Painting owned by Eric Clapton sold for £21,000,000 - New record. It's a bit crap.
197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mac338;38019983]This picture too has a function. And it's taken time, effort and careful thought to make too. I'll admit it's far from my favorite contemporary, but the value of art is not something set by production which you say you understand. So if you're filthy rich, you might as well buy one if you like it. And 200,000 Macbook pros too if you desire.[/QUOTE]
Though why you'd buy 200,000 laptops is kind of beyond me but hey, rich people.
[QUOTE=Cone;38020075]People buy pictures like these because they feel obligated to do so for reasons that we may not be able to understand. What these reasons are is totally irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that someone found a painting they thought was worth buying.
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
surprised it took fifty nine posts for someone to do this[/QUOTE]
I do one in most of the threads where someone spends a huge amount on a piece of art like this
When someone digs up facepunch in 90 years after I kick the bucket and finds all of it they're gonna be making bank like shit
What is completely insane is how actual artists are paid next to nothing for their work, and undeserving people like this make millions with little effort at all. Most of mankind's greatest artists died poor, or at the very least were under-appreciated until after their death.
-snippety snoop-
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;38020113]What is completely insane is how actual artists are paid next to nothing for their work, and undeserving people like this make millions with little effort at all. Most of mankind's greatest artists died poor, or at the very least were under-appreciated until after their death.[/QUOTE]
what is an "actual artist?"
and have you even seen any of his work? look at the gallery in this page: [url]http://www.gosee.de/news/art/gerhard-richter-uebermalte-fotografien-in-morsbroich-abstrakte-bilder-in-koeln-6147?gos_lang=en[/url]
[editline]1[/editline]
or search his name on gis
[QUOTE=Dori;38020148]what is an "actual artist?"
and have you even seen any of his work? look at the gallery in this page: [URL]http://www.gosee.de/news/art/gerhard-richter-uebermalte-fotografien-in-morsbroich-abstrakte-bilder-in-koeln-6147?gos_lang=en[/URL][/QUOTE]
I think he meant eric clapton reselling it.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38020043]So what is it set by? Opinions? If that's the case why do we all kick up a fuss about paying $60 for a video game? If EA were to turn around and charge $20,000 for their next title just because they value it at that, is it ok?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
If there was only one single copy of the game.
And the game was produced not as entertainment, but as an expression.
[QUOTE=Dori;38020148]what is an "actual artist?"
and have you even seen any of his work? look at the gallery in this page: [URL]http://www.gosee.de/news/art/gerhard-richter-uebermalte-fotografien-in-morsbroich-abstrakte-bilder-in-koeln-6147?gos_lang=en[/URL][/QUOTE]
So, he adds paint to photographs in an abstract, seemingly haphazard/controlled ways? Not something I'd ever willingly pay money for, but if someone likes it then more power to them.
[QUOTE=mac338;38020116]Carry the inflation and try again.[/QUOTE]
It's adjusted for inflation using the 2011 figure, so what I said stands.
It works out at around £9.80 per square kilometre (which is a cracking deal!) And the area of Scotland is 78,770 km², which at that rate would cost £772,976 to buy. Which means I could buy 27.1 Scotlands with that painting.
Obviously wouldnt happen. I just having too much fun figuring out what i could buy with £21,000,000.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38020186]It's adjusted for inflation using the 2011 figure, so what I said stands.
It works out at around £9.80 per square kilometre (which is a cracking deal!)[/QUOTE]
Oh man, and here I thought Alaska was a good deal.
So amazing, full of effort and talent. Definitely worth the money, you can see the artist was thinking about something really deep when he made it, and definitely wasn't just splashing some paint on it.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;38020113]What is completely insane is how actual artists are paid next to nothing for their work, and undeserving people like this make millions with little effort at all. Most of mankind's greatest artists died poor, or at the very least were under-appreciated until after their death.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as an actual artist other than your own arbitrary and subjective definition. Anyone else's definition is as good as yours, so stop acting as if anyone's opinion can be any better than someone else's.
