I will personally pay you money, Shake, if you can reproduce 'Composition in Black and White, With Double Lines' as Mondrian did it: on a 2' by 2' canvas using only black and white oil paints.
I couldn't draw a straight line (nor a perfect circle) for any amount of money, freehand.
A calligrapher I met in China was talking about how he commanded high prices for a single ideogram. "It's not paying for the one ideogram, but the 8 years of schooling and practice that led to the one ideogram." I have to say, getting the inspiration for and being able to execute some design is an art in itself.
Collecting (be it model trains, professional atheletes or high end art) is it's own fucked up economy in itself.
When you only have two...tints...you use them. Y'know, "you do art with the paint you have, not the paint you want." Austere. Impoverished.
I can see that.
It seems to me that Charles Rennie MacIntosh and the Arts and Crafts movement designers were doing similar stuff earlier. It wasn't as 'austere' as that piece.
Washstand ~ 1903
And, lo...It's fukkin useful! And aesthetically attractive (to me), which the original post piece was not.
This, however, is dubious:
Clock ~ 1904
__________________
Last edited by godfry n. glad; 05-21-2009 at 05:39 AM.
I was looking at that wondering where I'd seen it before. Then it hit me. An Australian band called silverchair used it as the cover of one of their albums called, wait for it...
Not exactly the same, but very similar.
Extra point for guessing the name of the first single.
Straight Lines.
Taking in the progression from realistic looking tree to five straight lines I can see the attraction. But to pay seven figures I'd need two things. Every other painting in the series and a fuckload of spare cash.
I have neither, therefore I can't see the value.
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
It's a couple of things. First there's collectors who pay ridiculous amounts of money (to every non-collector) for stuff that others might chuck out. Then there is the expectation that others might pay even more money for it in the future, so it becomes an investment.
I sorta collect records (only certain genres) and I know there are records that people have paid ludicrous amounts of money for. Some of those records I would still like to have though and would probably pay that amount of money for if I had it to spare. Art just takes that whole thing a couple of notches higher.
At first glance the doubt over the relative contributions to commercial success made by the talents for art and for self-promotion might seem to have the symmetry you suggest, but it hasn't, for the simple reason that the commercial success is a kind of celebrity—either the kind of celebrity which is arises from artistic talent or the kind which is due to the talent for self-promotion.
If you want to argue that all these artists would have been famous anyway even without a talent for self-promotion, you need to show that their artistic achievement was sufficient in itself. I don't see how you can do that.
If you want to argue that all these celebrities would have been famous anyway even without a talent for art, you need to show that their self-promotion was sufficient in itself. I don't see how you can do that.
What are you actually arguing? If your point is simply that there is an element of promotion and marketing involved in determining which artists among the set of talented artists become big names and command inflated prices, then this exchange is not required, because that's uncontroversial. If you're making the stronger claim that promotion and marketing determine who becomes a big name, and the set of big names does not necessarily overlap with the set of talented artists, then that claim is controversial, and you're going to need to provide some support for it. Pointing out that I can't measure artistic talent or predict success based on it is irrelevant, because you can't measure talent for promotion or predict success based on that either.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
I don't want to argue that all these celebrities would have been famous anyway even without a talent for art. I'm suggesting that some of them are far more famous than others who have far more 'talent'.
I take it you aren't denying the phenomenon of fame matched with mediocrity?
I don't want to argue that all these celebrities would have been famous anyway even without a talent for art. I'm suggesting that some of them are far more famous than others who have far more 'talent'.
I don't disagree with that. I might rephrase it a bit to say that some are far more famous than others whose work I appreciate more, but I think that's more or less what you meant to indicate by putting "talent" in quotes. When I said that "The talent in this sort of art lies in designing a pleasing composition..." and you replied that "The talent in this sort of art lies in constructing and maintaining a marketable name. It's really just another kind of celebrity," I took that as you denying that the sort of talent I named was involved. If that's not what you're saying, I don't think we actually disagree on anything substantial here.
Quote:
I take it you aren't denying the phenomenon of fame matched with mediocrity?
No, I agree that the phenomenon exists, at least to the extent that it's possible to identify mediocrity in the context of artistic talent.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Last edited by Adam; 05-21-2009 at 05:43 PM.
Reason: Removed stray punctuation
I haven't read the entire thread yet, but regarding the OP, I don't understand art, either. Much of the art that sells for obscene amounts of money tends to be either a) shit that I could have put together in MS paint in less than an hour (like the "painting" in the OP) or b) something that I could make by either vomiting onto a canvas or splashing buckets of paint against a wall.
That's not art. That's garbage.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
I haven’t read the whole thread either, but just a couple of thoughts.
First, “modern art” roughly denotes artwork created from about 1900 to 1960. Today we are supposedly in the post-modern art period.
When people object to modern art, I think they are mostly objecting to a particular subset of modern art called non-representational art, of which Mondrian’s works are examples. Non-representational art is art that does not refer to an external subject. Such art is not “about” something, like a landscape or a portrait or a still life is “about” a subject. The subject of a non-representational work of art is the work itself.
This is OK because all visual art (meaning here specifically paint on canvass) is a series of lines, curves, forms, and colors arranged in patterns on a two-dimensional surface. This is as true for representational art as it is for non-representational art. So all art is abstract art. Realistic art is abstract and non-rerpresentational art is abstract. They are all patterns arranged on a surface.
The people who invented modern art simply said, “Why do we need a subject? Since all art is abstract, why not make the subject of the painting the very painting itself?” That’s what they did and we got non-representational art.
So what’s the problem? People don’t like or understand a lot of non-representational art because they are conditioned to think that the visual arts must represent something in the external world. But they are wrong. It doesn’t have to do that at all.
Once this is understood, the whole world of non-representational art in all its beauty opens up to you like a flower blooming.
As far as Mondrian goes, one shouldn’t confuse the monetary value assigned to a work of art with its aesthetic value. They are different. I don’t know who bought the Mondrian, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he or she didn’t know art from his or her elbow. Typically art buyers are speculators. They are businessmen. They are buying a name, not a work of art, as an investment, and like any investment – stocks, real estate, etc. – they are hoping it bids up in value.
Of course the buyer of this work bought Mondrian’s name, and he bought, not the work itself, but the body of work that stands behind it and which achieved a certain cache in the art world. This gives the buyer reason to hope that the Mondrian will increase in value.
In capitalist culture art is nothing but a commodity. So you are you. You are a commodity, and you have a price placed on your head. That’s the world we have built for ourselves.
So what’s the problem? People don’t like or understand a lot of non-representational art because they are conditioned to think that the visual arts must represent something in the external world. But they are wrong. It doesn’t have to do that at all.
Actually, I think it's not so much that they think art should be representational, but that artistic talent consists of rendering realistic representations; and that the value of art lies in the artist's abilities.
That's why, a lot of the time, people start to change their minds when they see similar, more representational work by the same artist.
I don't mean just things like the Mondrian tree progressions. I do think those can help put the paintings themselves in context. But I've known people who were surprised at some of Picasso's earlier, more representational drawings, as though his ability to do render things realistically made the less-representational stuff more legitimate.
As far as the value, yeah, it's not as though these high auction prices are from people who are looking for something to hang over their couches. They're historical artifacts, usually bought as investments.
I can't personally relate to having that much money to spend on historical artifacts, whether it's a painting or a relic or the Hope diamond or something. But it doesn't mean the people who do it are clueless snobs.
Once this is understood, the whole world of non-representational art in all its beauty opens up to you like a flower blooming.
Well...Not quite. I think I understand the concept, but it does not make most non-representational art any more 'beautiful' or open up any additional beauty to me. I'll admit that there are occasional non-representational pieces which appeal, but, by and large, I drift away from non-represntational pieces having not adequately interacted with them.
Quote:
As far as Mondrian goes, one shouldn’t confuse the monetary value assigned to a work of art with its aesthetic value. They are different. I don’t know who bought the Mondrian, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he or she didn’t know art from his or her elbow. Typically art buyers are speculators. They are businessmen. They are buying a name, not a work of art, as an investment, and like any investment – stocks, real estate, etc. – they are hoping it bids up in value.
Of course the buyer of this work bought Mondrian’s name, and he bought, not the work itself, but the body of work that stands behind it and which achieved a certain cache in the art world. This gives the buyer reason to hope that the Mondrian will increase in value.
In capitalist culture art is nothing but a commodity. So you are you. You are a commodity, and you have a price placed on your head. That’s the world we have built for ourselves.
So...It's a commodity, purchased by the hoi polloi on the basis of some kind of 'reputation' for investment purposes...against the increase in value over time caused by the expansion of the reputation of the artist and the number of people who demand originals and are willing to pay for it. Right?
So, who establishes the reputation of the specific artists? From what I can tell, it is usually 'critics'...many, if not most, of whom are not artists. It seems that this little group decides who is worthy and who will fall into obscurity...
Please...correct me if I err. I'm just trying to determine who it is that decides whose work is worthy of the appellation of 'art'...or, more accuarately, 'good art'.
So, who establishes the reputation of the specific artists?
Probably doctors!
Mean and stupid ones! They all conference together on their cell phones and decide!
