$72.8 million
$86.8 million
Can you flip it back so I can see the art? thanks!
-
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
Can you flip it back so I can see the art? thanks!
JordanN
Banned
I remember the Canadian government got flak for paying out huge amounts of money for a painting that was basically 2 shades of blue and one red.
Thurston Moore's obviously a fan
I know what you mean, but I feel like if I actually had a Rothko I'd just end up putting it in a museum anyway. As this thread makes clear, I think it can be tough to get Rothko just from prints. (Though I probably will get some prints since I could actually afford those.)
I remember the first time I saw a Rothko in person at the SF MOMA. I was actually pretty surprised by the emotional reaction I had to it. I certainly didn't have that reaction looking at the pictures on the Internet! I don't think they communicate the size and, well, I don't know, presence, very well.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Somehow he got worse with age?
I'd rather take a technical marvel than an obscure thingymajig to look at.
Oh my god.
If all art was a "technical marvel," art would be incredibly boring.
narcosis219
Member
What's stopping me from drawing a yellow line on a green canvas and cashing in a couple million dollars?
Try it and see.
freenudemacusers
Member
nothing, so go forth
Pretty much this.
Pristine_Condition
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.
Count Dookkake
Member
lol.
Every art thread has these posts, but you did it in one.
Go for it.
All the money and fame is just waiting there for you.
A kid could do it.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Supply and demand.
Devolution
Member
Rothko is cool but I'd rather have an Homage to the Square.
Picasso at 14
Picasso at ~50
I think ideas are more important than raw technical skill.
Man Picasso was a genius. I stared at the buffalo for a good minute in the second painting. It looks interesting.
I still personally prefer the first painting, but I appreciate the work that was accomplished in the second painting. Picasso perfected this interesting style of drawing.
Douglas Quaid
Member
It is the end result of the progression of commodity fetishism - it becomes transparently absurd.
purnoman3000
Member
Fuck feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless, I needs me some shitty art
CrazyArcadia
Member
As someone who invested much time in the technical skills and how images are created and how perception works (graphic design degree after 4 years with an emphasis on illustration, photography and webdesign) and who is currently studying art history (not as a major, though, but now in my last semester) I have to say, I do not have interest in becoming an artist in the sense of the word. Or, to say, I would not be able to be an artist.
Not after beginning to grasp how, why and for what art like this is important. Unfortunately, there is also no easy, short way to explain what makes something art (and my stance is "everything can be art in the right context" anyway). I for my profession will use whatever came up in art before or what is trending right now or what I like to look at or even... in rare cases, something I thought of myself and use it for practical design purposes: "Things that are nice to look at". That's "graphic design", usually. Art as "things that are nice to look" is a concept which is outdated, though.
Art itself has become more and more of a philosophical exercise, and to "get" something like Newman, it is necessary to basically know art history up to that point (at least roughly) and know what Newman did before, where he comes from. As the example with Picasso should show, it is not that these people would not be able to draw a photorealistic painting - it is that there is no need to repeat that skill over and over again apart from popular design. Art is throwing around ideas, reacts to these ideas and puts on a discourse about what makes art, what makes perception, what makes an idea, concepts of life and existence in general. Art itself questioned its' values over and over again, so this is not something only observers do (just look up one of the most popular examples, "Fountain" by Duchamp, if you want a quick laugh or a deep thought or both).
That said, the prizes seem out-of-the-world for me, as well - for I am not rich and this kind of money would look obscene to me in any context. But firstly, these are rich collectors we are talking about - money has a different meaning to them -, and as has been stated before, these are unique works of art that in some way illustrate a point being made or a landmark in some kind of development. Before going the easy way and saying "Yeah, but how is any of this important for regular people? I can do this, as well!" - firstly, you didn't do it but hey, inform yourself, learn up to the point of "now" about the developments in the world of art and give it a shot. No one's hindering you but your imagination. Secondly, within these developments, reactions from one art to another, we get things such as Bauhaus, PopArt and the likes, which influence our style and perception of the world over the years in ways many people do not realize. If a Newman is a step or part of the thought that led to an art movement which influenced our whole culture, it is for that reason historically relevant. If this justifies this kind of money - I would say no, but I would also say no when an actor or actress earns this kind of money for playing in a popular movie or if an athlete earns this kind of money a day for advertisment and the like. But I think we're talking about different mindsets here. I have some rare videogames in my collection and people would question my sanity for the prices I paid for them yet none of them cost as much as even a low end smartphone in the end.
(Of course, you still might ask the question why a philosophical idea is worth this kind of money while a scientific idea which is only a step to a breakthrough... not so much. Apples and oranges, on the one hand, and on the other hand I am of the opinion that we would largely profit from combining philosophical, ethical and cultural courses with "hard science" such as physics, biology, technology again, we have so many ignorant or simpleminded academics on both ends of the spectrum. If I had the time, I would even enjoy trying to study something purely MINT for a change... But that is a whole other discussion...)
The reason why I like art is for three things: Sometimes, I just like to look at something, study composition, enjoy colors and imagery. Then I like the philosophical discourse, following the thoughts and ideas behind concepts - no beautiful picture neccesary. And third, learning something new, which happend countless times since I began to dive deeper into art. I enjoy all sorts of 20th/21st century artists - currently, I'm reading up on Richard Long, Gottfried Helnwein and Marina Abramovic - but what I enjoy most is popsurrealism which falls more or less into the "nice to look at, too"-department and which might be a good entry point for people who want to occupy themselves with modern art but are irritated by more abstract art.
Not after beginning to grasp how, why and for what art like this is important. Unfortunately, there is also no easy, short way to explain what makes something art (and my stance is "everything can be art in the right context" anyway). I for my profession will use whatever came up in art before or what is trending right now or what I like to look at or even... in rare cases, something I thought of myself and use it for practical design purposes: "Things that are nice to look at". That's "graphic design", usually. Art as "things that are nice to look" is a concept which is outdated, though.
Art itself has become more and more of a philosophical exercise, and to "get" something like Newman, it is necessary to basically know art history up to that point (at least roughly) and know what Newman did before, where he comes from. As the example with Picasso should show, it is not that these people would not be able to draw a photorealistic painting - it is that there is no need to repeat that skill over and over again apart from popular design. Art is throwing around ideas, reacts to these ideas and puts on a discourse about what makes art, what makes perception, what makes an idea, concepts of life and existence in general. Art itself questioned its' values over and over again, so this is not something only observers do (just look up one of the most popular examples, "Fountain" by Duchamp, if you want a quick laugh or a deep thought or both).
That said, the prizes seem out-of-the-world for me, as well - for I am not rich and this kind of money would look obscene to me in any context. But firstly, these are rich collectors we are talking about - money has a different meaning to them -, and as has been stated before, these are unique works of art that in some way illustrate a point being made or a landmark in some kind of development. Before going the easy way and saying "Yeah, but how is any of this important for regular people? I can do this, as well!" - firstly, you didn't do it but hey, inform yourself, learn up to the point of "now" about the developments in the world of art and give it a shot. No one's hindering you but your imagination. Secondly, within these developments, reactions from one art to another, we get things such as Bauhaus, PopArt and the likes, which influence our style and perception of the world over the years in ways many people do not realize. If a Newman is a step or part of the thought that led to an art movement which influenced our whole culture, it is for that reason historically relevant. If this justifies this kind of money - I would say no, but I would also say no when an actor or actress earns this kind of money for playing in a popular movie or if an athlete earns this kind of money a day for advertisment and the like. But I think we're talking about different mindsets here. I have some rare videogames in my collection and people would question my sanity for the prices I paid for them yet none of them cost as much as even a low end smartphone in the end.
(Of course, you still might ask the question why a philosophical idea is worth this kind of money while a scientific idea which is only a step to a breakthrough... not so much. Apples and oranges, on the one hand, and on the other hand I am of the opinion that we would largely profit from combining philosophical, ethical and cultural courses with "hard science" such as physics, biology, technology again, we have so many ignorant or simpleminded academics on both ends of the spectrum. If I had the time, I would even enjoy trying to study something purely MINT for a change... But that is a whole other discussion...)
The reason why I like art is for three things: Sometimes, I just like to look at something, study composition, enjoy colors and imagery. Then I like the philosophical discourse, following the thoughts and ideas behind concepts - no beautiful picture neccesary. And third, learning something new, which happend countless times since I began to dive deeper into art. I enjoy all sorts of 20th/21st century artists - currently, I'm reading up on Richard Long, Gottfried Helnwein and Marina Abramovic - but what I enjoy most is popsurrealism which falls more or less into the "nice to look at, too"-department and which might be a good entry point for people who want to occupy themselves with modern art but are irritated by more abstract art.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
This is a gaming forum. You think these plebs know art?
For the last point, if you give any item the status of art, it can be considered art. It's the same as a present. If I say that my empty pack of cigarettes is a present to you, so it is. Arts gone the same way. Whether its a good present (or art) is up to you.
