"my ten year old brother could do better"

[poopnoodle]

Spoiler:

the above painting was sold for a whopping $140 mil, believe it or not. the value of artwork is subjective, but i have a tough time recognizing the value of some works- particularly muddy works like this that manage to reel in dough despite being produced with little effort/creativity. have you encountered some pieces that you felt received more recognition than deserved and how do situations like this make you feel? what do you think of treating art as a material commodity?

 

[curiousnathan]

I seen something similar to that, it looked like ym 2 year old cousin's painting she did in kinder. But unfourtunately it go thrown out. XD; To me I so don't understan and can't justify how this is a work of art when anyone can grab clumps of paint and drip and slash it over a cansas. I mean come on.

 

[Kura]

If that's an original Jackson *******, it's because it's a revolution. Nothing like that had ever been done before. He was FEELING art and trying to capture MOVEMENT with paint. It was a new idea and it gave a new perspective on art. That's why it's worth so much.

The value isn't necessarily in the technicality of it.. but rather.. in the idea.


Edit.. the heck? ******* is a censored word? o_o It's a freaking name.

Well its Jackson P0LLOCK if anyone's interested. And I better not get warned for censor bypassing for giving a NAME in history; or that'd just be ridiculous..
But yeah.. look up his art history if you're interested.. it'll give you a bit more insight as to why a painting like this is worth so much money.

 

[bna_li]

You don't know how to appreciate art, obviously.

It's a good thing.

I think it's ridiculous. That people pay $140M over an idea.

 

[poopnoodle]

If that's an original Jackson *******, it's because it's a revolution. Nothing like that had ever been done before. He was FEELING art and trying to capture MOVEMENT with paint. It was a new idea and it gave a new perspective on art. That's why it's worth so much.

The value isn't necessarily in the technicality of it.. but rather.. in the idea.


Edit.. the heck? ******* is a censored word? o_o It's a freaking name.

Well its Jackson P0LLOCK if anyone's interested. And I better not get warned for censor bypassing for giving a NAME in history; or that'd just be ridiculous..

lol p0ll0ck.

that's a good point though, and now that you've 'enlightened' me i see its cultural value but not its monetary value- which leads into my follow up question about treating art as a material product. i guess if you have the money to slap such an enormous price tag on an invaluable idea, "whatever floats your boat" and im sure the artist isn't complaining, but i dont know it's just something that i don't understand. i guess it's subjectivity that places material worth on a piece, but it becomes unfair when artists of little authenticity and innovation are recognized over genuine visionaries. i guess thats just LIFE well anyway

 

[Nick]

As an artist myself, I've been trying to grasp an appreciation to abstract art and what it is for a very long time, but I have such a difficult time grasping the fact that people would pay money for something they can create themselves. I don't really agree with the reasoning behind it's so popular, because I don't know a single artist who doesn't put their heart and soul into their work to make it come to life by any means possible (ie: feeling it).

With that said, I can go to an art museum and appreciate what I'm looking at and reflect on some paintings - some capture my emotion; only one abstract piece I've come across had any effect on me (unfortunately I don't recall the artist or work title) - but I wouldn't pay the kind of money people pay for this, or any other piece of art typically sold in showings and galleries.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

Just a relevant story. Back when my mother was at uni, her friend ran a hairdressing salon, and he and his boyfriend needed to fill space on a wall which was pretty empty-looking, so they bought a large canvas and just splattered paint everywhere, then hanged it up. It wasn't intended as art, just to fill the empty space on the wall. Within a week they had already had four art "appreciators" inquire about the painter and offering to purchase because they liked the "idea" that the artist had put into his work and claimed that the artwork spoke to them, when in reality it was just him and his boyfriend and a bottle of red wine splashing paint everywhere.

I mean, I don't mind people who appreciate art. As in, I'd really like to be able to appreciate art as much as I appreciate music, it'd give me another passion in life. Some people don't listen to music, but unlike the majority of the artistic community I don't feel superior to people who can't appreciate what I do. The problem with artists is that they're like Radiohead obsessors (good band but very overrated), they feel they can appreciate the art and because of that they are superior. A painting like that is definitely not worth $140 million dollars and to be honest I wouldn't even buy it even if it did appeal to me, simply because I could do the same thing myself for at least 139 million dollars less.

Again, I don't mind art but in many cases the scene that goes along with it is pretentious and that ruins it for me.

 

[PlatinumDude]

People perceive art in different ways. As an art student, I must say that whoever sold that painting must have sensed some deep meaning in that artwork.

 

[Skymin]

It's similar to this artwork (click me). I don't think your ten year old brother could put the paint in such as an effect as it is. I understand how you can think like that, though.

An artwork is meant to communicate something. And if it doesn't do that, the artist has failed at his/her job. Obviously, the artwork makes you think so it does do something, hmm?

 

[poopnoodle]

It's similar to this artwork (click me). I don't think your ten year old brother could put the paint in such as an effect as it is. I understand how you can think like that, though.

An artwork is meant to communicate something. And if it doesn't do that, the artist has failed at his/her job. Obviously, the artwork makes you think so it does do something, hmm?

the colors in that picture you've linked to aren't arranged so randomly so i can safely assume it wasn't produced by a child (though the concept of the piece you've linked to leaves no notable resonance with me maybs i'm too shallow!) anyway, i'm not trying to dictate what is considered "good" or "bad" in art, i'm just trying to grasp what's considered valuable in art culture and recognize when a piece loses its substance for profit. but i disagree that a work has to convey meaning to be considered quality, there are plenty of artists out their who produce incoherent works that can be admired for the technique and efforts put into it.

 

[Skymin]

the colors in that picture you've linked to aren't arranged so randomly so i can safely assume it wasn't produced by a child (though the concept of the piece you've linked to leaves no notable resonance with me maybs i'm too shallow!) anyway, i'm not trying to dictate what is considered "good" or "bad" in art, i'm just trying to grasp what's considered valuable in art culture and recognize when a piece loses its substance for profit. but i disagree that a work has to convey meaning to be considered quality, there are plenty of artists out their who produce incoherent works that can be admired for the technique and efforts put into it.

Oh I agree that it is heavily overpriced. I wouldn't even want to buy it.

Meaning can range from a story to a simple message. I remember seeing an artwork in a gallery and asking my teacher about it. It was pretty crap, 3 splashes of paint on a canvas. My teacher said although it looked like no effort, the art displayed a message and it would be admired because of it. Of course I completely disagreed because the untrained eye can fail to see any meaning.

The technique can also display message. Thick lines across a canvas can express heavy emotion.

Can you give an example of a artwork that is quality yet has no meaning? I want to see what I can see of it.

 

[poopnoodle]

Oh I agree that it is heavily overpriced. I wouldn't even want to buy it.

Meaning can range from a story to a simple message. I remember seeing an artwork in a gallery and asking my teacher about it. It was pretty crap, 3 splashes of paint on a canvas. My teacher said although it looked like no effort, the art displayed a message and it would be admired because of it. Of course I completely disagreed because the untrained eye can fail to see any meaning.

The technique can also display message. Thick lines across a canvas can express heavy emotion.

Can you give an example of a artwork that is quality yet has no meaning? I want to see what I can see of it.

think scenic photography, think pokemon fan-art, think typography, think practical machinery, think nature, think advertising (sending a different type of message than what we're talking about)-- different artistic "genres" that often carry little to no emotional substance but are appreciated for their usefulness or admired simply for techniques/effort/beauty etc. also, some artists have no message to convey (i've seen a number of artists admit to this) but people are liable to perceive a personal meaning or significance from their pieces, so the artwork itself doesn't have to bear any sort of expression to draw emotion.

 

[Skymin]

I'm not saying the artist themselves are sending a message on purpose. Any person can see a message from an art. The message can be something simple like "I think this is a beautiful place". It doesn't have to be a terribly complex train of thought. Most fan art expresses the artists love for a series. I have art in my book that I have done that I have no explanation for but others do. The audience makes something from it. The majority of advertisements send a message to buy something by portraying the product in some way.

Okay I'm going to use one of my friends as an example. This artwork is what you said, an admiration of style and technique. But a message about her love for Pokémon for the detail she put into it. The colours could also mean something, like the purple is majestic or royal kind of Pokémon. It could give a message of some kind of journey this Pokémon is going on. Something of the like. Do you know what I mean? Although it might not be intentional, true art always speaks in some way to the audience.

In other news, this is making me tired and let's just disagree with eachother and leave it at that? d:

 

[dragoniteuser]

What about this one?!
My parrot craps better art than this!!!

 

[Aquacorde]

It really doesn't seem worth much to me. I think it is too abstract for me to appreciate it properly... like the sculptures in the Minneapolis Sculpture garden. One of them is a brick wall that was sold for like... $300k or something. I don't get it.

 

[Esper]

What about this one?!
My parrot craps better art than this!!!

I don't know how artistic your parrot is, but I like this. Not saying I'd drop $140 million for it, but it's got nice colors and I find it interesting to look at.

I think that anything one person does that another person views or thinks about or is affected by could be valuable/qualify as art. I also don't think an artist has to intend for a piece of art to contain a message for a message to be there. People view art so art is a social thing, that is, it involves two or more people in a 'conversation'. (Unless it's art that's never seen by anyone in which case we have a tree falling in the forest situation.) Making art is, by my definition anyway, sending a message since it involves more than one person. Not everyone is going to understand it, but communication is never perfect. Because it's a different experience for everyone I can't say that one piece of art is more valuable than another. I may not be moved by Monet's water lilies, but other people are. With some art it's easy to see why people like it because it appeals to our own sensibilities, but I'm not going to claim Monet is a hack because I don't like some of his paintings. Well, I might, but I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me.

What I'm trying to say is that value is subjective.

 

[Ayselipera]

Hey! That reminds me of that little girl who painted just like Jackson P0LLOCK and sold them for a lot of money. I saw a documentary on her and it was really interesting...

Anyway things like this remind me of the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What one person might find ugly/pointless another might find to be the most amazing thing on earth. Abstract art is interesting and you can find meaning in it if you can connect with it. If that's not your kind of art though then you'll never see the beauty in it. I like to think that's just life. If we all liked the same things there wouldn't be any interestingly different people about.

As for your other question there have been many times when I've seen a piece or anything for that matter and thought, "What's so great about that?" While the person next to me is gasping at its "beauty." I don't let things like that bother me though, I often just laugh. I know I probably do the same thing to other pieces or other random things in general.

 

[Zebeedoo]

Some people can see things differently, at a different point of view. To one person, that could be a really good peice of artwork, and to another it could be totally horrible. If the person who bought the painting liked it that much, then it's worth the $140 mil that they payed for it, in their eyes. I don't think it really matters how old you are either. Anyone can create art no matter how old.

 

[Martins]

Maybe it has something in it, like a hidden image you need to look in a certain way to see..? Other than that, it is indeed very overpriced and I wouldn't buy it at all.

..or..not

Who painted this? These days if a popular celebrity uses a tissue or something, then this tissue is worth a lot of money, to some that is. This painting is probably done by someone who if draws a line and sells it, it would sell for a lot of cash.

I'm just blabbering stuff, really.

 

[Elite Overlord LeSabre™]

This is why I will never be an art person. I really can't derive any sort of meaning from those types of art pieces. Then again, I've never been good at deriving hidden meanings from any sort of art. Or literature, for that matter. Abstract art just confuses me. I like things concrete and definite.

At least we know the art collecting community has plenty of money to throw around.