Seriously, I don't think it's accurate to say that anyone actively establishes a specific artist's reputation. Why is there such a strong desire to invoke a mysterious cabal of opinion setter who dictate the value of a given artist's work? An artist creates art. If that art appeals to other people, the artist's reputation rises. If that art appeals to people who are influential in the art world, the artist's reputation rises more quickly. At some point, there's a snowball effect, where a given artist is well known enough that they become a Big Name.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
That's why, a lot of the time, people start to change their minds when they see similar, more representational work by the same artist.
I don't mean just things like the Mondrian tree progressions. I do think those can help put the paintings themselves in context. But I've known people who were surprised at some of Picasso's earlier, more representational drawings, as though his ability to do render things realistically made the less-representational stuff more legitimate.
I think there's a widespread naive view (which I shared at one point, i.e. before I took some art classes) that nonrepresentational art is created by artists who aren't capable of creating representational art. It's technically easier to paint lines and circles or whatever than it is to paint a photorealistic tree, so the artist who chooses to work in lines and circles must be incapable of painting a tree. I think a lot of people who hold this view don't buy that nonrepresentational art has the value that the artists claim, because they think it's just bullshit the artist made up to compensate for his or her lack of talent. Once they understand that the artist could have painted representationally if he or she had wanted to, I think they're more willing to consider that the artist legitimately was creating something of value rather than making excuses for kindergarten level paint slopping.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Seriously, I don't think it's accurate to say that anyone actively establishes a specific artist's reputation. Why is there such a strong desire to invoke a mysterious cabal of opinion setter who dictate the value of a given artist's work?
Advertisers, PR experts, members of old boy networks, etc., do actively work to establish the reputations of specific artists. In many cases, some of those are even paid specifically to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
An artist creates art. If that art appeals to other people, the artist's reputation rises. If that art appeals to people who are influential in the art world, the artist's reputation rises more quickly.
And why does it rise more quickly in the latter case? Because those influential people take steps to further the reputation of the artist.
See, actual equality of opportunity in these regards does not exist. An artist creates art, but a profit-minded con artist with the requisite connections is more likely to succeed in building up his/her reputation. Often these connections are nepotistic or otherwise emerge from preexisting social structures which favor the artist. It's not as if the relative lack of prominent female painters, for example, can really be boiled down to any relative lack of talent among women. The notion that the 'free market' facilitates some level playing field where any artist is similarly apt to succeed given enough talent and drive needs to be flushed down the figurative toilet. (Flushing the $10m toilet paper in the OP would be attacking a symptom, not the disease.)
So what’s the problem? People don’t like or understand a lot of non-representational art because they are conditioned to think that the visual arts must represent something in the external world. But they are wrong. It doesn’t have to do that at all.
Actually, I think it's not so much that they think art should be representational, but that artistic talent consists of rendering realistic representations; and that the value of art lies in the artist's abilities.
That's why, a lot of the time, people start to change their minds when they see similar, more representational work by the same artist.
I don't mean just things like the Mondrian tree progressions. I do think those can help put the paintings themselves in context. But I've known people who were surprised at some of Picasso's earlier, more representational drawings, as though his ability to do render things realistically made the less-representational stuff more legitimate.
Almost all, if not exactly every single one, of the museum-dwelling painters whom we associate the art of modernism were clasically/academically trained and could draw realistically just as well as you please. Picasso, by the time he was about ten years old, could draw realistically about as well as anyone who ever lived. Someone once said of him that he could draw "like an angel." Nobody could draw better than Picasso, when Picasso decided to "draw" according to the canons of "realism."
The fact that people think the creators of modernism somehow did what they did because they couldn't do "realistic" art just represents a failure of our educational system to educate people about the visual arts. These artists chose not to draw and paint realistically, because they wanted to expand the boundaries of art.
Yes, the value of art lies (ideally) in an artist's abilities. That's why the art of modernism is so highly valued: It displays so much ability.
You're just not going to get around the simple fact that people have widely varied tastes. If some artist gains wide renown and fame while another artist you think is much better wallows in the shadows, sure there may be some factors of connections and influence, and culture that will 'like' and buy art simply because it's popular. Yet there will also be those who genuinely believe the famous artist is the better one, and what basis do you have to say they're wrong? Art is too much about taste and preference and emotion to have any objective basis to state that one piece of art is intrinsically better than another.
I'm more familiar with literature than visual art. I can't stand Harry Potter. I think it's utter dross. Give me boring, dry old Tolkien any day over that crap. I'd rather re-read the Silmarillion for the fifth time, seriously. But there are plenty of people (a lot more actually) who feel exactly the opposite way. Viewing literature as a form of art, I have no objective ground to say that Tolkien is better than Rowling. It is a matter of opinion, and if the prices of novels were as widely varied as the prices of paintings, I'd be rather grateful that I could get a (IMO much better) Tolkien for peanuts compared to the millions that (IMO) idiots are shelling out for a (IMO crappy) Rowling.
Re: Modern art ... again
Linear Mode
