In my view, I have to disagree about it being interesting. I really can't spend time admiring a canvas with two areas of orange and yellow paint. Nor can I marvel at the skill involved in creating it, because I'm pretty sure I could produce a similar result.
That is a common criticism. Jackson Pollack heard that quite frequently. I suggest you go ahead and try, if only to discover there is quite a bit of craft and skill involved.
FWIW, I have a very good friend and colleague stopping by for lunch today. He has a degree in art and is a practicing artist ... and a heck of a nice guy ... and he doesn't think much of Rothko's work, either. I still invite him to lunch.
You're probably right, there is more to it than I think. I'm no artist after all.
But in trying to understand what it is that people appreciate in these works, I've been doing a bit of reading. It seems that the artist intended that they evoke an emotional response in the viewer. Well to an extent he has succeeded with me, but I'm not sure if my reaction is what the artist had in mind.
My friend Jim is one of those meticulous folks who just can't sit still, he has to be doing something with his hands all the time... and he is always looking for better ways to improve on something.
His wife is one of those who wants to travel, take Carnival Cruises and spend weeks on a boat.
Jim? forget that, he would rather be out in the shop using his hands watching a piece of wood change from a tree into a beautiful piece of work.
Art? I think so. The video that is uploading to YouTube as I type, shows him making little tiny Lightning strike tracks on the wooden bowls. He gave me a small flat bowl yesterday, I will upload a pix of it here after the YouTube video is done. It has tracks from each of the four corners radiating down towards the center of it.
Will provide a link to that video when I post the pix of the little bowl.
not very long, just showing how he creates the little tracks.
The probe is attached to a high voltage transformer of about 7,000 volts A/C
The little rotary thing is a Variable Transformer that brings the input voltage to the High Voltage Transformer smoothly up from '0' zero volts to whatever he needs to just barely make the high voltage arcing.
He explains that the surface must be pretreated with a mixture of water and Baking Soda.
.
and here is the little shallow bowl that he gave to me yesterday. I think it is neat.
not very long, just showing how he creates the little tracks.
The probe is attached to a high voltage transformer of about 7,000 volts A/C
The little rotary thing is a Variable Transformer that brings the input voltage to the High Voltage Transformer smoothly up from '0' zero volts to whatever he needs to just barely make the high voltage arcing.
He explains that the surface must be pretreated with a mixture of water and Baking Soda.
.
and here is the little shallow bowl that he gave to me yesterday. I think it is neat.
I found one in that link that is actually quite neat.... and code approved, betcha they charge Full Tilt for this baby at every Rock and Roll show they provide power for.
Art is whatever some fool pulled out his and was said by someone, even that same fool, to be art. If it is art to someone, then it is art. Even if it is a $150 million painting of bird shit. Also 1) Rich people buy this crap to mock poor people. 2) I suspect there is money laundering involved or some sort of payment scheme. 3) The artsy academic books ore just insidious advertising.
You're probably right, there is more to it than I think. I'm no artist after all.
But in trying to understand what it is that people appreciate in these works, I've been doing a bit of reading. It seems that the artist intended that they evoke an emotional response in the viewer. Well to an extent he has succeeded with me, but I'm not sure if my reaction is what the artist had in mind.
Art is whatever some fool pulled out his and was said by someone, even that same fool, to be art. If it is art to someone, then it is art. Even if it is a $150 million painting of bird shit. Also 1) Rich people buy this crap to mock poor people. 2) I suspect there is money laundering involved or some sort of payment scheme. 3) The artsy academic books ore just insidious advertising.
With regard to point 1) above, I'm pretty sure that rich people buy this stuff in order to
a) impress or get one up on their similarly rich friends
b) investment - keep it for a while and sell on for double what they paid for it
c) have something that nobody else has
Maybe on some level I don't understand, appreciating the item as a work of art comes into it?
With regard to point 1) above, I'm pretty sure that rich people buy this stuff in order to
a) impress or get one up on their similarly rich friends
b) investment - keep it for a while and sell on for double what they paid for it
c) have something that nobody else has
Maybe on some level I don't understand, appreciating the item as a work of art comes into it?
For many people there is a bit of "The Emperor's New Clothes" to art, especially modern/post-modern/abstract art.
If you read biographies of most artists, especially those considered masters, they don't understand the huge sums of money paid for their work. The reality is that if you buy an artist's work early in their career, and they become recognized, it will yield huge returns later on. That is the business of art and has very little to do with those who create art to create.
Look at Paul Gauguin. He gave up his successful and profitable life as a stockbroker to pursue painting (after the stock market in Paris crashed ). He made very little money from it and was ridiculed most of time for what later is to be called masterpieces.
I can appreciate that many don't appreciate Rothko's work. And, I can further understand that many laud his work, not because of what it is attempting to convey, but because it's now extremely valuable and recognized.
Go back in time 125 years ... would you pay $50 or $100 for this?
Sold for ~$40mil 100 years later
Or go back 60 years, would you pay $200 for this?
Sold for $46.5mil last year
In both cases, at the time they were painted, the general consensus was they weren't worth a few dollars, but I would have bought them because I like them, not because of what they might be worth in the future. Who knows, though. Maybe those paying these ridiculous prices actually like them too.
I might smear some of my poop on a neon gold canvas and see what i can get for it. The colors should clash nicely. I shall call it... "Samsung Default Wallpaper.....dot jpg"
I think the question of monetary value is different from the question of whether the work is a good piece of art.
As you rightly say, the value fluctuates, depending on the reputation of the artist, and fashion. Is the artist's work popular? Quite clearly the popularity is variable. But one thing I'm pretty sure about is that any multi million dollar art work won't go down in value. In fact probably will substantially gain in value. Therefore it's a solid investment, if you have the cash. Probably a better return than the stock market would give.
I wouldn't pay anything for the above 2 works because I don't rate them as good works of art. I don't recognise or respect that any significant skill went into producing the second one. It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't represent anything. It's simply too abstract.
Is the middle one by Picasso? Whilst it is a bit strange, it does make you look at it for more than 2 seconds.
I like paintings which make good use of light and shadow. The bottom one I don't recognise, but it looks too one dimensional to me, and quite crudely drawn.
So the one I'd pick is the first. But you knew that
I think the first one is the best. It is a fairly detailed representation of an acutal person painted by someone with skill enough to actually do that. The second one looks like a jumbled up mess of crap to me. And the third one looks like a kid with crayons decided to scribble themselves up a rooster.
It is a fairly detailed representation of an acutal person painted by someone with skill enough to actually do that. The second one looks like a jumbled up mess of crap to me. And the third one looks like a kid with crayons decided to scribble themselves up a rooster.
The middle one is indeed Picasso. It is one of his more famous works entitled "Guernica" about the horror of the bombing of the city of Guernica during the Spanish civil war.
The thing is, the other two are also Picasso. "The old fisherman" was painted when he was 14. "The Roaster" was painted when he was 57. What you find with many of the great artists of the 19th and 20th centuries is that they have classical training and evolve into more cerebral and abstract work.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
). He made very little money from it and was ridiculed most of time for what later is to be called masterpieces.
