entremet
Member
I don't know, that's pretty skilled work. I think you don't like the style, which is different than skill.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do people pay so much for art?
- Thread starter Tom Penny
- Start date
- Status
I don't know, that's pretty skilled work. I think you don't like the style, which is different than skill.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Right, hence the part in my very exact post where I said I can see why its good. But not expensive.
Dark Octave
Banned
lol You guys are so calm when explaining this. You must be used to people not seeing what you do when it comes to this kind of art. I appreciate that. Even though this "ecosystem" boils my blood, I am listening to and soaking in what you guys are saying so thanks for the education.
HamPster PamPster
Member
That was painted in the 1950s and I think the other stuff posted in this thread is even earlier. Stuff that was first or starts a movement will always be worth a lot because of historical significance. No one making paintings like today is selling them for $40 million
I thought Act 2 of this TAL episode was interesting
I thought Act 2 of this TAL episode was interesting
The market decides the price. There is literally only one of that painting, and the artist will never make anything else like it. Its rare, its respected, etc.
Jace the Mindsculptor is a good card, but surely that little piece of cardboard and ink isn't "worth" $150.
Similar thing.
One of my favorite aspects of the internet is access to art. I don't have a lot of museums to visit and I would never buy a book of art, and even then that's limited to something specific. But the internet has sites to visit and picture downloads of every art piece in existence. Yeah, it's not the same as seeing it in person, but I'm not planning on being to the Louvre anytime soon.
you should visit your local museums and galleries.
Have you ever seen a Rothko in person? I just find it so funny that you were acting like a little kid saying that you could ignore people's opinions who liked that sort of art. At least now you are trying to at least understand it a little more.
I don't have to draw you a supply demand graph, do I?
I knew it would go for more than 1 million. Didn't think it would almost reach 2.
I would note in response to you and Techno that there's also modern art out there that I don't get at all and don't really appreciate. Those white canvases? I could be snide about those. Or, for a bigger example, I don't have much of a personal response to Jackson Pollock. But I remember that I used to not understand Rothko as well, and that lots of people would lump his stuff, and Jasper Johns's stuff, in with the "abstract crap." So maybe that art doesn't speak to me personally, but speaks to others. Maybe I'm more in tune with Rothko and what he was trying to communicate. In that sense it can be just like liking a movie when your friends think it sucks.
Basically, I recommend going to a modern art museum and just looking at everything individually and spending a few seconds with each one. Maybe you'll see something and be like, whoa, there's something going on here. Or maybe you can come back to this thread and tell me I wasted hours of your life
$72.8 million
$86.8 million
Me too.
I've been lucky enough to go a lot of places, and see a lot of great art, but going to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX is still one of the greatest single-artist art experiences I've found.
I've probably spent over 40 total hours there in my life. There's just something about the work that just draws me in and touches something deep in my psyche, regardless if I had "enhanced" the experience or not.
Fuck me these are great.
chaostrophy
Member
Don't forget that most of the crazy high-priced art sales are from secondary sales and auctions. It's not like the artist decided the painting was worth $86 mil and set that price himself and got to keep all the money. The prices come from dealers who try to get the most money for their clients who have entrusted them with pieces that they paid significant sums for themselves. It's not naive rubes getting duped, all parties in sales like this are sophisticated investors.
I think it's important to divorce the art from the art market. In one case, you're concerned about the piece itself, whether it moves you, whether you like it, what it means to you, etc.
In the other, you're aggravated by a market that no one can reasonably defend, but is an expected outgrowth of capitalism. Paintings sell for outrageous amounts for the same reason NFL players get paid outrageous amounts, because that's what the market will bear.
It's fine to think it's ridiculous to pay 86 million dollars for a color field painting, but that doesn't actually have much bearing about what we think of the painting itself.
In the other, you're aggravated by a market that no one can reasonably defend, but is an expected outgrowth of capitalism. Paintings sell for outrageous amounts for the same reason NFL players get paid outrageous amounts, because that's what the market will bear.
