Painting owned by Eric Clapton sold for £21,000,000 - New record. It's a bit crap.
197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TestECull;38019813]Huh. So apparently I could stick a piece of canvas under my lawnmower, then sit on it and think up some absurd, deep bullshit while the engine drips oil randomly onto said canvas. Take it out after 30 minutes, smear the oil around, frame it with that bullshit from earlier stenciled into the wood, and never have to work again for the rest of my life![/quote]
Actually that might be a cool idea for a piece.
[quote]I've never seen a single piece hanging on a museum wall that I would willingly pay more than $20 for...and even if I did I wouldn't. I could just as easily google image the bitch, then go down to a copy shop and enlarge it as much as I damn well please for a couple of bucks.[/QUOTE]
Agree with this. People who pay a lot of money for art are simply trying to prove their status as part of the rich. Art is just ideas, saying that it should cost thousands or millions is saying that the essence of humanity is something that is simply bought and sold.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;38020779]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.[/QUOTE]
Buy a paintball chaingun, kevlar canvas fabric, and become a billionaire.
[QUOTE=Dori;38019567]looks pretty cool to me[/QUOTE]
also pretty expensive for you
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;38020814]also pretty expensive for you[/QUOTE]
I'm actually a billionaire
[QUOTE=Dori;38020821]I'm actually a billionaire[/QUOTE]
Is that why your worldview is incredibly skewed?
People are so into modern art because they're scared of repeating the mistake of Van Gogh and other such painters.
[QUOTE=geel9;38020861]People are so into modern art because they're scared of repeating the mistake of Van Gogh and other such painters.[/QUOTE]
what?
[QUOTE=geel9;38020861]People are so into modern art because they're scared of repeating the mistake of Van Gogh and other such painters.[/QUOTE]
And it's definitely not because they actually like it, because that would be just mad. Who is into things just because they like it? That's right, nobody!
[QUOTE=geel9;38020861]People are so into modern art because they're scared of repeating the mistake of Van Gogh and other such painters.[/QUOTE]
Art is not a force to be trifled with, don't [i]gogh[/i] down the wrong path of artistic creation.
[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]
The Renaissance artists lived well off. A majority of them did a fuckton of commissions though, giving them little time to do their personal work. Caravaggio was my favorite one: [img]http://www.caravaggio-foundation.org/Doubting-Thomas.jpg[/img]
Can someone rehost the image? It doesn not show up for me.
Wow, talk about more money than sense.
people don't spend £21 million on a painting because the painting is so good it's worth it, people spend £21 million on a painting to say "i own a painting worth £21 million"
it's like diamonds or watches, i own an expensive as fuck watch i got when i was in switzerland. not because the watch is incredibly amazing and perfect in every way, i got it so i can say "I OWN AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK WATCH FROM SWITZERLAND AND YOU DON'T"
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
also got it because i didn't have a watch
[QUOTE=Pandamox;38021039]people don't spend £21 million on a painting because the painting is so good it's worth it, people spend £21 million on a painting to say "i own a painting worth £21 million"
it's like diamonds or watches, i own an expensive as fuck watch i got when i was in switzerland. not because the watch is incredibly amazing and perfect in every way, i got it so i can say "I OWN AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK WATCH FROM SWITZERLAND AND YOU DON'T"[/QUOTE]
Art in particular is one of the biggest symbols of status for the rich. It says "Not only am I incredibly wealthy, but I also like something that is very trendy. I own something that represents intellect and creativity, so I am intellectual and creative."
[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]
What defines this "content" you speak off? And it seems like you missed my point entirely - did you think about every letters' placement, meaning and shape in that novel of yours, or did you just mash your keyboard at random? Come back when you have written something that may look random, but is in extreme control.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38021061]Art in particular is one of the biggest symbols of status for the rich. It says "Not only am I incredibly wealthy, but I also like something that is very trendy. I own something that represents intellect and creativity, so I am intellectual and creative."[/QUOTE]
exactly, you're not buying the painting itself, you're buying what it does for you.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38021061]Art in particular is one of the biggest symbols of status for the rich. It says "Not only am I incredibly wealthy, but I also like something that is very trendy. I own something that represents intellect and creativity, so I am intellectual and creative."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pandamox;38021039]people don't spend £21 million on a painting because the painting is so good it's worth it, people spend £21 million on a painting to say "i own a painting worth £21 million"
it's like diamonds or watches, i own an expensive as fuck watch i got when i was in switzerland. not because the watch is incredibly amazing and perfect in every way, i got it so i can say "I OWN AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK WATCH FROM SWITZERLAND AND YOU DON'T"
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
also got it because i didn't have a watch[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what you two are arguing. Even if those watches and arts were only bought for status symbols, that doesn't negate their (mechanical/fashionable)/artistic value. In fact, it actually adds value (in the form of a proper representation of your status) to something that would normally be valueless.
[editline]1[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pandamox;38021088]exactly, you're not buying the painting itself, you're buying what it does for you.[/QUOTE]
And you can't get what the painting does for you without getting the painting itself, ergo you're buying the painting.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38021079]What defines this "content" you speak off? And it seems like you missed my point entirely - did you think about every letters' placement, meaning and shape in that novel of yours, or did you just mash your keyboard at random? Come back when you have written something that may look random, but is in extreme control.[/QUOTE]
Ok how about this one?
[quote]122=-dskfd9f9sd0903kfd90asddasd90[/quote]
I spent years creating that one.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;38021103]I don't understand what you two are arguing. Even if those watches and arts were only bought for status symbols, that doesn't negate their (mechanical/fashionable)/artistic value. In fact, it actually adds value (in the form of a proper representation of your status) to something that would normally be valueless.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing against the quality of the painting. I personally don't like it simply because it doesn't create an emotional response in me, but I don't actually hate the painting.
I am talking about the financial value of the painting. Specifically, I am saying the quality of the art itself is not actually connected to the value of the art. It's valuable not because of any emotional response, or any deep meaning, but because it allows a rich person to project an illusion of status and superiority through its ownership.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;38021103]I don't understand what you two are arguing. Even if those watches and arts were only bought for status symbols, that doesn't negate their (mechanical/fashionable)/artistic value. In fact, it actually adds value (in the form of a proper representation of your status) to something that would normally be valueless.
[editline]1[/editline]
And you can't get what the painting does for you without getting the painting itself, ergo you're buying the painting.[/QUOTE]
you seem to have misunderstood what i meant
yes, you're CLEARLY buying the painting, what i meant was when you spend that much on a painting you're not buying it FOR the painting itself, you're buying what it does for you. hope that makes a little more sense.
and i never said it negates those other values, i'm saying that those values alone aren't even close to why they are as expensive as those items are. as i said before, a good example of this is a diamond. a diamond doesn't do anything, you buy a diamond because it does something FOR you.
say you're getting married, and there's 2 diamond rings. one is $200, and the other is $5,000. they both are nearly the exact same to the naked eye. but you wouldn't buy your wife the $200 because that's telling her that "she's not worth the $5,000 one". you're going to (most likely) buy the nicest one you can afford, even if it's almost the exact same as one which is far cheaper, because of what it does FOR you.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;38021105]Ok how about this one?
I spent years creating that one.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point entirely. Art isn't about form or talent, these are simply tools that can aid in the artistic process. Art is done to express an emotion. If you express your emotion through randomly mashing a keyboard, it is an artistic demonstration. If that act invokes an emotional response in me, then I will call it art.
The mere act of paying that much money for the painting increased its value for all future owners. The piece of work could be a turd in plastic wrap; if you manage to convince one idiot of its value enough for them to buy it, all people will suddenly consider its possession something worth spending money for.
If you were given this painting for free and had no knowledge of its value, you wouldn't ask more than 10 bucks to get rid of it. If you were then told its real value, you would pay money to keep it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38021166]You're missing the point entirely. Art isn't about form or talent, these are simply tools that can aid in the artistic process. Art is done to express an emotion. If you express your emotion through randomly mashing a keyboard, it is an artistic demonstration. If that act invokes an emotional response in me, then I will call it art.[/QUOTE]
I was totally expressing a great deal of emotion there though WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND ME?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;38021207]I was totally expressing a great deal of emotion there though WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND ME?[/QUOTE]
Maybe someone does. I personally don't believe art should be done to cater to the sensibilities or understandings of your audience; but to analyze, understand, and convey the world the way you see it.
"I do not write to be understood, I write to understand."
durp hurp modern art is so gay id rather pay 21 million for a giant ultra realistic painting of gordon freeman and gabe making love to eachother
Holy fuck, If i had 21m to throw away I'd rather buy a giant pool and fill it with chocolate and bacon and let Africans poverty swim in it or something.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;38021207]I was totally expressing a great deal of emotion there though WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND ME?[/QUOTE]
"Jackass" isn't really an emotion.
[QUOTE=Pandamox;38021151]you seem to have misunderstood what i meant
yes, you're CLEARLY buying the painting, what i meant was when you spend that much on a painting you're not buying it FOR the painting itself, you're buying what it does for you. hope that makes a little more sense.
and i never said it negates those other values, i'm saying that those values alone aren't even close to why they are as expensive as those items are. as i said before, a good example of this is a diamond. a diamond doesn't do anything, you buy a diamond because it does something FOR you.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand your argument purely because it doesn't make sense to pay a series of truckloads of thousand dollar bills on a painting that almost nobody will know you have than to build 30 rose bowls or a statue of your 60 foot long ego or construct a significant extension to a hospital.
Furthermore, your argument also breaks down when you consider people also buy pearl engagement rings (usually cheaper) instead of diamond engagement rings even if they could afford both, or that rich people (like maybe halle berry) sometimes wear a pear of denim jeans when they could easily afford gold leaf embroidered reinforced silk pyjamas.
Maybe they just bought it because they had several ten millions of dollars laying around and decided that they wanted the bloody painting, mate.