Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 154
  1. #51
    The cat won symple19's Avatar
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Post Count
    16,246
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Auburn Tigers

  2. #52
    Spur-taaaa TDMVPDPOY's Avatar
    Post Count
    41,330
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    art industry is nothin more than a stupid ponzi scheme they keep on fattening up cause too much money is invested into it, aka stupid pension funds

  3. #53
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    Post Count
    76,205
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    CuckingFunt - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?

  4. #54
    Allenhu Joshbar DeadlyDynasty's Avatar
    Location
    Uzhhorod, Ukraine
    Post Count
    27,715
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    College
    Maryland Terrapins
    I'm in the wrong racket if something like that sold for 75 million.

  5. #55
    The cat won symple19's Avatar
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Post Count
    16,246
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Auburn Tigers
    CuckingFunt - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?
    No, it wouldn't. Not only that, but if Funt reviewed it I can almost guarantee that her assessment of the piece would be totally and completely different from that which she gave in her post upstream

    Such is the art world

  6. #56
    All magic pass1st's Avatar
    Post Count
    8,437
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    I don't get art today, probably because I never took an art class after 6th grade.

    Stuff like this seems like art to me. Can't believe some of this stuff is made from paint

  7. #57
    Knowledge Is Hassle Fpoonsie's Avatar
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Post Count
    9,674
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas A&M Aggies
    This was great. I loved that guy's cynicism and snarkiness throughout.

  8. #58
    The cat won symple19's Avatar
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Post Count
    16,246
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Auburn Tigers
    Morley Safer is a pimp

  9. #59
    Knowledge Is Hassle Fpoonsie's Avatar
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Post Count
    9,674
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas A&M Aggies
    Evidently.

  10. #60
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    Post Count
    22,076
    NBA Team
    Sacramento Kings
    CuckingFunt - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?
    I think your question wants me to defend/explain a position I didn't take. Just because I think Rothko is an artist worthy of the acclaim he's received doesn't mean I don't think the art market is somewhat of an arbitrary popularity contest when it comes to who is or is not granted financial importance. As an example, one of the Abstract Expressionists I find to be the most interesting (by far) is Norman Lewis. However, while he is a well known and well respected painter, he is far less known than his AbEx colleagues, is only tangentially considered part of the movement, and it would be shocking if one of his paintings got even 1/10 the price of that Rothko. So, similar to the way I won't spend too much time defending the art market in general, neither will I pretend that art historians and art critics always get it right in determining who is or is not worthy of their praise.

    But, sticking with your hypothetical, If you were a painter in the mid-20th century who was working in color field paintings before Rothko it would be hard to call your work derivative or lacking in innovation. But your paintings' ability to fetch $75 million in an auction decades later would be dependent upon what else you had done as a painter and how well known/well respected you were for doing it. If you had the right exposure and knew the right people when you were working, it's possible you would have attained the same level of importance as Rothko. If you worked a lot but didn't get the right exposure or know the right people, it's possible you would have been relegated to Norman Lewis status (or, more likely, far lower, since Norman Lewis was well known at the time he was working). If you just happened to paint a canvas that looked like Rothko's and then chucked it in your closet for decades, then, no, you wouldn't get $75 million at auction based solely on its aesthetic properties.

    The art market tends to reward things that are simultaneously aesthetically interesting, innovative, art historically important, and done by big names. It's true that the last two items on that list are far more important to the people with money than are the first two items, but it's really pretty rare that someone makes it to the important/big name status without a lot of aesthetically interesting/innovative to get them there. I think the fact that the art world so often contradicts our own personal tastes, especially with the modern/contemporary movements that have moved away from mimesis, leads to the thought that it's a lot easier to become a successful, well known, or well paid artist than it actually is. The art world has made it's fair share of mistakes, and will likely continue to do so, but the idea they're just handing out endowments and paychecks to any hipster who comes along is largely a myth.
    Last edited by CuckingFunt; 11-30-2012 at 04:22 PM.

  11. #61
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    Post Count
    90,829
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    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.
    Hold your tongue on my balls.

  12. #62
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    Post Count
    90,829
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I don't get art today, probably because I never took an art class after 6th grade.

    Stuff like this seems like art to me. Can't believe some of this stuff is made from paint
    Wow, a painting with veneers.

  13. #63
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    Post Count
    90,829
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    You use the same face every time. So you learned to draw one face and you hide your shortcomings in facial hair. What a loser.

  14. #64
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    Post Count
    90,829
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs


    You're also a poser.

  15. #65
    All magic pass1st's Avatar
    Post Count
    8,437
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Wow, a painting with veneers.
    Try doing better

  16. #66
    noididnot ididnotnothat's Avatar
    Post Count
    1,437
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I still don't understand why the Mona Lisa is so famous.

  17. #67
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) AaronY's Avatar
    Post Count
    8,287
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    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 .

  18. #68
    Veteran Proxy's Avatar
    Location
    Austin
    Post Count
    4,002
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    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.
    Rothko has no academic understanding. His art is vastly overrated by people who aren't artists. The art movements that may have stemmed from his ability to become famous with no real skill is something that hurts art. Pop, post-modern, and contemporary are all gimmicky styles.

  19. #69
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,358
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    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.
    You just eliminated all the fun in posting here now who am I gonna smack with?

  20. #70
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    Post Count
    22,076
    NBA Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Rothko has no academic understanding. His art is vastly overrated by people who aren't artists. The art movements that may have stemmed from his ability to become famous with no real skill is something that hurts art. Pop, post-modern, and contemporary are all gimmicky styles.
    So were Impressionism, Expressionism, Futurism, Surrealism, Romanticism, the Pre-Raphaellites, and all other early modern and/or non-mimetic artistic movements, if you want to make that argument. The presence of a gimmick does not inherently negate artistic merit.

    Nor does an inability to appeal to every individual's personal tastes, for that matter. I personally can't stand Jackson Pollock, especially his drip paintings, and think he is vastly overrated, but I'd be silly to argue that his contribution to the art world was unimportant.

  21. #71
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,358
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    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.
    Unfortunately the damage has been done already. Ever since you bashed me in the tech forum no one wants me to fix their Laptops, Ever since you bashed me for my cheesy Spurs wallpapers no one ask me to do anymore, since you bashed my art I stop entering the art exhibits. Since you bash me in here I stop making topics. (unless I'm drunk)

    The bottom-line is their is no turning back now you can't un-ring a bell.

  22. #72
    Veteran Proxy's Avatar
    Location
    Austin
    Post Count
    4,002
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    So were Impressionism, Expressionism, Futurism, Surrealism, Romanticism, the Pre-Raphaellites, and all other early modern and/or non-mimetic artistic movements, if you want to make that argument. The presence of a gimmick does not inherently negate artistic merit.

    Nor does an inability to appeal to every individual's personal tastes, for that matter. I personally can't stand Jackson Pollock, especially his drip paintings, and think he is vastly overrated, but I'd be silly to argue that his contribution to the art world was unimportant.
    I would call Rothko's and Pollock's art a gimmick because it stands as design and nothing more. Futurism and Expressionism could be grouped with that but I would disagree with saying the Pre-Raphaelites, Impressionism, Expressionism, and Surrealism are gimmicky. Values, tones, composition, control of the medium... all displays of academic understanding are embedded in the great artists of those movements.

    I can't argue against the movements Pollock and Rothko thrived in weren't important contributions. The ability to appeal to personal tastes was something they were great at. I just feel those movements are steps in the wrong direction and I'm talking about the integrity of it all while leaving my personal tastes out of it.

  23. #73
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    Post Count
    22,076
    NBA Team
    Sacramento Kings
    I would call Rothko's and Pollock's art a gimmick because it stands as design and nothing more. Futurism and Expressionism could be grouped with that but I would disagree with saying the Pre-Raphaelites, Impressionism, Expressionism, and Surrealism are gimmicky. Values, tones, composition, control of the medium... all displays of academic understanding are embedded in the great artists of those movements.

    I can't argue against the movements Pollock and Rothko thrived in weren't important contributions. The ability to appeal to personal tastes was something they were great at. I just feel those movements are steps in the wrong direction and I'm talking about the integrity of it all while leaving my personal tastes out of it.
    That implies that technical ability and skilled draftsmanship are the only measures of art's quality. A point of view with which I strongly disagree. But, that's an argument that artists, critics, and historians have been busy with for decades, so it's unlikely to change here.

    I will point out, however, that both Pollock and Rothko (and Mondrian, and Kandinsky, and Duchamp, and virtually every other major artist frequently dismissed as too gimmicky by those who favor more traditional artistic skills) had traditional art backgrounds and worked in more realistic genres but chose to move away from those styles. The drips and the color fields are evidence not of an inability to do the more traditional stuff, but rather a lack of desire to work within those constraints.

  24. #74
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    Post Count
    90,829
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Just take a photo.

  25. #75
    Veteran Proxy's Avatar
    Location
    Austin
    Post Count
    4,002
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    That implies that technical ability and skilled draftsmanship are the only measures of art's quality. A point of view with which I strongly disagree. But, that's an argument that artists, critics, and historians have been busy with for decades, so it's unlikely to change here.

    I will point out, however, that both Pollock and Rothko (and Mondrian, and Kandinsky, and Duchamp, and virtually every other major artist frequently dismissed as too gimmicky by those who favor more traditional artistic skills) had traditional art backgrounds and worked in more realistic genres but chose to move away from those styles. The drips and the color fields are evidence not of an inability to do the more traditional stuff, but rather a lack of desire to work within those constraints.
    No, I don't think that. I think there's grey area in which technical training meets the concept/vision (seems obvious, but I'll state that anyways). I think that a style is something gained from traditional study though. Dali and Picasso had great academic understanding, and chose to branch out with their styles. Looking at James Jean as a more modern, illustrative example. If everything were based on technical skill alone, then it would all be so monotonous and boring. On the other side, it is obvious when an artist draws a certain way because he/she lacks the skill. Someone mentioned the Banksy film, 'Exit through the Gift Shop,' and I think that's a good embodiment of what is wrong and right about art.

    The reason I dislike Rothko isn't necessarily because of what he did either, but rather the repercussions of his influence and how people talk of him. Like you said, if it's personal choice to unhem themselves to the constraints of realism and do something more abstract, then more power to him. It's the hoards of people who throw themselves into art thinking they can be the next big thing by painting shapes and splattering randomness without traditional practice and understanding the philosophy and conceptual techniques that seems to hurt the perception of the art world and in turn it's support among the masses.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •