It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Copsophiliacs do. Its their subjective appreciation of poo that gives it value. Apparently there are those who will supply it in a setting that adds further value... for a fee of course.
Value may be 70% subjective (at the most) but I wouldnt subscribe to the popular notion that it is 100% subjective.
If it were we would prefer excrement to a day at the beach and sea.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by SkyfloatingCopsophiliacs do. Its their subjective appreciation of poo that gives it value. Apparently there are those who will supply it in a setting that adds further value... for a fee of course.
Value may be 70% subjective (at the most) but I wouldnt subscribe to the popular notion that it is 100% subjective.
If it were we would prefer excrement to a day at the beach and sea.
Sod it, I'll bite
So artists look at the pictures and see the entire context of art-history and thus have a much greater appreciation of what to me appears as a mere blot of color.
Very Interesting.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
I'd say that if anyone who doesn't get "Modern Art" wants to, you'll never really undertand its place unless you get at least some clue about the Dada movement.
Originally posted by masqua
[brainfart]
A law should be passed that anyone purchasing a work of art should pay a percentage of the price to the artist (if living) or to their estate (if not).
[/brainfart]
That would put a justifyable crimp into the machinations of the greedy and provide a lasting benefit to the artists themselves.
Yet you have previously criticised work for being simplistic & called the artist's integrity into question for what you perceive as a lack of due diligence, for want of a better phrase. If the purpose of art school is to turn out artists who are as good as they can be, then by your previous argument, they should only produce work which amply demonstrates a fine attention to detail etc. thus demanding more rules, eh?
I also have the impression that art school is not exactly what it could be. Too many rules. How can art prosper with so many rules as to what art is allowed to be and what not?
No, the merit is there, its you that needs to be talked into giving the work enough consideration to see it. Its the same kind of thing as attempting to convince kids to eat broccoli!
Originally posted by Skyfloating reply to post by AsktheanimalsI appreciated your last post very much. But its almost as if only after so and so much talking and persuasion by people like you do I start seeing merit in Rothko and similar. Its as if that merit is not inherent but has to be talked-into-existence artificially.
Actually, I was commenting on monetary value per se. Not specifically of art, nor artistic value. I should have been more clear.
That's why emotional or ideological engagement is by no means art.
Art is about ethics, because it destroys subjective arbitrariness.
Originally posted by DangerDeath
Originally posted by craig732
Originally posted by buttking
this dude is good.
I guess you don't "get" art.
I don't get a lot of art, but I would like to understand.
Can you articulate what is "good" about these paintings? What exactly do you like about them?
Art is a source of energy and as such will outlive you.
Because you are simply a consumer and not a creator.
Change yourself and you will understand. Otherwise, it will escape you.