Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
I just made this. What do you guys think?
It's an egg.
No, it's a startling reflection of our own internal pluralism.
I just made this. What do you guys think?
It's an egg.
No, it's a startling reflection of our own internal pluralism.
I just made this. What do you guys think?
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.
At some level, though, isn't that what an egg is? A span of white, a globe of yellow, each bordered and distinct, but each inextricably tied to the other? Isn't that why we eat them, attempting to devour the symbol just like we attempt to unify our own dualistic nature? Isn't that why souffles seem so magical to us, because creating them requires dividing the Janusian egg into its two separate components, preparing each separately, and then combining them in a new way?
I just made this. What do you guys think?
Guessing the artist's intent is almost an act of hubris, an introspective illusion. Grinchy's work does trick us into assigning our own meanings to the piece, but therein lies the conundrum - is it what we see it to be, or is it what the artist creates it to be? The collision of intentions is breathtaking. What strikes me most is the slightly off center 'yolk' in a surrounding of symmetry, wrecking the viewer's sense of place.
Interesting take on Déjeuner sur l'herbe.
Will someone guess what I was thinking when I painted this?
Why is Clint Eastwood sporting a 'fro?
This is too deep for you. Save the picture, grab a glass of red wine, and just stare at it.
$40 limited edition print:
This is too deep for you. Save the picture, grab a glass of red wine, and just stare at it.
Where? Cus I'm about to unload some bills.
That's not quite true. In fact, I have little interest in those paintings posted in this thread which go out of their way to look like photographs, especially when they capture mundane every day things (like anything our smartphones could capture, then traced). It would be more true to say that I believe technical skill is necessary and it (or at least its display) being thrown out is a symptom of values reversing. With a painting you should try to do something you couldn't afford to do with a comic or film.
Perhaps you shouldn't take what I say as an absolute. I'm highlighting the direction which the medium has turned to and why. That doesn't mean I'm covering every work (far from it). Actually, the fact I am not may be a major point. Think of all the enthusiast artists doing work online, those working for film or games or comics, etc etc doing finely detailed, expressive work. What they do is deemed unworthy of the hallowed halls of the museum. If someone suggested it it would probably be a laugh (then again, that could just make it more likely we'll see erotic furry fanart there, the medium is laughing at itself at this point). What does grace the museum though? Well, look at this thread. Yes, the modern art pieces stand out better, but the fact they stand out is being celebrated at the expense of everything else. Something aesthetically pleasing is not enough and is not needed, you need something to stand out (to be novel and weird). Good art doesn't stand out anymore. We've had centuries to get tired of it (especially those who are not very appreciative) and now we have other mediums which are more entertaining. So we go to the extreme (and then whatever extreme we can find after that). A blank canvas, some nonsensical lines, etc. To the common man, the museum of modern art is more like a freak show.
If paintings sell for so much, why do people spend so little on music?
Apples to Zucchinis.
Music is usually not a one-of-a-kind thing.
Apples to Zucchinis.
Music is usually not a one-of-a-kind thing.
So it's not really the quality of art itself that drives up the price but the availability?
I don't know what you just said, but please accept a modest donation of 50 million US dollars in exchange for your crudely scrawled circle of yellow crayon on a crumpled napkin.At some level, though, isn't that what an egg is? A span of white, a globe of yellow, each bordered and distinct, but each inextricably tied to the other? Isn't that why we eat them, attempting to devour the symbol just like we attempt to unify our own dualistic nature? Isn't that why souffles seem so magical to us, because creating them requires dividing the Janusian egg into its two separate components, preparing each separately, and then combining them in a new way?
Some people eat their own feces on purpose.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.
If all food was both nontoxic and more or less palatable, food would be incredibly boring.Oh my god.
If all art was a "technical marvel," art would be incredibly boring.
If all food was both nontoxic and more or less palatable, food would be incredibly boring.
Featured as a subplot in COSMOPOLIS.
Really? I haven't seen the film.
If its not too spoilery, how is it used in the film? Did they shoot a scene there?
Lol, analogies depend on points of similarity. It's obtuse to pretend you don't get the point by focusing on differences.Yes, modern art is definitely comparable to literal poison. You got me.
Got this from my (deceased) granny. It was dusty and even a bit damaged back then. Paid quite a bit for restoration + framing. Somehow they managed to fix everything, I still wonder how they managed to do it and now it's even dust proof. I really love looking at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Rêve_(painting)The painting [Picasso's Le Rêve] was the centerpiece of Wynns collection and he had considered naming his Wynn Las Vegas resort after it. Nevertheless, in October 2006, Wynn told a group of his friends that he had agreed the day before to sell Le Rêve for $139 million to Steven A. Cohen. At the time, this price would have made Le Rêve the most expensive piece of art ever. While Wynn was showing the painting to his friends, apparently about to reveal the now still officially undisclosed previous owner (see above), he put his elbow through the canvas, puncturing it in the left forearm of the figure and creating a six-inch tear.
After a $90,000 repair, the painting was re-valued at $85 million. Wynn proceeded to claim the $54 million difference with the virtual selling price from his Lloyd's of London insurers, which would have paid for (most of) the cost of buying the painting in the first place. When the insurers balked, Wynn sued them in January 2007. The case was eventually settled out of court in March 2007. Cohen bought the painting from Wynn in 2013 for $155 million.
$72.8 million
$86.8 million