[QUOTE=mac338;38020173]
And the game was produced not as entertainment, but as an expression.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes this expresses the love of having an easy job very well.
It's a pity that these people will never understand the value of money. It's sad when the rich in our world can afford to chuck over several million dollars for one painting, but then can't afford to pay a little more in taxes to help the masses.
i really don't get this kind of art
gerhard's kerze set is much better imo
[img]http://www.aimeizhuyi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/die-kerze-gerhard-richter.jpeg[/img]
I don't like much modern art (but many of the installments I encounter are pretty damn cool), but the people saying this only took an afternoon or something may not be entirely right. This painting took 1.5 years to complete, if I remember correctly:
[img]http://uploads4.wikipaintings.org/images/willem-de-kooning/woman-i.jpg[/img]
Even though I don't fancy it in particular, I think it's wrong to say that the painter didn't really do much with it. You might not see the meaning with, but let me assure you that Gerhard Richter didn't let go of that painting before he was completely satisfied with it.
I find it funny that those of you who are saying that this has little-to-no artistic merit aren't factoring the inherit artistic expression of selling a [messy canvas] that took about "an afternoon" or "40 minutes" to some git with too much money to spend. Clearly this is an artistic masterpiece that conveys the very embodiment of a broken system where African child soldiers are allowed to starve and be sold as sex slaves while rich and pretentious purveyors of a farcical cult of personality system snort the cremated ashes of "real art" while bathing in Grey Poupon in a bath tub made of cemented caviar.
Or it's just a pretty cool painting and you guys should stop getting your sphincters in a tango over how you think other people should spend their money. [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-iiam.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38020433]I don't like much modern art (but many of the installments I encounter are pretty damn cool), but the people saying this only took an afternoon or something may not be entirely right. This painting took 1.5 years to complete, if I remember correctly:
[img]http://uploads4.wikipaintings.org/images/willem-de-kooning/woman-i.jpg[/img]
Even though I don't fancy it in particular, I think it's wrong to say that the painter didn't really do much with it. You might not see the meaning with, but let me assure you that Gerhard Richter didn't let go of that painting before he was completely satisfied with it.[/QUOTE]
But it actually has content, while the painting in the op is the equivalent of calling this a novel because it expresses my feelings:
[quote]uijhdfasoiuhfoaieuhdfndoasnijerwoiyuhoiahndfaoeiurhasoihdasdofhbsdfouihebydoaiuybhdasdojhfbefouabdfcoubhfaoudybasioygsdiubgishfbasiybhdhiasdikjhbewfiubhdfviwaqtyrfgbprtiounjaoshfcnvdfgo[/quote]
All this bickering over what art is valued at.
Art is valued at whatever you think it should be valued at. That isn't my favorite piece of his, but looking at his gallery he has some very, very cool works that I myself would pay good money for because it speaks to me in a way it may not to you. A penny is worth much more to a poor person than it is to an someone in affluence.
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;38020467]But it actually has content, while the painting in the op is the equivalent of calling this a novel because it expresses my feelings:[/QUOTE]
The only thing you see in that photo as "content" I'm sure is the face. Everything else would be unrecognizable abstract shapes without a face to put it in context.
[QUOTE=Cone;38020246]There is no such thing as an actual artist other than your own arbitrary and subjective definition. Anyone else's definition is as good as yours, so stop acting as if anyone's opinion can be any better than someone else's.[/QUOTE]
I don't quite know about that.
We can measure certain aesthetic qualities with math. Color is also all physics. I find using the cop-out "art is subjective, it can be anything" doesn't really stand up. Art is about design and relation. Did the artist plan out the piece? Does the artist have a motive? Is the motive apparent in the art? Does the art evoke some kind of emotion? And so on and so forth.
Just because people can have opinions does not negate the fact that there are definitive design aesthetics. If you threw dirt on paper and called it art because your opinion was "valid", I would call you an idiot.
You're wrong though. What's the difference of dirt and paint on paper? If I find in it whatever I look for in art then what's the difference?
the art scene these days isn't exactly geared towards the general public anyway
i mean, for the most part, people who are like waaay into art (have an understanding of art history, well versed in artistic techniques, fine arts degrees to throw around) are pretty much the only people who can really ~get~ modern art these days
it's pretty sad imo, because there's a lot to appreciate here, but it just seems like a load of horseshit to most people
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;38020544]You're wrong though. What's the difference of dirt and paint on paper? If I find in it whatever I look for in art then what's the difference?[/QUOTE]
Because I do not think art is as shallow as that. It's the same with a screenplay for a film, for example. You can write it however you want, but you can not escape the fact that there is structure and rules to follow to make it actually work. I am sorry, but I truthfully believe art is more than that.
Usually, the backstory behind the expensive paintings is the thing that sets the price.
[QUOTE=JJ Isaac;38020582]Because I do not think art is as shallow as that. It's the same with a screenplay for a film, for example. You can write it however you want, but you can not escape the fact that there is structure and rules to follow to make it actually work. I am sorry, but I truthfully believe art is more than that.[/QUOTE]
A screenplay can be written for the author as much as the audience.
[QUOTE=JJ Isaac;38020499]Art is about design and relation.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Art is an entertainment medium. Art is about entertaining a target audience, and canvas art has no particular ruleset unless your piece subscribes to that ruleset (either explicitly or implicitly). You wouldn't criticize a breakdancer as if he were attempting to perform the lindy hop, you wouldn't criticize a flautist as if he were playing the bloody gong, so why are you criticizing a modern art piece as if it's a still life piece or an architectural sketch?
[QUOTE=JJ Isaac;38020582]Because I do not think art is as shallow as that. It's the same with a screenplay for a film, for example. You can write it however you want, but you can not escape the fact that there is structure and rules to follow to make it actually work. I am sorry, but I truthfully believe art is more than that.[/QUOTE]
Uh, if you remove from the 'real art' pool a genuine form of expression that follows a differently structured system of rules just because it isn't constraining itself to your narrow view of art then it is actually [B]your[/B] view of art that is more shallow.
[QUOTE=Mon;38020558]the art scene these days isn't exactly geared towards the general public anyway
i mean, for the most part, people who are like waaay into art (have an understanding of art history, well versed in artistic techniques, fine arts degrees to throw around) are pretty much the only people who can really ~get~ modern art these days
it's pretty sad imo, because there's a lot to appreciate here, but it just seems like a load of horseshit to most people[/QUOTE]
There's plenty of art geared to the 'average person.'
Try photography, there's a lot of nice stuff to appreciate from photography.
[QUOTE=Cone;38020635]A screenplay can be written for the author as much as the audience.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but taking a camera and shaking it around for an hour and a half doesn't make a movie.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;38020676]Yeah but taking a camera and shaking it around for an hour and a half doesn't make a movie.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does. It makes a movie that I figure would be totally trite, but still a movie that someone, somewhere, would perhaps appreciate for god knows what reason.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38019618]I'm not saying it's not a nice painting... I just mean in terms of £21,000,00 it's a bit crap.
I'd happily hang it in my lounge, if it was say £50.
It just fascinates me how something like this can be worth 21 million quid. Or even £1,000.[/QUOTE]
They don't necessarily appreciate the artwork itself, it's just a bragging right to demonstrate the amount of money they have.
Wow millionaires today are so fucking dull. If I had £21,000,000 to blow I'd spend it on helicopters and explosives, not something lame like a shitty painting.
[img]http://images.traderonline.com/img/2/dealer/4314224/102734641_1thumb_550x410.jpg[/img]
I mean for fucks sake. This (working) mig is 1/355th the price.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.