Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
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...

Maybe its not "their" art in the first place. Maybe they are only the channels through which an idea flows.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
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...

Maybe its not "their" art in the first place. Maybe they are only the channels through which an idea flows.

maybe - maybe not...

but Skyfloating - how would that affect the value of art if it were true?

or more importantly - and interestingly - your views on value?

if Rothko was channeling (let's just say) would the word idiocy still apply?

would you be forced to switch to a 'my temporarily inhabiting entity is more tasteful and profound than your temporarily inhabiting entity' argument?

:-)

Originally posted by Skid Mark
Some idiot would no doubt pay a fortune for it, thinking that it's art.

Go ahead... give it a go and see how well-received your odorous 'project' will get you. I double-dog dare you.

You might find that it's not particularly a welcomed entrance into gallery venues and that you'd need to work yourself up to some kind of public notoriety first.

But, hey, don't let me stop you from trying. Only thing is, I won't be walking into the showing knowing what poopiness awaits therein.

Here's a thought: make a hat out of dried cowflops and walk around Central Park NYC for a week in October, wearing only a thong and carrying a sign that tells people where your exhibit is going to be. You might get some attention then.

A few points:
To judge art, or to make the determination whether something IS art, you have to be an artist. So, if you are not an artist, your viewpoint has no value to an artist. You should not post comments, or speak out loud at an art show. Of course, if you have money to spend and you like MY art, that would mean that you have undeveloped talent....

A very fine artist, having been taught in France or Italy, or perhaps Prague, would trump any other artist when the merits of someone's art is being discussed. This goes without saying, but sometimes Americans forget. No European would travel to America to "study" art, lol.

The price paid for art has no bearing on its "value" as art. Who gives the sort of advice you desire if you are a fool with money? Art stockbrokers. (Remember, I am an artist, I can see the anomalies.)

I hope this helps. Please, replies should be limited to artists only, and all WILL be judged
.

Originally posted by masqua

But, hey, don't let me stop you from trying. Only thing is, I won't be walking into the showing knowing what poopiness awaits therein.

Here's a thought: make a hat out of dried cowflops and walk around Central Park NYC for a week in October, wearing only a thong and carrying a sign that tells people where your exhibit is going to be. You might get some attention then.

edit on 30/9/10 by masqua because: SP

Then, people really would call me a sht head lol.

Originally posted by Stewie
if you have money to spend and you like MY art, that would mean that you have undeveloped talent....

I like your style.

No European would travel to America to "study" art, lol.

Well... now that sounds a tad elitist to me. Just because Europeans have a longer history of schools which turn out scads of Euro-artists doesn't give them bragging rights, imho. That distinction falls to primitive artists, all self-taught and visionary, whether their work is scratched into stone, carved into ivory, woven into cloth or daubed onto cave walls.

(Remember, I am an artist, I can see the anomalies.)

Me too! Me too!
*waves arms frantically from the middle of the American continent*

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
because I just don't know when to leave well enough alone - I'm bound to ask: who or what determines the inherent value?

Value can be artificially created by marketing and labelling or it can come about naturally through the Evolution of Consciousness, Society and Nature.

A good example for showing the difference between inherent value and made-up value lies in the "placebo-effect":

A good marketer can say "This pill is amazing. Hold it to your nipples and your breasts will grow." You notice that this only has artificial value because it only works if the lady believes in it and fails to work if she doesnt. And even if she believes in it, the effects will recede over time. So the third time it may not work anymore because the novelty effect is gone.

Administering Aspirin, on the other hand, has the effect of soothing pain whether I believe in it or not. Hence only pills that go through trials for placebo are put on the market.

The same principles apply to everything else. With maturity you will start asking yourself what the difference between inflated value and real value is and as you do, you will become more adept at living.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

IMO, what you are missing is an idea. The idea that other people don't see things through your eyes. What you are missing is the acceptance of the fact that people are different and hold different values.

What's important and valuable to one is meaningless to another. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You seem to be wanting to insert YOUR values, views and opinions into other people's minds.

Merely sharing your own values does not imply putting other peoples values down. My statement: "These pieces have no value for me" expresses my own values.

Ive seen in this thread how some who say I should respect others values do not respect my values - in any way. Why is it so difficult to respect my estimation of, say Rothko? I dont know.

Respecting others values is good, but so is stating my own.

And "one mans trash is another mans treasure" is really sophomoric stuff. See my post above.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The same principles apply to everything else. With maturity you will start asking yourself what the difference between inflated value and real value is and as you do, you will become more adept at living.

A+ for irony. Nice thread.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Merely sharing your own values does not imply putting other peoples values down.

You are correct. But I see a lot more than "merely sharing your own values" here.

Ive seen in this thread how some who say I should respect others values do not respect my values

I don't think you should respect others' values. I'm not even sure what that means. People say, "You should respect my beliefs"! Well, if I respected your beliefs, they'd be my own. But I do understand that people have different values (and beliefs) and I accept that fact, even if I don't share them.

You asked what you were missing and I answered that that's what I think you're missing. An acceptance of others' values - and that they are different, but JUST as valid, as yours. There doesn't have to be manipulation, artificiality, or a conspiracy just because others see great value where you see none.

And "one mans trash is another mans treasure" is really sophomoric stuff.

Sophomoric? Now I remember why I get pissed off. Well, I understand and accept your judgment, but I don't respect it. That phrase is a cliche for a reason. There's truth in it.

Even "inherent value" is a subjective term. Many people may agree that something is valuable, but that doesn't mean that is has inherent value.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Even "inherent value" is a subjective term.

Slaughtering children is not inherently of the same value as lovingly caring for them. I dont belong to the "everything is subjective" crowd, as previously stated.

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

This is a very good point. The art market, particularly at the high end, is very susceptible to manipulation. Art "kings and queens" are crowned by well known taste makers . . . then market forces, manipulated by unknown money makers take over. After that, almost anything goes. I think nerbot's point is very well taken, particularly given the spectacular prices being paid for some works.

As far as Rothko goes, I'm reminded of something Matisse said when asked what he expected viewers to get out of his work. Words to the effect of, "Does it please, or does it not please?" That's all.

In making the work, Matisse or any other artist first pleases himself.

If he is lucky, others may be pleased too and appreciate what he does. If he is extremely lucky an influential dealer may see his work and be pleased and pleased to try to sell the work where it can earn the most. That's what happened to the very lucky (and very talented) Picasso, who traded art for drinks in bars during his early years, a classic example of the true economic worth of a Picasso at that time.

Matisse's work was originally reviled by critics who called him and his friends "wild beasts" or, in French, fauves. "Fauvist" works are worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars now.

Art is contextual as well. The Rothko paintings quoted by the OP would be evaluated in the context of all of his work and in the context of art and intellectual history. The casual viewer is not usually up on all of that.The simplicity of these works introduces the intellectual notion of factorization or reduction of the complex to it's simplest common factors. The real intellectual test of a Rothko is "does he factor correctly?", in the context of his own work and of the history of his time and of art itself?

Anyway, somebody thinks so, and thinks that these paintings are worth a lot of money and better yet, somebody is willing to pay that money.

People who see this as just fraud or a mockery of art are very lucky people because it means that they can cruise the second hand shops looking for "real art" and get it cheap and enjoy it in their very own homes while those dumb Rothschild's have to endure some piece of crap from Rothko, looking like it came from an abandoned lot in Detroit, messing up the wallpaper in their salon.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

People who see this as just fraud or a mockery of art are very lucky people because it means that they can cruise the second hand shops looking for "real art" and get it cheap and enjoy it in their very own homes while those dumb Rothschild's have to endure some piece of crap from Rothko, looking like it came from an abandoned lot in Detroit, messing up the wallpaper in their salon.

I agree. Great paintings are all over the place and affordable.