamon and sandalwood, I think.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
i guess its everybodys opinion...i personally dont get this new art stuff, however i dont judge those who like it...its the same thing with music. for example Ramstein (some sort of heavy heavy metal band) i consider just screaming and damn annoying noise, yet it is extremely popular. i simply like what i like and let other like what they like.

i have to wonder about one thing...u r right, all that guy did was painting vibrant colorful stripes, but WHO made him so popular...or why is not every 1st grader considered an artist?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Haven
... all that guy did was painting vibrant colorful stripes, but WHO made him so popular...or why is not every 1st grader considered an artist?


We... the collective, made him so popular. If it were not for us (the rest of humanity apart from the artist), the work would be collecting dust in a New York basement... unloved, unknown and unremarkable.

Some art collector saw the potential in the beginning and bought a pile of the artist's work, perhaps even putting cash upfront for future work. This rich dude would, after having cornered the market, then promote the artist in respected galleries everywhere in an attempt to sell those same paintings for outrageous prices and in the hope of vast profits. This is usually the type who made them so popular.

Remember this old line:

"There is no such thing as art. There are only artists"


The dictum by Gombrich, in the introduction of his well-known The Story of Art , is perhaps less “clear” than it may appear at first. To apparently "shift" the problematic of art from objects, categories and processes to the agent, the producer, does not eliminate the need to clarify the concept “art” itself.

For it is evident that the artist, as a producer, is defined by his product. An artist is somebody who makes art. To identify the artist we must be able “first” to tell, to identify, to know the artistic product, therefore to say both what is art and what art “is”.



arthistorypart1.blogspot.com...

There are only artists on display. Through their work, they are revealed.
So, when we value art, we are really putting value onto the artist themselves.

When an art collector sees an opportunity to make a star out of an artist, it's all about the $$millions$$ and very little to do with the work itself. Just like someone in the fashion industry, they try to 'sense' the trends before they happen and work dilligently to help that trend succeed in the wider population.





edit on 25-9-2010 by masqua because: grammar



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
It's funny that there could be a dilemma with trading a million 2 5/8 x 6 1/8" mass produced engraved pieces of art with an usually larger one-of-a-kind produced form of art. I believe if we took both and reduced each down to their constituent parts they would be both equally worthless.

But I suppose the question of utility also arises... I wonder if my local grocer is aware of who Rothko was and if he would be willing to trade one of his cans of soup for a Rothko. Possibly a Pollack? or Perhaps a Picasso?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



There are only artists on display. Through their work, they are revealed. So, when we value art, we are really putting value onto the artist themselves.


Everything about your last post is meaningful to me - but most of all what I've quoted above

This is one reason I've never been too interested in biographies about artists - what they ate for breakfast, what they drank, how rich they became - or how destitute, who they slept with or how they went crazy in the end...

I'm not saying I'm not interested at all - of course I am

but, it's their work - that's the whole thing right there for me

so, if an artist works in complete isolation - and nothing he produces ever sees the light of day - is it still art?

:-)

I make myself crazy sometimes - it's like a hobby

edit to add: or rather - are they still an artist?


edit on 9/26/2010 by Spiramirabilis because: obvious



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
so, if an artist works in complete isolation - and nothing he produces ever sees the light of day - is it still art?

edit to add: or rather - are they still an artist?
To me, yes.

It's art because it was made with the only purpose of being captured by people's senses and has no other use.
The artist is still an artist if his/her intention was producing art.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
so, if an artist works in complete isolation - and nothing he produces ever sees the light of day - is it still art?
They become an artist after they've died and then been discovered. Case in point, Henry Darger, a janitor whose work wasn't discovered until they cleaned out his apartment after he died.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
wait...that white center....that's fabulous, oh the subtle tints evoke my deepest religious feelings....the awesome little reddish bits on the edges there....ummm yeszzz



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


but if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears...

:-)

my thinking - what if you do it all in your head?

still art - still an artist?

sorry - I know it hasn't much to do with the actual topic...but maybe it does

intent, artist/audience participation and appreciation - comprehension, imagination - what all goes into establishing that something is art?

how do we agree what is and isn't art?

clearly - many of us can't

:-)


edit on 9/26/2010 by Spiramirabilis because: clean up...



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


thanks - that was very interesting to me

so, art requires an audience?

it isn't art until someone knows about it and contemplates it?

even if it's only the artist that contemplates it?

who is the message for and what is the real purpose of art?

why art?

:-)

just questions...

(I know we've been all over this - not satisfied - not yet)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
my thinking - what if you do it all in your head?

still art - still an artist?
No, it has to exist in any form, so the artist can interact with it in the same way other people will, so it has to pass the thought-only phase.



intent, artist/audience participation and appreciation - comprehension, imagination - what all goes into establishing that something is art?

how do we agree what is and isn't art?
We don't have to agree. At what point do you say "it's cold" or "it's hot"? Not only that changes from person to person, it also changes according to your state of mind, so what you find cold once you may find hot in other circumstances, the same happening with art or any other thing that needs our interpretation to exist.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





No, it has to exist in any form, so the artist can interact with it in the same way other people will, so it has to pass the thought-only phase.


see - I'm not so sure about that :-)

it's all thinking - for everyone

whether or not those thoughts come first - or after seeing/touching/hearing or reading - it's still the idea that matters - and thinking and the response the idea creates

if I can visualize the painting I want to create in my head - but then never go on to actually paint it - is the idea any less valid because I've got nothing to show for my effort?

I've obviously got nothing to hang on a wall - and nothing to sell - but still...

if I'm the only audience for my own art, but I do it all in my mind - you see?

how tangible does an idea have to be to be considered art?



We don't have to agree.


I agree - absolutely


At what point do you say "it's cold" or "it's hot"? Not only that changes from person to person, it also changes according to your state of mind, so what you find cold once you may find hot in other circumstances, the same happening with art or any other thing that needs our interpretation to exist.


you see? all conditional, subjective, personal - it needs our interpretation to exist

if I describe a painting to someone who's blind - where does the art start or stop?

who's message is the audience receiving then?

I love this stuff...

:-)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Wouldn't the description to the blind person then be the true art, though literary? There are many ways to describe a painting. One could say "I put some dazzling blue next to a vivid red" or one could say "I put one pigment next to another pigment." Each equally describes the painting but one conveys more "art" than the other.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
if I can visualize the painting I want to create in my head - but then never go on to actually paint it - is the idea any less valid because I've got nothing to show for my effort?
The idea is valid, but as it was not created, it was only imagined, I don't think that can be considered art.

I see art as something that depends on our senses to exist, so while a photo has no meaning to a blind person, an oil painting, with all those textures and different pigments can be sensed by a blind person. Some blind people are even capable of "seeing" the difference between colours.


how tangible does an idea have to be to be considered art?
It has to get to our senses.



you see? all conditional, subjective, personal - it needs our interpretation to exist
Yes, like all things related to our senses. I may not like (and I probably wouldn't, if it's artificial) what someone may think is a wonderful perfume. I may find irritating some sound that other people think calm, etc.


if I describe a painting to someone who's blind - where does the art start or stop?
That's the problem that appears with the translation of written works, specially poems. When you are translating something into something that can be interpreted by people that were otherwise unable of interpreting it, you become part of the problem, so you may destroy an artistic piece or you may create a new, even better, one.


who's message is the audience receiving then?
The audience always receives the last messenger's message. That's why looking at 600 pixels wide image on a computer screen is not the same thing as looking at a real painting.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 




Wouldn't the description to the blind person then be the true art, though literary? There are many ways to describe a painting. One could say "I put some dazzling blue next to a vivid red" or one could say "I put one pigment next to another pigment." Each equally describes the painting but one conveys more "art" than the other.


so it would be a description or explanation of a description or explanation - trying to let the blind person in on what you're seeing - what you feel and understand

but it would be what you're seeing - and does your interpretation then become art? I like that :-)

is a review of art also art? opinion as art?





new topics




 
84
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join