It's fine to think it's ridiculous to pay 86 million dollars for a color field painting, but that doesn't actually have much bearing about what we think of the painting itself.
Count Dookkake
Member
Me too.
I've been lucky enough to go a lot of places, and see a lot of great art, but going to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX is still one of the greatest single-artist art experiences I've found.
I've probably spent over 40 total hours there in my life. There's just something about the work that just draws me in and touches something deep in my psyche, regardless if I had "enhanced" the experience or not.
Featured as a subplot in COSMOPOLIS.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I would note in response to you and Techno that there's also modern art out there that I don't get at all and don't really appreciate. Those white canvases? I could be snide about those. Or, for a bigger example, I don't have much of a personal response to Jackson Pollock. But I remember that I used to not understand Rothko as well, and that lots of people would lump his stuff, and Jasper Johns's stuff, in with the "abstract crap." So maybe that art doesn't speak to me personally, but speaks to others. Maybe I'm more in tune with Rothko and what he was trying to communicate. In that sense it can be just like liking a movie when your friends think it sucks.
Basically, I recommend going to a modern art museum and just looking at everything individually and spending a few seconds with each one. Maybe you'll see something and be like, whoa, there's something going on here. Or maybe you can come back to this thread and tell me I wasted hours of your life
But like, I don't necessarily think its bad. I just think that when something like the three white canvases are able to sell for an expensive price it is placing far too much value on a specific implementation of the artistic essence of the piece. With complex art that's understandable because the two are inextricably linked (I'm never going to be able to paint an exact recreation of a Van Gogh), but anyone who wants to can re-create the aesthetic effect of the three white canvases.
I don't think the three white canvases are necessarily the main point of that exhibit. I don't think they'll fetch millions on the market when, or more likely, if they go up for sale. I believe the purpose of those blank canvases are to get the viewer to think and analyze the situation rather than the take in a white canvas for its inherit artistic value.
IMO, the best art is art you have to do some studying to really get.
Also, I can understand how people don't like a lot of the more contemporary Western styles of art. Until fairly recently, Western art has never really been about design and concept. Historically, Western art has been about technical ability and aesthetics derived from that technical ability (hence realism and naturalism). Also, culturally, Westerners favor expansive art not simplicity nor minimalism.
While this began to change in the 19th century I think culturally it's still dominated by a desire for expansive realism. This is why people dislike painters like Rothko and Pollock so much.
And honestly, a lot of contemporary art really is bad. Design and space/environment design is something that is very often poorly considered. Also, you have a post-modern anti-aesthetic movement that I find intellectually troubling.
But again, on Rothko and Pollock - go and see them in person. It's really a completely different experience.
I see what you mean, but I'm not sure. What about, say, Duchamp's Fountain? It would be pretty easy to make a copy of that, too, right? Does that mean it should practically have a low individual value?
chaostrophy
Member
You might not be able to paint an exact recreation of a Van Gogh but a lot of people can- his work is commonly forged, and often the forgeries can only be caught with chemical analysis and other high-tech forensic techniques- they're indistinguishable from a real one with the naked eye. I think it's common sense to everyone that a forgery wouldn't have the same value as a real one. That's an example of the value of rarity, historic place, etc.
Modern abstract work can be impressive in person, but I don't really see it as anything different from digital or photographic abstract. Nice design and use of color. Yeah OK, next.
Years ago I bought a Kandinsky poster and looked at it daily on the bedroom wall. I liked it and just thought it was contemporary abstract and not really representing anything. Then I read that he was attempting to visually represent music with the piece. Literally decades later, and I look at the poster differently now.
Expressionism is also something that I can really study and enjoy. It can be crazy, but I find it incredibly creative and where the artist is really trying to indirectly say something. I also like the French Impressionists. It's fascinating work, and add the rarity factor and I can start to understand why these sell for millions.
It really is fun exploring art.
Years ago I bought a Kandinsky poster and looked at it daily on the bedroom wall. I liked it and just thought it was contemporary abstract and not really representing anything. Then I read that he was attempting to visually represent music with the piece. Literally decades later, and I look at the poster differently now.
