Support NeoGAF

[shira]

how much are those shaggy artist picture guys paintings worth? He's dead (RIP) are they worth anything

He's the only current gen artist I know by name/face, (bob ross).

 

[way more]

Are you trolling with that Christmas card art?

Christmas card art? you stupid man, that is the work's of The Painter of Light.

I can't even begun to tell you the emotionless I see from this painting.

White, snow, kids, the smell of the burning wood. The house Those cut be as deeply as any picture, more so than a goat watching it's on entrails as dogs smoke and watch.

the simple act of painting straight from the heart, putting on canvas the natural wonders and images that moved him most. It was this dedication and singular-minded focus on the ultimate goal of Sharing the Light™ that made Thomas Kinkade, a simple boy with a brush from the small country town of Placerville, California the most-collected living artist of his time.[/IMG].

Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light™, emphasized simple pleasures and inspirational messages through his art - and the branded products created from that art. From textiles, to collectibles, to music and books, Thom gave credit to a higher power for both the ability and the inspiration to create his paintings. His goal as an artist, who was Christian, was to touch people of all faiths, to bring peace and joy into their lives through the images he had created.

http://piersidegallery.com/artists/...-100-years-of-racing-indianapolis-500-art.jpg

The passion I have is to capture memories, to evoke the emotional connection we have to an experience. I came out here and stood up on the bleachers and looked around, and I saw all the elements of the track. It was empty at the time. But I saw the stadium, how the track laid out, the horizon, the skyline of Indianapolis and the Pagoda. I saw it all in my imagination. I began thinking, 'I want to get this energy — what I call the excitement of the moment — into this painting.' As I began working on it, I thought, 'Well you have this big piece of asphalt, the huge spectator stands; I've got to do something to get some movement.' So I just started throwing flags into it. It gives it kind of a patriotic excitement.[13]

Maybe he's not acclaimed, maybe the critics never gave him a chance. Maybe if created a QVC brand to deliver his seminal works to consumers for four easily payments. He does it for the people.

At yet we are the freaks that would rather worship at that sight of a light painter than see a penis, or a suggestive nod.

Art that is grim, meaningful, and not instantly recognizable is you shit. Keep telling yourself how good swirly circles that don't tell you have to feel are better than this.

That actually took skill, and hard work.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Weirdly, I always assumed GAF was more cultured on the whole. Suddenly after this thread some of the attitudes regarding content I see on the gaming side are making a lot more sense. To be fair, I railed against a lot of types of art when I was younger that exposure, study in the field, and life experience have subsequently opened my mind to.

Still think Koons is bullshit though.

 

[yepyepyep]

The price is ridiculous but Francis Bacon was an amazing and unique artist. Love his self-portraits.

 

[Midnight Bliss]

$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.

You are now aware there is an entire industry dedicated to conning people into buying these works of nothing.

Here's an actual example of something people can actually relate to under a similar context and should be more valuable than that work of nothing.

http://www.somethingawful.com/comedy-goldmine/abstract-pixel-art/
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/abstract-pixel-art2/

 

[caesar]

Christmas card art? you stupid man, that is the work's of The Painter of Light.

I can't even begun to tell you the emotionless I see from this painting.

White, snow, kids, the smell of the burning wood. The house Those cut be as deeply as any picture, more so than a goat watching it's on entrails as dogs smoke and watch.







Maybe he's not acclaimed, maybe the critics never gave him a chance. Maybe if created a QVC brand to deliver his seminal works to consumers for four easily payments. He does it for the people.

At yet we are the freaks that would rather worship at that sight of a light painter than see a penis, or a suggestive nod.

Art that is grim, meaningful, and not instantly recognizable is you shit. Keep telling yourself how good swirly circles that don't tell you have to feel are better than this.

That actually took skill, and hard work.

Uh, I'm guessing English isn't your native lang?

Anyway, are you implying Francis Bacon's paintings don't take skill and hard work?

 

[curlyfriski]

The price is ridiculous but Francis Bacon was an amazing and unique artist. Love his self-portraits.

Damn these are nice.

Uh, I'm guessing English isn't your native lang?

Anyway, are you implying Francis Bacon's paintings don't take skill and hard work?

He's obviously trolling at this point.

 

[Kinyou]

Huh, yeah, he has a bunch of them.

Orange is the best though. It gives off the most balloon-like feeling. Yellow doesn't work for me, it just looks like gold.

That's the most hilarious part to me. When they're "mass producing" art. It's not even unique anymore

 

[Hesemonni]

Here I was thinking Triptykon finally made it big! Alas, not.

 

[Desperado]

I've seen such paintings in person. They're "cool" in the sense that colors filling your vision is a form of stimulation, much as a pencil or bag of salt might be. If they give you some kind of emotional buzz, hey, whatever. But there is NOTHING to them. It really is that simple, and the convolutions that people go through to argue otherwise are nothing short of amazing to me. Red on black is red on black, no matter how big it is, and "experimenting with color" is a pretty thin justification for an outright refusal to communicate anything of specificity or import - usually because, when such artists painted figuratively, they did a rather poor job.

Just watch Pollock work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s . There is, rather obviously, zero technique to what the guy is doing, no vision, and his justifications are ad hoc, at best. Perhaps there's a flick of the wrist, some tiny little thing that would show up if measured microscopically - I've seen such suggested before - but the reason such paintings are so oft-forged is that, at the level of perception we humans actually occupy, there is little to no tangible difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXMRN2IZq4

You are now aware there is an entire industry dedicated to conning people into buying these works of nothing.

Here's an actual example of something people can actually relate to under a similar context and should be more valuable than that work of nothing.

http://www.somethingawful.com/comedy-goldmine/abstract-pixel-art/
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/abstract-pixel-art2/

The value of those is on the level of "how many _____ can you find in this picture?" puzzles from children's books. I like those things (though they certainly aren't "abstract," as implied by the titles of those pages), but they hardly say anything other than "people can recognize characters via simplified color strips."

Works like Rothko's are great precisely because they invite a plethora of experiences and individual perspectives.

 

[Seik]

Not saying it is worth that, but Francis Bacon was an amazing artist.

I'd hang this on my wall, amazing.

 

[Feep]

Some of the stuff from Pixiv is incredible.

I wonder how art snobs feel about that stuff.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

I love this thread.

Jeff Koons is the idea man for his art, almost never laying a finger on the progress to actually make it. Thomas Kinkade never really sold his paintings, he sold prints that had some bits of paint brushed onto it by his studio workers/students, so it seemed like a legit painting. Anyway...

This is an original work of art here, preserved for decades and likely decades more. It is trippy as shit and the yellow is pretty ugly. Then again, I have no value for this work, but I will never be surprised how much people are willing to pay for art. I want people to pay that much for art. It is practically unpredictable.

Grotesque, yet kinda gorgeous.

 

[ryan13ts]

I seriously would like to murder people who spend outrageous amounts like millions of dollars on things like paintings. I don't think they even really care about the painting, so much as it's a "Ha, I have 50 billion to spend on this just because. Every time you see this painting, you'll remember how rich I am".

For less than 1% of what this idiot spend on that ugly piece of crap, myself and I'm sure 90% of people in the world could live the rest of their lives on comfortably almost twice over and it's all the more insulting considering the type of poverty some people are living in across the world. Such ridiculous and vulgar spending, it's things like this that make me detest the super rich.

 

[Pickles Spill]

When looking at a piece of art, it's important to take into mind two things: its artistic quality (does it look pretty?) and its historical context. Some old pieces of art look stupid today:

Your thinking, "Anyone could have made this. Why is this so special?" The reason is that when Picasso made this, he was on the verge of a new art movement. He was breaking away from the strict, traditional style of the past to form something new.
So, when we look at this

The reason this isn't special is because it's not new. Anyone who is a relatively good artist could have made it. While it may look good, in the realm of time, it isn't worth much.
So while I'm not sure of the story behind this

It's possible that the creator had some great influence on the history of art. On the other hand, it could simply be a piece of junk. It all depends on the context of the painting.

 

[Phat Michael]

I seriously would like to murder people who spend outrageous amounts like millions of dollars on things like paintings. I don't think they even really care about the painting, so much as it's a "Ha, I have 50 billion to spend on this just because. Every time you see this painting, you'll remember how rich I am".

For less than 1% of what this idiot spend on that ugly piece of crap, myself and I'm sure 90% of people in the world could live the rest of their lives on comfortably almost twice over and it's all the more insulting considering the type of poverty some people are living in across the world. Such ridiculous and vulgar spending, it's things like this that make me detest the super rich.

Why do you want to murder people?

Why is he an idiot?

Why is it ugly?

Why are you so angry? How does this affect you personally?

You have no reason why they bought this. Why speculate it is to show off?

You could say the same for anything - do i really need a $200K car when i can buy a $150K car and give the rest to charity? Or should i go lower?

This thread really does show how uncultured some people can be. You call an unknown bidder an idiot and you want to murder him - yet he is the bad person?

 

[tino]

You guys dont like the balloon dog? I think its a very universal piece of art. Its a lot more assessable than the paints in the first post.

Now hating it for its auction price is dumb.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The price does not depend on the quality or the craftmanship of the works.

but doesn't there have to be some level of dependency between perceived and actual value? Capitalism still depends on people making rational decisions, overall.

At what point isn't this just a grotesque extreme?

I'm trying to justify purchasing modern art for inflated prices as some kind of speculative investment, but even that doesn't really seem convincing..

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Huge fan of his work, did a thesis on him in college.

It's always funny/frustrating to see some people say 'this isn't art'.

 

[General Patton]

Christmas card art? you stupid man, that is the work's of The Painter of Light.

I can't even begun to tell you the emotionless I see from this painting.

White, snow, kids, the smell of the burning wood. The house Those cut be as deeply as any picture, more so than a goat watching it's on entrails as dogs smoke and watch.







Maybe he's not acclaimed, maybe the critics never gave him a chance. Maybe if created a QVC brand to deliver his seminal works to consumers for four easily payments. He does it for the people.

At yet we are the freaks that would rather worship at that sight of a light painter than see a penis, or a suggestive nod.

Art that is grim, meaningful, and not instantly recognizable is you shit. Keep telling yourself how good swirly circles that don't tell you have to feel are better than this.

That actually took skill, and hard work.

Great post, and I agree. Those paintings speak to me infinitely more than the record-breakers ever will.

 

[chicko1983]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXMRN2IZq4

Thank you for that video.

I like paintings, and in particular Pollocks', but I could never explain why I liked staring at them.

Knowing that there are fractals in them probably explains it a bit and actually increases my liking of them.

Awesome artist, I really need to see a real one of his in person.

 

[Phat Michael]

Great post, and I agree. Those paintings speak to me infinitely more than the record-breakers ever will.

Dude those just look like doormats or jigsaw puzzles or bad metal record album covers - do you really think those paintings are better than the Triptych?

It's art so i guess you can argue either way but im pretty sure the original poster was trolling because otherwise that is just some terrible taste.

When i went to NYC for first time and went to MOMA - it was incredible to see Picasso's, Monet's and various other artists' works in the flesh. It was mind blowing.

There was so much amazing stuff in there i spent the whole day just drinking in all the art.

As some have said - some of the paintings to you may not seem so complex, but you need to evaluate them as per what others were doing at the time to really appreciate their brilliance.

I for one dont really appreciate Monet's paintings as much as some others, but not for one second do i think they are overpriced or that someone is an "idiot" or "should be murdered" for buying them like other people in this thread have said.

 

[Blake'sGrave]

So many art noobs in this thread

edit: like, seriously, wow

 

[the better twin]

Stuff like this reminds me of a local writer who went on the radio once.
One of his pieces was on a national English exam. There was a big essay question on why he had spelt a word a certain way, all about hidden meanings etc.
He admitted on the radio that he just spelt it wrong.
Now I just laugh at people who pretend that this stuff is justified because of a "hidden meaning"/some other excuse.

 

[GorillaJu]

Some of the stuff from Pixiv is incredible.

I wonder how art snobs feel about that stuff.

They're not art, they're illustrations. The meaning of art hasn't been to create something visually beautiful for several millennium. It's an expression of handiwork and technical skill with a tablet, but means absolutely nothing in any greater context than "wow look at that pretty drawing."

I've had this conversation before and there's nowhere to go with people who are immediately dismissive and refuse to acknowledge their lack of understanding.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

They're not art, they're illustrations. The meaning of art hasn't been to create something visually beautiful for several millennium. It's an expression of handiwork and technical skill with a tablet, but means absolutely nothing in any greater context than "wow look at that pretty drawing."

what is the meaning art? I thought beauty was strongly related..

I'm much more of a music person than a painting/sculpture connoisseur, but in music aesthetic appeal plays a huge role to this day, and it isn't completely subjective.

 

[Newline]

So many art noobs in this thread

edit: like, seriously, wow

I'm actually more surprised that you are shocked, I came into this thread expecting these kind of responses.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

art threads are the best on NeoGAF. Fuck those weak tipping, bike riding, or circumcision threads. this is where the real shit goes down. it's unfortunate they only last a few pages.

 

[potam]

I love this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

Most expensive photograph sold.

Spoiler

And it's fucking photoshopped.

I'm going to try to dig up a good article I read a while back about "modern art" and why it's bullshit.

edit: Not the one I'm looking for, but this is funny. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/im-sick-of-pretending-i-dont-get-art

 

[Blake'sGrave]

I'm actually more surprised that you are shocked, I came into this thread expecting these kind of responses.

I always thought GAF was kinda cultured, then I remembered it's a videogame forum

 

[Einbroch]

They're not art, they're illustrations. The meaning of art hasn't been to create something visually beautiful for several millennium. It's an expression of handiwork and technical skill with a tablet, but means absolutely nothing in any greater context than "wow look at that pretty drawing."

I've had this conversation before and there's nowhere to go with people who are immediately dismissive and refuse to acknowledge their lack of understanding.

I don't understand. That first Pixiv picture has stuck with me for the past year and whenever I look at it my mind races.

I don't see the difference. I'm not trying to be difficult.

 

[ant1532]

$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.

It started with a P and ended with a retentious.

Please explain this to me. Please.

it's a rothko painting. search him and color field theory. it's an art style. do some research. gaf keeps on throwing the word pretentious around, yet they're making the quick presumptions and name calling without knowing the context of the painting and art form. being super detailed in a drawing, doesn't necessarily translate to a good piece of art. that's like saying the guitarists who focus in on soloing are great musicians. yet they only play cover songs at dive bars and improvise solos over them.

 

[potam]

it's a rothko painting. search him and color field theory. it's an art style. gaf keeps on throwing the word pretentious around, yet they're making the quick presumptions and name calling without knowing the context of the painting and art form.

Not gonna lie, "color field theory" sounds pretentious as fuck.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

What the fuck is this? That is not what a person looks like. I can visibly see the stroke marks on the wall behind what I am going to generously assume is a woman (with stage 3 asschin's disease by the look of it). Based on everything else in this frame I'm surprised that he managed to keep the colour within the lines. Well, for the most part at least. My favorite bit is the eyes where he gets halfway through making the left one blue by drawing a single line that just sort of goes nowhere and was like "yep, that's good enough". Then forgot that people actually have two eyes so he should probably work on the other one too. Is this guy a shit painter, or is he just working with some fucking ugly people?

 

[ant1532]

Not gonna lie, "color field theory" sounds pretentious as fuck.

what? how? what is pretentious to you?

 

[Blake'sGrave]

Not gonna lie, "color field theory" sounds pretentious as fuck.

we're not gonna get anywhere here, are we?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

What the fuck is this? That is not what a person looks like. I can visibly see the stroke marks on the wall behind what I am going to generously assume is a woman (with stage 3 asschin's disease by the look of it). Based on everything else in this frame I'm surprised that he managed to keep the colour within the lines. Well, for the most part at least. My favorite bit is the eyes where he gets halfway through making the left one blue by drawing a single line that just sort of goes nowhere and was like "yep, that's good enough". Then forgot that people actually have two eyes so he should probably work on the other one too. Is this guy a shit painter, or is he just working with some fucking ugly people?

I don't think people are saying that realism is a requirement, but I do think a lot of people believe that a work of art should be original and/or influential, even if not necessarily impressive technically.

Is it safe to say that something which is neither technically impressive nor original, shouldn't be influential?

 

[javac]

Looks cool.

 

[lawlohwhat]

hey, keep posting good art please

i'm enjoying this thread

thanks

 

[potam]

what? how? what is pretentious to you?

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

amazing

 

[Blake'sGrave]

I don't think people are saying that realism is a requirement, but I do think a lot of people believe that a work of art should be original and/or influential, even if not necessarily impressive technically.

Is it safe to say that something which is neither technically impressive nor original, shouldn't be influential?

Yes, but influence can come from anywhere on an individual level, that's why art is subjective.

If a work gains a wide level of influence, the work may not be breaking any particularly new ground, but may say something about the artist who made it/evoke some emotion in the viewer.

edit:

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

unfucking believable

 

[Log4Girlz]

how much are those shaggy artist picture guys paintings worth? He's dead (RIP) are they worth anything

He's the only current gen artist I know by name/face, (bob ross).

In 100 years his paintings will go for millions and I am not fucking with you.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

unfucking believable

I've never understood the "ability" to try and be obtuse and uninformed. It seems like it takes more effort than actually bettering yourself.

Reading about that theory is interesting though. I appreciate the heads up on it Ant

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

I think you're missing the point at this stage. Based on my limited understanding of the subject, I think theories developed along with modern/abstract art attempt to explain why certain compositions have a certain emotional impact on many people. In this context you can think of them as psychological or cognitive studies, which are something that holds real scientific value.

You could argue that from this point of view, the theory itself might be more valuable in the long term than the actual works produced to demonstrate the theory, which is where I'm currently leaning. But all in all, to me this kind of art is actually quite valuable because of its attempts at a rigorous deconstruction and analysis, which could be considered a scientific contribution. In other words, if anything, "color field theory" should make these works more valuable, and not less valuable, as you claim.

 

[Feep]

They're not art, they're illustrations. The meaning of art hasn't been to create something visually beautiful for several millennium. It's an expression of handiwork and technical skill with a tablet, but means absolutely nothing in any greater context than "wow look at that pretty drawing."

I've had this conversation before and there's nowhere to go with people who are immediately dismissive and refuse to acknowledge their lack of understanding.

I stopped paying attention to you after the third word.

Fucking please.

 

[Phat Michael]

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

This is fantastic.

Id like to know for my own sake, how old are you?

Also, if anyone could do it - then do it and see how much your paintings go for? Always the same argument in every art thread.

This post and the "i want to murder him" post made this all worthwhile.

I love art. I collect art books. I buy art. I hang art up on my walls because it makes me happy. That's all there is to it.

 

[caesar]

What the fuck is this? That is not what a person looks like. I can visibly see the stroke marks on the wall behind what I am going to generously assume is a woman (with stage 3 asschin's disease by the look of it). Based on everything else in this frame I'm surprised that he managed to keep the colour within the lines. Well, for the most part at least. My favorite bit is the eyes where he gets halfway through making the left one blue by drawing a single line that just sort of goes nowhere and was like "yep, that's good enough". Then forgot that people actually have two eyes so he should probably work on the other one too. Is this guy a shit painter, or is he just working with some fucking ugly people?

9/10

 

[ant1532]

Because, someone can just throw random fucking colors on a palette, and at the first sign of criticism say, "Oh, you just don't understand color field theory." It's fucking bullshit art that doesn't evoke any emotions or tell a story. It's trash that rich people buy so they can pay their way into that super rich, intellectual crust of society, which doesn't really exist because people like them created it.

i mean this is totally ignorant. to say something about an art form you just found out about and seemingly know nothing about and then to say it is complete bullshit.

And yeah they can say that

"Oh, you just don't understand color field theory."

,but it doesn't mean that the criticism doesn't hold up and that the painting wasn't shit to the critic, although it may have had elements of color field theory like the artist says. of course color pallets and paintings of this type evoke emotions. colors do that on their own, let alone, when used to make a painting. and would it fair to say that instrumental music is a lesser form of art as there is no story being told?

 

[Tertullian]

http://garethleaney.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/ikb-79-1959-by-yves-klein/

Saw this sucker in person once, at the Tate Modern in London. I shit you not, they were selling posters of it in the gift shop. Of a solid color blue rectangle. And the defense of this piece of nonsense in the above blog post is ludicrous.



I'm on the fence about Pollock. I can kind of see how his art might be genuinely great and in-imitable. But anything more "modern" or abstract than Pollock is bullshit, especially when it's as obviously simplistic and devoid of craft as those stupid balloon dogs.