Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

People with too much money and nothing to spend it on just drive the prices up - because at the end of the day all value is fictional. (You think gold has a base price printed somewhere in the spacetime manifold?)

But the motivation is not hard to understand, no matter what the art is - it is the mystique of having something unique. There's only one of it in existence, no matter what it is. Even if it's virtually nothing! It may be a blank white square, but it's your blank white square and nobody else has it or can get it.

Aside from that I could also believe two other thoughts from this thread:

1. Much of the art world is really a money laundering scheme for rich people.

2. Everybody is too afraid to say they don't see the point / don't get it when talking about ridiculously abstract art.

 

[Gotchaye]

No, but really, it's just a rich people way of waving their moneydicks around. "Look how much I can spend on terrible paintings!"

It's a shame they waste so much money on petty things like this and instead can't just donate a lot of it to people who actually need the resources.

So, yeah, high prices are only possible because some people have way too much money, but it's hard to see it as "waste".

Waste is when a rich person uses their money to command a whole lot of labor to do nothing useful. Very little labor goes into making and distributing art*. Whoever just received $43 million could just as easily donate it to charity. There's very little friction.

*I'm not saying "my three year old could have painted this", just that a tiny amount of labor goes into art relative to the other things one might spend $40 million on.

 

[Picobrain]

^ Well put.

 

[Bornstellar]

It's actually an investment strategy.

http://www.greekshares.com/art_of_art_investment.php

 

[Pau]

There is photorealistic modern art too. Robert Bechtle's painting are pretty impressive in person:

Shit that's a painting? I scrolled down and was like: why did someone post some photographs?

 

[Stinkles]

Because it is beautiful and rare and it makes being a smart monkey with opposable thumbs interesting and worthwhile.

if aliens meet us, Beethoven will be more interesting to them than our shitty computers and nukes.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I sometimes wonder if the art market is a way of laundering money. A way of transferring money around various rich people without paying income tax or gift tax.

I remember listening to NPR or maybe it was This American Life on something like this.


Also, major art dealers work on this "investment" principle where they buy art from unknowns, raise the value because of their cred and exclusivity and sell.

 

[mrkgoo]

Don't pretend to understand art, but even I understand that art isn't just about the paint on the canvas. It's about the expression of the artist. Their frame of mind, their voice, perhaps something they are trying to convey. Maybe they are trying to illicit a response from the viewer. Or invite interaction by thought?

An example that may be easier to grasp is a photograph - people often just consider that a photograph is solely about what is captured, but some photos are telling a story of where the photographer is. Or WHY they are taking that shot.

Or music. Is music just about it sounding good? Or is there more to it? Are movies just about entertainment? Or are video games just about the graphics and sound? Or just the piece of plastic they're stamped on?

Lastly value is whatever someone will pay.

 

[obin_gam]

There is photorealistic modern art too. Robert Bechtle's painting are pretty impressive in person:

Holy shi-
This, I would pay good money for.

Everything else in the thread is just crap imo. (excluding the Carl Barks)

 

[shira]

If some Houdini wants to snatch a couple of swirls of paint that are really only important to some very silly rich people, I don’t really give a damn.

Only important to rich people

 

[bomma_man]

The supply half of supply/demand

Status

Art is really good

Investment



Abstract expressionism (and expressionism in general) is great, fuck the haters.

 

[Village]

Because it is beautiful and rare and it makes being a smart monkey with opposable thumbs interesting and worthwhile.

if aliens meet us, Beethoven will be more interesting to them than our shitty computers and nukes.

Dunno about that part, the computer and where it is now is and art in itself.

 

[Plywood]

So lets say I slapped together some "art." How would I go about selling it for the millions?

 

[Krev]

Holy shi-
This, I would pay good money for.

Everything else in the thread is just crap imo. (excluding the Carl Barks)

Wow, okay.
Technically impressive, sure, but it doesn't do much for me. The Pollock and Rothkos posted in here, on the other hand, are wonderful.

 

[Bornstellar]

So lets say I slapped together some "art." How would I go about selling it for the millions?

Die a tragic death.

 

[Devil Theory]

So lets say I slapped together some "art." How would I go about selling it for the millions?

I'd probably just create an overly dramatic and pretentious eBay listing and see what happens.

 

[Alcotholic]

So lets say I slapped together some "art." How would I go about selling it for the millions?

just bribe someone to sell it in a rich auction. People will pay loads for whatever appears up front.

 

[Timo]

You can't just take these pieces at face value. You gotta look at the times that the art was made, what its intended message was (if there was one that the artist states or one that you can possibly come to on your own accord), and the person that made the art (what their belief systems were and their thought process). Also where they are from is more important pre 1950 or so, before all that globalization shit.

You can't understand if you don't attempt to.

I'm not the biggest Rothko fan but there are reasons this shit sells (mostly because art normally just keeps going up in value, some appreciate the aesthetic qualities and message though).

 

[Riposte]

You can't just take these pieces at face value. You gotta look at the times that the art was made, what its intended message was (if there was one that the artist states or one that you can possibly come to on your own accord), and the person that made the art (what their belief systems were and their thought process). Also where they are from is more important pre 1950 or so, before all that globalization shit.

You can't understand if you don't attempt to.

I'm not the biggest Rothko fan but there are reasons this shit sells (mostly because art normally just keeps going up in value, some appreciate the aesthetic qualities and message though).

In other words, you have to buy into the bullshit.

 

[bomma_man]

Holy shi-
This, I would pay good money for.

Everything else in the thread is just crap imo. (excluding the Carl Barks)

Picasso at 14

Picasso at ~50

I think ideas are more important than raw technical skill.

 

[Riposte]

Picasso at 14

Picasso at ~50

I think ideas are more important than raw technical skill.

But the latter is a worse idea.

 

[Dead Man]

Same reason anyone pays more than the production cost for any item. They think it is worth it. Art in partiuclar is funny, lots of people try to use it as either an investment or a display of social status, so you have those factors raising prices on established works and new works of established artists.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Good to see that "my kid/I could do that" is still a response to modern art.

 

[Platy]

Art is an extremely llimited commodity. Newman created only one "Onement VI." So to own that is to own something no one else can have. Art auctions are filled with rich people who can afford anything they want, so in order to have something their peers can't have they buy art.

This is one ... but the most important as to why people pay SO MUCH is :

its an invesment and one of the safest.

Art prices don't change based on inflaction or stuffs like that. The only thing that may make the price lower was a very bizarre discover about the author .. like he did lots of the same or was a pedophile... and even then there is still a chance that the bizarre discover only RISE the price

 

[Minus_Me]

But the latter is a worse idea.

Troll?

 

[obin_gam]

Picasso at 14

Picasso at ~50



I think ideas are more important than raw technical skill.

Somehow he got worse with age?

I'd rather take a technical marvel than an obscure thingymajig to look at.

 

[Akira]

I would pay oodles of money for a Rothko.

I would too if I could.

 

[Krev]

Somehow he got worse with age?

He lost interest in replicating the work of past masters and wanted to express himself and try something new.

 

[Minus_Me]

How can anyone choose a bland Portrait over Guernica is really bizarre to me. To each their own I guess.

 

[Plywood]

Die a tragic death.

Artful suicide

I'd probably just create an overly dramatic and pretentious eBay listing and see what happens.

Poetic Feces

just bribe someone to sell it in a rich auction. People will pay loads for whatever appears up front.

Blowjob

 

[3N16MA]

Anyone care to explain why they would pay $70+ million for a Rothko painting if they had the money? Is there some amazing story behind these paintings that I don't know of? I'm no expert (far from it) so feel free to fill me in.

 

[PaperFlame]

Aren't art pieces expensive because of the name of the artist who did it?
Isn't it the same way how people buy beats by Dre. for high price instead of buying non-brand names headphones that are much cheaper?

 

[spliced]

Because some people have more money than brains.

 

[travisbickle]

To balance the economic gap between the super rich and average people.

Rich person just bought a thing that is worthless
I buy electronics with real value that took real knowledge & resources to create

I am the rich one.

What?

Rich person buys something the retains/increases in value.

You bought something that reduces in value, and eventually becomes antiquated/obsolete.

 

[Grinchy]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblo...n-unloads-abstract-painting-for-43-8-million/

I should sell my old ping pong table.

 

[Riposte]

Troll?

No?

Same reason anyone pays more than the production cost for any item. They think it is worth it. Art in partiuclar is funny, lots of people try to use it as either an investment or a display of social status, so you have those factors raising prices on established works and new works of established artists.

That's not only a factor, it is the deciding factor. The field of modern art is entirely a game of status symbols. That's the answer to why they cost so much: because people want them to be valuable so they can say they have something of value (which can then be compared to value of others, like a little game). What it is isn't even important (it can literally be a pile of garbage or a tin of shit or a blank canvas or some lines), only that it has to be unusual enough to be "rare" on top of not being replicated by the artist. Something printed a million times and sold to anyone and everyone can only be judged by its aesthetic beauty, but that doesn't work when someone wants a symbol unique to them or an incomprehensible "message" for the close-knit circlejerk. Moreover this process is entirely inevitable, because there are so many better outlets for entertainment (we even have things which show us 24 paintings per second, with sound!) and paintings have limited appeal (when you want one frame to look really good and in a way you can't really capture with a photograph). To increase the appeal (which means to increase the potential gain to one's status) you have to bloat the medium with things that are very much detached from the art. The absurd money value, the made up "message" the artist panders, extreme novelty, etc.

 

[freenudemacusers]

To balance the economic gap between the super rich and average people.

Rich person just bought a thing that is worthless
I buy electronics with real value that took real knowledge & resources to create

I am the rich one.

that's a nice idea

but it is incorrect

 

[Gotchaye]

Art prices don't change based on inflaction or stuffs like that. The only thing that may make the price lower was a very bizarre discover about the author .. like he did lots of the same or was a pedophile... and even then there is still a chance that the bizarre discover only RISE the price

But this can't be the most important factor in the price of art. Art has been very expensive for a very long time. If the whole thing is just a speculative bubble, why hasn't it popped?

People have to see real value in whatever they're investing in if prices are to remain high for a long time. The most important factor in the price of art has to be something like social signaling or just that people actually like looking at and owning it.

 

[Minus_Me]

No?

Don't mean to sound like a dick, I'm sorry about that. I just don't get how a Guernica is a worse idea than a portrait.

 

[Zona]

How can anyone choose a bland Portrait over Guernica is really bizarre to me. To each their own I guess.

I have never gotten the appeal of his later work at all. I will always chose the bland portrait as you put it over abstraction.

 

[Chichikov]

That's not only a factor, it is the deciding factor. The field of modern art is entirely a game of status symbols. That's the answer to why they cost so much: because people want them to be valuable so they can say they have something of value (which can then be compared to value of others, like a little game). What it is isn't even important (it can literally be a pile of garbage or a tin of shit or a blank canvas or some lines), only that it has to be unusual enough to be "rare" on top of not being replicated by the artist. Something printed a million times and sold to anyone and everyone can only be judged by its aesthetic beauty, but that doesn't work someone wants a symbol unique to them or an incomprehensible "message" for the close-knit circlejerk.

That's just not the case, the majority of abstract expressionism is very cheap and whole lot of it is just crap, like any other art movement.

You're focusing on a handful of artists who for one reason or another are in high demand by rich people, but you shouldn't assume too much about that art form in general from it

Don't mean to sound like a dick, I'm sorry about that. I just don't get how a Guernica is a worse idea than a portrait.

Really?
Surely you met people who value realism in art over most everything.

I'm personally not one of those people, but it's a very common opinion to have.

 

[MisterHero]

They're status symbols and gauges for personal trendiness. You pedestrians would never understand!

 

[Riposte]

Don't mean to sound like a dick, I'm sorry about that. I just don't get how a Guernica is a worse idea than a portrait.

Well, a decent portrait can only be so bad. That limitation will automatically advance it over the ridiculously bad.

 

[Roubjon]

You can't just take these pieces at face value. You gotta look at the times that the art was made, what its intended message was (if there was one that the artist states or one that you can possibly come to on your own accord), and the person that made the art (what their belief systems were and their thought process). Also where they are from is more important pre 1950 or so, before all that globalization shit.

You can't understand if you don't attempt to.

I'm not the biggest Rothko fan but there are reasons this shit sells (mostly because art normally just keeps going up in value, some appreciate the aesthetic qualities and message though).

Yeah, this is the best thing said in the thread so far. The idea behind a lot of this art is as important as the art itself, if not more important. If you want to call that bullshit, go ahead. But it isn't. Some people value that.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

nvm

 

[Loofy]

Arent paintings just currency for rich people. Either buy a gold bar or a shitty painting.

 

[bomma_man]

Somehow he got worse with age?

I'd rather take a technical marvel than an obscure thingymajig to look at.

I don't think technical ability means shit in a vacuum. It allows you to do more things, of course, but that doesn't mean shit if you're not doing anything interesting.

Anally realistic modern paintings are the equivalent of really wanky technical speed guitar imo. Impressive in the same way that some of those obscure world records are.

Basically this. Just showing off so people see they're into art. They probably have about as much clue as to what those paintings mean as we do.

I guess that's why I see movies as my preferred form of art. Bicycle Thieves, Stalker, The 400 Blows, or Au Hasard Balthazar are some of the best things I've seen (and are better than most art paintings) and they cost about as much as Transformers.

There are prints and museums for that, although I get what you're saying, modern art forms are a lot more accessible (in the literal sense).

 

[Ether_Snake]

It's for tax purposes. Always is with rich folks.

I make "art", you appraise it for a high price, I make a donation of it, I get a tax credit, and whoever got it will then sell it or give it for a higher price/value and get tax credit.

It's a scam.

 

[Timo]

You guys should also look into how photography changed the painting and drawing game. You didn't have to be anyones portrait bitch anymore cause this little machine thing does it in like 2 seconds.

 

[not psycho]

How about Richter? One of my favorites.

None of that abstract st...

Richter, no!