-
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'm pretty sure a stickfigure portrait of Batman would win the hearts of many in this thread over Guernica :b
We should start charging by the inch from paintings. Actually one very controversial finnish artist already does that! Can't remember the prices but it was something like 1k euros per square meter of canvas.
Always-honest
Banned
Is that your safe way of never having to invest time in learning about art? Well done.
It's a safe method for a lot of things you don't understand.
But it's cool. To each his own.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Seems fair. It's how we charge for wallpaper.
obin_gam
Member
It doesnt look anything like a bombing of a city at all. It looks like smiley-heads shaped as ballons put at some random order.
Red Liquorice
Member
The price of modern art isn't a reflection of it's quality, it's just a big cock waving contest. Everyone is on the joke as long as they can afford it.
Nappuccino
Member
One thing that is really hard to understand is the impact of seeing art in person. A lot of these are on huge canvases that feel as though they envelop and overwhelm you. It's quite the experience and it is really hard to put a price tag on that.
Especially when you're drowning in money and money has little to know real value to you.
Especially when you're drowning in money and money has little to know real value to you.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
$72.8 million
$86.8 million
Just boggles my mind; I don't consider this to take talent. I can go to a local place and find actual art for a few hundred dollars that looks amazing. I have four oil paintings on canvas in my home, and appreciate great talent, but none of this pretentious nonsense of having to try and 'get it.'
Often there is nothing to get. Just an experiment in colour harmonies and contrasts. The piece is valuable because the painter is famous or the piece itself has historic value.
This is not always the case, but people seem to completely dismiss that angle when discussing pricey paintings.
Please tell me you somehow missed the Cézanne.
Dark Octave
Banned
I think it was David Letterman who had a segment about "art" paintings and he asked people if it was fine art made by a man or a Gorilla making random splashes on the canvas.
Nobody could tell the difference.
It's all a joke and everyone knows it. Those who defend it, thanks for outing yourself and saving me the trouble of figuring out that you will never have anything of value to say to me ever.
Nobody could tell the difference.
It's all a joke and everyone knows it. Those who defend it, thanks for outing yourself and saving me the trouble of figuring out that you will never have anything of value to say to me ever.
entremet
Member
It's just a natural evolution of things. Many artist got tired with representative art--portraits, landscapes, etc., so many moved toward abstraction.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I always kind of lol'd at Pollock paintings until I saw one in person. It's actually pretty amazing to see, it's hard to describe. Internet jpegs do a very poor job of translating the experience.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Oops
As a side:
Art is really expensive to make. It can take a lot of time and money to do a single painting. I do little acrylic landscapes on 4"x"4 wood panels and it costs me about $10 and 6 hours every time I make one. If I were to sell these things I'd have to sell them for about $100 a piece to make it worth my time. Even at $100 that's only $15/hr (not really enough to make a living on).
So as far as OP's question goes - it's an investment for acclaimed works. But as to why art is so expensive at a local artists it's because it's what they have to charge to make a living.
Art is really expensive to make. It can take a lot of time and money to do a single painting. I do little acrylic landscapes on 4"x"4 wood panels and it costs me about $10 and 6 hours every time I make one. If I were to sell these things I'd have to sell them for about $100 a piece to make it worth my time. Even at $100 that's only $15/hr (not really enough to make a living on).
So as far as OP's question goes - it's an investment for acclaimed works. But as to why art is so expensive at a local artists it's because it's what they have to charge to make a living.
This is true. The FW MOMA has a Rothko that I've seen dozens of times, but every time I go, I still swing by and stand there looking at it for minutes. I can't tell you why I like various color field paintings, but I'm moved by them when I'm in their presence.
Duchamp would enrage the passersbies in this thread, hilariously so. Gotta love it.
You're joking...right...?
You're joking...right...?
Dark Octave
Banned
I can see $20 to $100 for the three lines of color but $86.8 million? That's fucking rage inducing. Someone got taken to the cleaners. Three fucking lines on canvas. Please don't tell me that the "artist" took more than 10 minutes and any kind of skill to smudge up a canvas. I would feel like the biggest scam artist piece of shit in the world trying to take money from someone for something like that.
lol $86.8 million??
/unrefined swine.
lol $86.8 million??
/unrefined swine.
Like Zoukka said, sometimes there really isn't anything to "get". But in this case, you legitimately don't "get it". Read up on it sometime and do yourself a favor.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Can someone explain to me the meaning or history behind this that would make it so valuable or even a good piece of art?
Synth_floyd
Banned
Supply and demand. When supply of money is high, demand drops and so does the value of the money. It's why you have people who pay $50 million for a painting, because the money is worth so little.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Also, just a heads up, most of the time the artist doesn't see this massive paycheck. A lot of times paintings wont rise so drastically in price until the artist is dead.
Guess how many paintings Vincent Van Gogh sold while alive?
And Starry Night is one of the most beautiful and recognizable paintings you'll find.
Guess how many paintings Vincent Van Gogh sold while alive?
Just one. To his brother.
And Starry Night is one of the most beautiful and recognizable paintings you'll find.
The minimalist stuff is silly to me, and I can't even begin to justify the money involved, but I like abstract art.
I was with a buddy in Vancouver and had some time to kill so we were just walking around downtown and came up to the Art Museum so I said "Hey, let's check it out". He reluctantly agreed.
There was a variety of art and sculpture but he hated everything.
"I don't get it."
"There's nothing to get. It's just a blend of color, shape, and texture. It's just interesting to look at."
"But what does it mean?"
"It doesn't have to mean or represent anything. It's abstract."
"It's stupid. I hate this and you're a sucker if you think this crap is valuable." And he couldn't get out of there fast enough. He was so close-minded that he was actually intimidated by art.
I don't like everything and can't even begin to understand the cost and appeal of some art, but I can at least enjoy looking at art without just sluffing it off as being "stupid" and being a snarky asshole about it.
Some people.
I was with a buddy in Vancouver and had some time to kill so we were just walking around downtown and came up to the Art Museum so I said "Hey, let's check it out". He reluctantly agreed.
There was a variety of art and sculpture but he hated everything.
"I don't get it."
"There's nothing to get. It's just a blend of color, shape, and texture. It's just interesting to look at."
"But what does it mean?"
"It doesn't have to mean or represent anything. It's abstract."
"It's stupid. I hate this and you're a sucker if you think this crap is valuable." And he couldn't get out of there fast enough. He was so close-minded that he was actually intimidated by art.
I don't like everything and can't even begin to understand the cost and appeal of some art, but I can at least enjoy looking at art without just sluffing it off as being "stupid" and being a snarky asshole about it.
Some people.
Well an oil painting can easily take up to a year to complete when you take the varnishing step into consideration. Also, paintings like that may have only taken several hours to physically paint, but you also have to take into consideration the time it took to make the canvas, prep the canvas, do background research into what it is you are painting.
However, it should be noted that a lot of the value of art is simply because critics say it is. Good art is extremely subjective, and much of what is considered "great art" is that way for no other reason than a handful of people, some of whom are barely qualified, said they were, and then one sold for a huge sum of money (and once one sells another will sell).
Personally though, I really like Rothko (some people have mentioned him specifically). His paintings have the spirit of Edo period Zen paintings and calligraphy. They are minimalistic, but they are minimalistic in the best sense. He's cut through all of the superficial layers to arrive at the heart of the matter (kokoro). Every time I see one in a museum I'm impressed by them.
Permanently A
Junior Member
But yeah I don't see why you would pay that much money for what I think ends up being a conversation piece.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I can totally understand why minimalist and abstract art is good. But what I don't understand is why its so expensive. Outside of the reasons already discussed in this thread about needing something to spend so much money on, and status symbols, and all that.
But like, I'd hear an argument for why this is good art:
But I would never say its actually worth more then the blank canvases that compose it, because its so easy to detach the essence of this piece from its specific implementation. Same with the blue rectangle thing in the OP
But like, I'd hear an argument for why this is good art:
But I would never say its actually worth more then the blank canvases that compose it, because its so easy to detach the essence of this piece from its specific implementation. Same with the blue rectangle thing in the OP
Looking at it on a computer and seeing it in real life are completely different
$72.8 million
$86.8 million
Well minimalist and geometric art in general work naturally as interior decoration. These are subjective matters, but I'd love to have good minimalist works in my home rather than some epic romantic paintings that would just steal all the attention and probably make the home feel like a little cell in comparison.
But like, I'd hear an argument for why this is good art:
You look at each piece individually. Those three white canvases are clearly some kind of statement about art and the facilities they are presented in. I doubt they would work at anyones home :b
The portrait evokes emotion in me, even if it's just admiration of the beauty such skill brings fourth. Guernica dose nothing for me, a painting of the actual results of the bombing with the skill shown in the first painting would be far more effective to me.
In a heartbeat, Guernica is... I don't have words really. The only thing it provokes in me is annoyance that an artist with such skill chose instead to paint that.
Gaf already does it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=441170
Not that level, but still we do.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=441170
Not that level, but still we do.
I would probably give some of my lesser body parts for those.
Because there is an absolute finite supply and, regardless of how good it is, the person who made it extremely famous. For example, there are only about 24 extant Da Vinci paintings. Now, Da Vinci is obviously a great artist, but part of the value (if his paintings ever went to auction) is the scarcity of the resource. But like I said before, a lot of the value in art isn't just the scarcity, but the trendiness of the artist.
Which is the mindset that many critics of the time shared. Good art is not limited to only a demonstration of your ability to replicate life.
Picasso broke conformity and chose to paint in a different way, despite his brilliance technically, and the result is no less valid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked