Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by akushla99
I remember a gallery opening of my own paintings, which were, cynically, all priced at a million dollars.

I think I may just try that myself at my next showing. Should create a bit of buzz...

Great idea.

I have been in the business of making, selling and marketing art for a very long time. Both thru festivals, gallaries my own and other peoples and a sage piece of advise was given to me by a very famous gallery owner in Santa Fe by the name of Elaine Horwitch [may she RIP] in regards to my representation in her gallery.

"When in doubt, raise your prices"

I may be late by a ridiculous margin here, but as a musician and photographer, I'm going to say that attempting to debunk any type of art, no matter how "simplistic", "effortless", and "talentless" it appears, and even /whether or not there was actually effort or talent involved in its creation/, there's no point in trying to argue the objective quality of a piece of art. In the two years that I've been a recording musician, teaching myself all along the way without outside aid, I've recorded 22 albums of music. I can safely say that the most recent 5 have all been created straight from 2 cataclysmic events in my personal life that impacted my /emotions/ drastically, 3 of which were during the span of the first event, and two of which were created after the second; one almost entirely in one weekend.

Art is expression, and when an artist decides to create art, whether it's from true universal realization or emotional cataclysm, or just because they feel like nailing a urinal sideways to a piece of plywood, it's art, it's been created, and it exists. As it exists, so does it become showcased and viewed in one way or another. Art affects everyone in different ways; there's a reason that artists will claim that some people simply don't "get true art"; you can chalk it up to pretention all you want, there's a basis when someone looks at a piece of art and trashes it without at all knowing the story and drive behind the art itself, and is then told that "they just don't get it". Art is subjective, and it's personal. Even if I grabbed two buckets of paint, dropped them on a canvas, and decided that this was a joke and there's no meaning; and then sold it for thousands of dollars, the buyer must have had a reason to buy the effortless nonsense I just created. Even if the /ARTIST/ doesn't have an artistic connection with the art, that doesn't make it any less artistic. The possibilities that art unlocks for the human psyche and emotional complex are infinite to any given person; getting seriously angry over it simply reflects a lack of comprehension of the basis of art and emotional expression/absorption in the first place.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by akushla99
I remember a gallery opening of my own paintings, which were, cynically, all priced at a million dollars.

I think I may just try that myself at my next showing. Should create a bit of buzz...

Great idea.

You are free to use it in any configuration you choose...

You get to exercise some dramatic arts while you do this...insert a hard luck story...anonymously tip off the local rag about a secret exhibition with paintings at a million bucks each!...free advertising...you may just also get someone who will beat you down from a million...he he...

...'ok, I'll take 50 grand...but that's my last offer'

Akushla

Color can act on the very center of our being. Of course no one knocks the marketing research that leads fast food ops to have a red and yellow color scheme in their dining room. Ever heard someone say "soothing" as in this is a "nice, soothing blue, good for baby's room or waiting rooms"? When one is seeking advice from some Home Depot employee on what paint chip they like for what utility..... Hmmmm, no one scoffs at the parsing of hues, "I don't know, I just don't LIKE that shade of green, honey".......

These Rothko works are meant to evoke FEELING. Different for each viewer, but on the same side of the emotional scale for the respective works, as in people generally get a similar feeling or at least not joy when the mood is dark. One is meant to really take the painting in, not just wander past it for 10 seconds at a gallery or museum, only to be nonplussed and not convinced of the artist's talent or vision. Of all the artwork commonly accepted as part of the "high" art world; collected by galleries, tastemakers, lauded or lambasted by critics, etc. Rothko's color field paintings are certainly NOT among the "rubbish" which coaxes me into suspecting the art world is just a racket, propped up by the elite willling to go to any level of criticism or convincing (urinal) to manipulate what classless heathens with no culture will find as "decorative" or to deride what those idjits find aesthetically pleasing enough to purchase en masse, in the form of commemorative plates &/or limited edition holiday "prints".... (*barf and wink)

Skyfloating, what are your favorite colors? When I was a teenager, I loved purple. Royal purple... now I wouldn't paint a room purple; I believe it is because I am more experienced in life in general and am attracted to what are arguably more "mature" colors. Similar to not eating fishsticks and baloney sandwiches everyday, I think aesthetic appreciation naturally develops over a person's lifespan. The above point is not as succinct as it could be, but I do feel it's worthwhile to include in this post.

Consider the synesthete, one who experiences a crossing of the senses; for instance, sound being linked to color. From personal experience, I can tell you that Rothko's works are very poignantly assertive in their scale and hues. If the artist had titled his works with emotionally evocative words, perhaps people here would deem his work more valuable as true high art with redeeming intrinsic value, because they could see "Yeah, I guess this looks like the colors of an "Angry Wife" or "getting" a blue painting called "Peace"....

Originally posted by kkrattiger
Color can act on the very center of our being. Of course no one knocks the marketing research that leads fast food ops to have a red and yellow color scheme in their dining room. Ever heard someone say "soothing" as in this is a "nice, soothing blue, good for baby's room or waiting rooms"? When one is seeking advice from some Home Depot employee on what paint chip they like for what utility..... Hmmmm, no one scoffs at the parsing of hues, "I don't know, I just don't LIKE that shade of green, honey".......

These Rothko works are meant to evoke FEELING. Different for each viewer, but on the same side of the emotional scale for the respective works, as in people generally get a similar feeling or at least not joy when the mood is dark. One is meant to really take the painting in, not just wander past it for 10 seconds at a gallery or museum, only to be nonplussed and not convinced of the artist's talent or vision. Of all the artwork commonly accepted as part of the "high" art world; collected by galleries, tastemakers, lauded or lambasted by critics, etc. Rothko's color field paintings are certainly NOT among the "rubbish" which coaxes me into suspecting the art world is just a racket, propped up by the elite willling to go to any level of criticism or convincing (urinal) to manipulate what classless heathens with no culture will find as "decorative" or to deride what those idjits find aesthetically pleasing enough to purchase en masse, in the form of commemorative plates &/or limited edition holiday "prints".... (*barf and wink)

Skyfloating, what are your favorite colors? When I was a teenager, I loved purple. Royal purple... now I wouldn't paint a room purple; I believe it is because I am more experienced in life in general and am attracted to what are arguably more "mature" colors. Similar to not eating fishsticks and baloney sandwiches everyday, I think aesthetic appreciation naturally develops over a person's lifespan. The above point is not as succinct as it could be, but I do feel it's worthwhile to include in this post.

Consider the synesthete, one who experiences a crossing of the senses; for instance, sound being linked to color. From personal experience, I can tell you that Rothko's works are very poignantly assertive in their scale and hues. If the artist had titled his works with emotionally evocative words, perhaps people here would deem his work more valuable as true high art with redeeming intrinsic value, because they could see "Yeah, I guess this looks like the colors of an "Angry Wife" or "getting" a blue painting called "Peace"....

very great points. i agree with what you are saying here. side with you indeed.

though... mature colors is a personal and preference stance/very subjective. im sure you know that. i can see loud chromatic colors/day glows being mature depending on context.

what are mature colors to you?

I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

Originally posted by OhZone
I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

It's nice that you think that; alternate opinions are always great, although it'd be nice if you didn't state your opinion as if it were ultimate universal fact regarding the Rothko work.

Originally posted by OhZone
I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

so why do you feel they evoke a feeling of utter dismay????? can u articulate that further?

and yes like the previous poster pointed out for you ... it is subjective.