Thats the philosophy I follow. Makes life easier.
woh i love this guys art! and one of them is sonic youth's daydream nation album cover too!
! can you recommend me some similar artists?
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Spend the money you earn on what you want.
Trent Strong
Banned
I need to read 'The Painted Word.'
I dunno what that is... but it makes me sad.
EDIT: read wiki on that painting. Interesting.
You have to understand that most high cost works of art are often literally "relics" of a different time. Or they were first of their kind or made by significant people.
I know some of you would buy ass hair of famous people or tit sweat of Christina Hendricks.
Also it's entertaining to see all thw same pics and posts in all art threads. Most likely from people who know absolutely nothing of history of arts.
Literally anyone could speak 10 languages and know Kung-Fu if they wanted.
I know some of you would buy ass hair of famous people or tit sweat of Christina Hendricks.
Also it's entertaining to see all thw same pics and posts in all art threads. Most likely from people who know absolutely nothing of history of arts.
Literally anyone could speak 10 languages and know Kung-Fu if they wanted.
NekoFever
Member
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Because you can own something that can't be replicated (although copied), and thus makes you unique.
Edit: And WTF at the thought of the tragedies of war behind Guernica as a lesser idea than some portrait.
Edit: And WTF at the thought of the tragedies of war behind Guernica as a lesser idea than some portrait.
CrashBandicoot
Member
Are you telling me you WOULDN'T pay millions for this picture of Brian Blessed and Goldie racing Rainbow Road on vacuum cleaners, drunk on cheap cider?
not psycho
Member
The picture in the OP doesn't do much for me. But it does remind me of my favorite Zelazny line:
"I wonder, though, whether silence is not the true state of affairs in the universe, our little noises serving only to accentuate it, like a speck of black on a field of blue."
I'm going to go paint a canvas blue and then put a black speck on it.
"I wonder, though, whether silence is not the true state of affairs in the universe, our little noises serving only to accentuate it, like a speck of black on a field of blue."
I'm going to go paint a canvas blue and then put a black speck on it.
I used to shit on minimalist paintings. Then I saw a real monochrome by Klein and I stared at it for almost half an hour.
Most of the time, if done right, you have to be in front of it and at a good distance. It's all about that precise color and the shape and size of the canvas triggering something deep inside you. You can spend a lot of time trying to figuring out how you feel about it and why.
Seeing the real deal with your own eyes isn't the same thing as seeing a crappy Internet photo of it. This is true for ANY painting, but even truer when it comes to minimalism.
Also, Art Vandelay.
Most of the time, if done right, you have to be in front of it and at a good distance. It's all about that precise color and the shape and size of the canvas triggering something deep inside you. You can spend a lot of time trying to figuring out how you feel about it and why.
Seeing the real deal with your own eyes isn't the same thing as seeing a crappy Internet photo of it. This is true for ANY painting, but even truer when it comes to minimalism.
Also, Art Vandelay.
I'm willing to bet that lots of people have painted squares.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Are you telling me you WOULDN'T pay millions for this picture of Brian Blessed and Goldie racing Rainbow Road on vacuum cleaners, drunk on cheap cider?
Now this is art!
Are you telling me you WOULDN'T pay millions for this picture of Brian Blessed and Goldie racing Rainbow Road on vacuum cleaners, drunk on cheap cider?
Art is a reflection of life. I always see brian blessed on his dyson around here.
Some well known minimalistic pieces that are trashed here in GAF, were the culmination of a long lasting art experiment. There is a life time of effort behing them. That's not to say the final piece is the end product alone, it just happens to be the one that got the most attention back in the day. There can be hundreds of experiments and paintings behind some singular famous pieces.
The artist himself didn't mean the piece to become what it did. It might've been an experiment for him, iteration or just a "fuck you" -note to the art field of its day.
No, that's because making a videogame is very expensive.
Somehow he got worse with age?
I'd rather take a technical marvel than an obscure thingymajig to look at.
Guernica depicts the bombing of a country village in Spain, it is chaotic, horrifying and beautiful. The other picture is a painting of an old man.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know how the art economy works, but I know what I like... I think you hit the nail on the head there.
Always-honest
Banned
"Wait a minute, that's artwork that i don't understand. And people who like something i don't understand are stupid"....
Get some art history classes if you're so clueless.
Anyway, Art is a safe investment. A lot of it is bought by people who couldn't care less about art.
Some is bought by people who care passionately about the history of art though.
Get some art history classes if you're so clueless.
Anyway, Art is a safe investment. A lot of it is bought by people who couldn't care less about art.
Some is bought by people who care passionately about the history of art though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked