Reply With Quote
this vato gets it ^
here is a POS that no one here would ever pay more than 10 dollars for unless they knew who painted it.
Wrong!
They uncover a painting that Hitler did, it's the painting of a jew hanging from a tree. While the painting it's self is pretty bad, the fact that Hitler painted it.............
Mussolini painted this...
.....value?
Last edited by Avante; 11-30-2012 at 04:03 AM.
this vato gets it ^
here is a POS that no one here would ever pay more than 10 dollars for unless they knew who painted it.
You guys can have this one.
Last thing I'll ever do is get myself embroiled in an argument with Avante and mouse about something that actually matters to me.
Smart girl, now go powder that nose.
hey fellas
is there any successful artist outside europe that has sold paintings in the +7 digits?...how come most of the u see sold are from artists in europe, its not like from outside is inferior work, or all of this art bull industry is controlled and each decade they will only select whose works gets to be famous and ...
unfortunately your spot on. During my short time in the art community I have it to be very political and is really a "Business"
If you want to be a successful artists all you need is $ Money $ Many art galleries charge a "huge" amount for your art to be showcased.
And if you want to be in a major art gallery you need at least 90 to 9,000 dollars depending where and how long.
I won ArtSlant's digital / computer artist of 2010 and 2011 but if i didn't pay the 20 dollar a month fee my works would not be seen by the public.
I must say I paid it for about 6 months since I wanted the other artists to see why they lost. But I got many emails saying if I pay at least 99.00 dollars a month my artwork will be on the Front page and so on....truth is if you have 10,000 dollars you will be the next Hot Artists in your city. for 2,000 you can be on Local morning Television.
just think what 1,000.000 can do for your art career.
lawlz gmafb Theres no way that took him more than 20 seconds to do thatThis POS sold for $75 million dollars.
You can sell a red spot on a cloth for 50 million dollars as long as you claim its the blood of Jesus. Why else would you buy that red dot?
mouse, good luck to you and your "art".
It's not luck and I don't need it.
Unlike you I don't need approval from anyone. But I will say this you do make more money than any Artist I know so Major props!
After all it is a Business?
not to me, it's life. money is just the perks of it but i do what i do because i love it.
you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.
I just watched a pretty good do entary on street art the other day called, "Exit Through the Gift Shop". I don't want to spoil the show or set up but it really hammers home the point that people are willing to pay a lot of money for utter .
awesomely awesome docu... mocku...?
yeah...pretty brilliant. makes your tattoo troll look simple by comparison.
^Before blunt
^After blunt
And then he'll come down and go back to calling people gots and such.
i haven't smoked in a week. wouldn't mind doing so but can live without, it's not the end all. then again, i do love me a good blunt.^After blunt
And then he'll come down and go back to calling people gots and such.
So I never got this about art and why nothing else is like it. For example, the painting that sold for 75 million. Is that a great piece of art or not? You said it's the artist and admitted that the exact same piece of work done by someone else would not sell like that. You also said that you can't become a "who" without having the reputation.
But what does that have to do with that individual piece? If an musician who had some of the world's greatest albums released something that was very mediocre or bad, it wouldn't sell just because they have a rep. Each piece is judged on it's own and has it's own merit.
Terry Bradshaws rookie card looks terrible, just a big face taking up the entire card. Stupid looking card. One of the really cool looking cards is that Don Perkins rookie, it has a black border with Don in a cool pose with those old Dallas stars on his pads. That Bradshaw rookie is far more expensive than that Perkins rookie. All about the...who.
Last edited by Avante; 11-30-2012 at 03:00 PM.
The greatness of that painting, or of art in general, is not solely dependent on its aesthetics. Aesthetics are a matter of taste, which is entirely subjective on an individual basis and is constantly changing on a societal basis. Innovation and the general cultural landscape at the time a work was created are important considerations, as well.
Rothko's paintings are aesthetically gorgeous, in my opinion, especially when seen in person. There is a complexity in his color fields that is simply impossible to reproduce on a computer monitor and at such a small scale. His canvases are huge, and his intention was for people to get within just a few inches of the surface, meaning the color would fill your entire field of vision. Additionally, his paintings are not just a couple of paint colors thrown on a canvas in 20 seconds, as someone suggested earlier. They're layers and layers and layers of paint built up and perfectly smoothed out. When you get up close, as intended, you can see all of the other colors peeking through and it really is quite beautiful. So there is an aesthetic appeal for me and the many other people who like Rothko's work.
But, again, aesthetics alone aren't the only reason Rothko is important. It's plenty easy for you or I or anyone else to make a painting that looks exactly like that one. But Rothko did it first, and when no one else would have even thought of doing so, and that is also of art historical importance. He was part of a movement that massively changed the direction of modern art and that helped to inspire the pop, post-modern, and contemporary art movements that followed.
That said, it will be a cold day in before I (or many other art historians) start to make excuses for the silly excess and trend mentality of the art market. I think $75,000,000 for a Rothko is obscene. And I know for a fact a lot of the people who pay those kinds of prices for art often have very little understanding of the art historical significance of the work they are buying; their motivations are often status, investment, or matching the couch. So while I'll defend Abstract Expressionism as important, and defend Rothko as good (I'm actually not that big a fan many of the other well known AbExers), I'm not going to spend too much time saying that the art market is rational or always makes the right choices. I just think it's bat stupid when people like mouse start throwing around auction prices as if they're somehow being slighted by not raking in multi-million dollar sales.
Two things:
For one, you're comparing apples to oranges. Albums are mass produced, adhere to standard pricing schemes, and are widely available. Art is generally not. The inflated values of artwork have a lot to do with its rarity and the fact it's typically only sold in an auction setting.
Second, I'm not so certain that reputation doesn't make a musician sellable even after an agreed upon decline in quality. The Rolling Stones still pack in record crowds, after all.
Holy that better be a magic eye picture or something. What a complete pos...even if you're an art buff you have to call a spade a spade on that bull .This POS sold for $75 million dollars.
its like each decade or generation they nominate some clown and make him famous, buy up alot of his works, make up some bull theory how his paintings revolutionize some bull way of thinking towards art....boom just like that turd piccasso
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
kE9s4Z-4v3BQNsdWr-qQ~~60_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F)