art & artists (1 Viewer)

wouldn't mind hanging this in my arcade room at all
...I dig the medium of Prismacolor pencil on cardstock. The colors really pop. Here’s a recent one.

...guess I jumped the gun and didn’t grasp the intent of the thread. ?As for favorites- I’ve always been drawn to the underground, Robert Williams, The Pizz, R. Crumb, S. Clay Wilson and many more.

"Cy Twombly's "Untitled (Bolsena)" sold for its low estimate of $35m."

low estimate. of 35 million dollars. i can dig modern/contemporary/whatever art but there's a point
when someone's gotta call bullshit.

there's definitely an "emperor's new clothes" element to alot of this shit stuff.

It's too bad that some of you guys find Cy Twombly's art "shit." So other artists that get millions of dollars are more "deserving" because of the work? It's almost never about the work (it's about the name), and because different strokes for different folks. The sales price does not determine value. What is your most favorite work of art worth to you in terms of your net worth? And what if someone else thought it was absolute crap? Does that mean you got "ripped" off because you gave up X% of your income? It's all subjective. Art is subjective. Like I have to remind the people here of that?
i never said i thought his art is "shit" if you're referring to me. i don't - i can appreciate it and be moved by it's
qualities. i'm sure he's got integrity.

what i think is bullshit is that so many contemporary collectors need a snobbish director or someone they hire
to tell them why something is "great" and why they should buy/collect it.

it always starts off being about the work, then if the snobbish director or powers that be decide the work is worthy of being
lauded they convince the collector that the work is "great art" - that's what i resent and consider an "emperor's new clothes"
situation - the sheeple collectors that believe what the dealer/director is trying to sell them - they don't trust their own
subjective impressions cause they don't want to be seen as a lowbrow who can't understand/appreciate great
contemporary art.

and yes no need to remind "the people" that art is subjective. but thanks for double checking.
it always starts off being about the work
if by "being about the work" you mean being about what will make the gallerist or advisor or whoever the most money, then yes, it always starts off being about the work.

But the reality is it's always about the money and never about the work where contemporary art is concerned. Maybe in different parts of the world the contemporary art scene (and market) is pure and righteous, but I base my arguably wildly accurate statement on watching what happens in Los Angeles for 35 years. Maybe <insert your city here> is different.

Few of the class of rich people who rely on the recommendations of an "expert" to buy their art are worried about their taste in art. Because they don't give a shit about the art. They care about their money, and whether it will be safe while it's tied up in a painting. Whether they'll get a return on their investment when they sell it. They care about people walking into their home and saying, "Oh, look at that, a Karl Farbman!"

And that's weird, not art as a status symbol, it's always been that, but art as a commodity or a future, like pork bellies. But without that world, the contemporary art scene or culture would be quite different. It would be a bunch of regional artists selling work for under $5000 (or well under $5000, which is essentially what it is now if you take away the rich people's hype-art).

Without the investors, there would be no galleries (again, in the big cities), and without galleries, there is no art scene. So maybe it's bullshit that rich people buy art they don't care about, but for artists, it's necessary bullshit. Like most bullshit is.
if by "being about the work" you mean being about what will make the gallerist or advisor or whoever the most money, then yes, it always starts off being about the work.

no that's not what i mean...
I didn't think so. ;)

I shouldn't comment anyway, I'm too cynical about the contemporary art world.

But it really hasn't changed since, oh, I don't know, the Italian Renaissance? Isn't that when art started to be sold commercially (so to speak)? So what's that, 600 or 700 years?

The quality of the contemporary art 600 years ago may have been generally higher, sure, but there was a lot less of it. Of course, there were a lot fewer buyers as well, so "artist" has always been a tough job...
that's funny cause i had a longwinded reply ready to go that included referring to what you said as cynical (among other
things) but i deleted it cause i was so salty after reading esart's post i was risking crossing into "don't be an
asshole" territory.

not that what you said isn't true, it just added salt to the salt...
i know. i mean i don't know...

i like the artist who did that - he's done some really interesting stuff. don't even know my point in
posting that article.

and people bought it! literally and figuratively.
Well, d gray, I wasn't necessarily singling you out. I just meant anyone bashing on the Cy Twombly art fetching a lot of money. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Users who are viewing this thread