Expressionism is also something that I can really study and enjoy. It can be crazy, but I find it incredibly creative and where the artist is really trying to indirectly say something. I also like the French Impressionists. It's fascinating work, and add the rarity factor and I can start to understand why these sell for millions.
It really is fun exploring art.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Modern art is a bunch of bollocks made by untalented hacks and sold to people who have no clue.
Basically a bunch of rich twats, who want to look like they are educated and cultivated. So said rich fucks who are to embarrassed to admit they dont have a clue, nor have the guts to buy things they actually like.
So its this mass hysteria of a bunch of rich clueless fucks taking the word from the idiots in the art community. And the art community has been in complete dissaray for 50years. Since anyone with actual talent will go somewhere else, where they can make money.
Basically one big thing of emperors new clothes.
And once the ball is in motions. You have all of these rich twats who got cheated, but sit on huge collections of crap. So they have to keep the prices up, other wise they will get fucked.
In the end it feeds it self until it comes crashing down. Which it will. Because it is crap.
Basically a bunch of rich twats, who want to look like they are educated and cultivated. So said rich fucks who are to embarrassed to admit they dont have a clue, nor have the guts to buy things they actually like.
So its this mass hysteria of a bunch of rich clueless fucks taking the word from the idiots in the art community. And the art community has been in complete dissaray for 50years. Since anyone with actual talent will go somewhere else, where they can make money.
Basically one big thing of emperors new clothes.
And once the ball is in motions. You have all of these rich twats who got cheated, but sit on huge collections of crap. So they have to keep the prices up, other wise they will get fucked.
In the end it feeds it self until it comes crashing down. Which it will. Because it is crap.
But you have a clue, right? You've got it all figured out and are just looking down on the poor saps who just aren't smart enough to "get a clue".
I complete agree, the art market is its own, ugly beast.
I get both sides of the debate, I would personally pay good money for a Miro or a Kandinsky, like really good money, up to the price of a small car, but when it goes for millions you know it has crossed some sort of line, its no longer about the art itself anymore, and paintings that are actually that valuable and important culturally should be in a museum anyway, not in someones living room.
You've got it all figured out I see. Well done Sherlock.
I am not saying the prices aren't obscene, but the art itself can be amazing.
BomberMouse
Member
Rich people being rich and speculative market.
I have, it wasn't. I now avoid the MoMA entirely as I never felt anything but annoyance well I'm there. Of course all this is subjective anyway.
SolsticeZero
Banned
I paid about $600 + framing costs for an Emile Bellet painting when I was on a cruise. It's more than I ever wanted to spend, but I fell in love with it and had to have it. That's probably as high as I'd go, though.
Phat Michael
Banned
I buy a lot of KAWS art. figurines and images/prints. I have 2 big prints and about 10 figurines. they're every expensive and a lot of people say they are overpriced, but hey, they make me happy and I love them.
I find it curious that no one has offered a criticism of this answer. It's about garnering prestige, or as Riposte says, a game of status symbols. Can anyone effectively argue it's not?
diffusionx
Gold Member
No, the art market is all about status... but what high-end market is not?
However, the art can be really good.
He has an absolute stance. Nothing is absolute. There are and will always be great artists doing great art no matter how shallow the cream of the crop is.
Also it seems he only values paintings based on technical merits.
I'd pay a lot for a Miro or a Turner or a Degas, relative to what I have, which is part of the issue; if you have 45 billion dollars, 80 million doesn't seem nearly as unreasonable as it does to mere financial mortals.
I've always found modern art quite baffling. In different 'modern art' museums I've seen:
- A huge print of the dictionary entry for the word 'description'
- A huge canvas that was painted entirely black
- A huge canvas with a single, solitary black spot
- A floor covered with peanut butter
- A crashed car
- A string that was suspended from the ceiling
The average estimated worth of thee 'artworks' was more than 2 million Euros.
- A huge print of the dictionary entry for the word 'description'
- A huge canvas that was painted entirely black
- A huge canvas with a single, solitary black spot
- A floor covered with peanut butter
- A crashed car
- A string that was suspended from the ceiling
The average estimated worth of thee 'artworks' was more than 2 million Euros.
I was thinking the same, but the thing is that people really don't own 45 billions, its their companies, no matter what, 80 million is a pretty huge amount of money in any circle, you just don't treat that kind of money like if it was disposable income, even when you read the exentricities of very rich and famous people it really never reaches that insane amount, or does it?
Rich people do extravagant things no doubt but I think the price of art pieces goes even beyond that, to the point it no longer is just a status symbol, it becomes an investment, and the value and importance of the piece as art is completely lost.
I just made this. What do you guys think?
It's an egg.
Yeah, that kind of thing is pretty stupid. Almost like the artist has a brainstorming session where they ask themselves "what can I do that is so stupid that no one ever bothered to do it before?" And since so much has been done before, it becomes a race to the bottom.
Like the three blank canvases shown earlier. It is not even clever in the way the artist thinks it is. You aren't turning the observer's expectations on their ear. It is just stupid, obvious, and pretentious.
Grinchy
Banned
Your avatar is an egg. I wouldn't expect a simple mind such as yours to grasp the meaning behind this work of art. An egg? Are you kidding me? Visit a museum. Open a book. Expand your mind.
I wish more people appreciated a brilliant piece when they saw it, but the world is full of amoebas like you. I would list all the implications of this piece, but I don't think you could handle having your mind blown.
What gross generalizations. As if all artists acted the same and did their work to impress you or other artists. You are judging those works from second hand information. One line of text describing a full installation. "Shit happens" in the movie Predator - "What a goddamn boring movie".
And btw I think a crashed car would make a very interesting experience to most. You don't see them often and rarely up close. I already started to think about the people who may or may not have been killed inside the wreck and I'm not even looking at the piece!
I think there's a point somewhere underneath all that effort.
Yup. A case of rich people being so rich they waste their money on worthless shit because they're bored/stupid.
It's been pointed out several times that art is a form of investment, so no one's treating it as "disposable income".
Why bother? His whole argument is premised on the principle that nobody can actually like modern art, and that if they think they do, it's cognitive dissonance caused by the value of the pieces. I don't see much reason to engage with that.
Sorcerer
Member
In a way isn't a high price on a masterpiece work of art a way to ensure that it doesn't end up in the hands of just anyone who may have no appreciation for the work and will likely let the piece be uncared for and destroyed or possibly have the piece just change hands over and over again until it disappears?
I mean if you are going to pay millions for a work I am sure you are going to care for it and preserve it.
It seems it has to be this way in a sense.
I am no scholar on the subject of art by any means. But what I wouldn't do to get my hands on "The Persistence of Time" by Dali.
Since seeing pictures of that painting as a child I have been moved by it. I don't why that painting has meaning to me but it somehow connects with me.
I mean if you are going to pay millions for a work I am sure you are going to care for it and preserve it.
It seems it has to be this way in a sense.
I am no scholar on the subject of art by any means. But what I wouldn't do to get my hands on "The Persistence of Time" by Dali.
Since seeing pictures of that painting as a child I have been moved by it. I don't why that painting has meaning to me but it somehow connects with me.
Why is Action Comics #1 worth so much? The story is far worse than what we'd find in a $4 comic at the shop!
Any item is worth what it is because of what it represents, how many are available, how many people want it, and who those people are.
If I made one of those boring-ass paintings on the first page, it would be worth nothing. Nobody could say "This is a RedStep original" in hushed tones. It's not purely that people want boring things. They want something that matches their foyer, and that represents their station in life. An $80m painting is just the way to do that.
Any item is worth what it is because of what it represents, how many are available, how many people want it, and who those people are.
If I made one of those boring-ass paintings on the first page, it would be worth nothing. Nobody could say "This is a RedStep original" in hushed tones. It's not purely that people want boring things. They want something that matches their foyer, and that represents their station in life. An $80m painting is just the way to do that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked