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
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
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'm in the wrong racket if something like that sold for 75 million.
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
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
This was great. I loved that guy's cynicism and snarkiness throughout.
Morley Safer is a pimp
Evidently.
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.
Hold your tongue on my balls.
Wow, a painting with veneers.
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.
Try doing better
I still don't understand why the Mona Lisa is so famous.
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.
You just eliminated all the fun in posting here now who am I gonna smack with?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)