• Painting owned by Eric Clapton sold for £21,000,000 - New record. It's a bit crap.
    197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;38019541]That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, it's basically just smeared paint. A selling point could be that Eric Clapton owned it but £21 million is way to much for something like that.[/QUOTE] Yeah but that's art.
there's totally an anguished screaming face in the middle and that makes this painting awesome
£21,000,000 worth of food and clothing, etc that could have gone to helping the poor or something, wasted on a colourful piece of trash.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38022356]thus it is now worth millions[/QUOTE] It's worth millions because of millions being paid for it, which has part due to being owned by Eric Clapton. What would a painting take to be worth millions to you? What defines worth? I can tell you WHO defines worth of art, those bidding on it. If anyone here had tried to create a similar work of art and sell it they would not get anything.
I'd use it as a wall texture in a Source map or something to see how it looks but it probably tiles like shit
[QUOTE=SweetSwifter;38019678]Well, I have yet to see modern art where I liked whatever it was purely from an aesthetic standpoint. There's always someone that has to explain it to me what it means, and I happen to dislike that. Then again, art is something that's hard to define, and quite a subjective term. So, to rephrase. In my opinion, most modern art is shit. If someone else happens to like it, fine, but I can't see any value in it.[/QUOTE] you obviously don't even know what modern art is. news flash, the painting in OP isn't modern art.
[QUOTE=GodKing;38027516]£21,000,000 worth of food and clothing, etc that could have gone to helping the poor or something, wasted on a colourful piece of trash.[/QUOTE] seconds of time and effort that could've been spent towards working at a soup kitchen, wasted on an awful post
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;38020946]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][/QUOTE] yawn [QUOTE=Mon;38020387]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][/QUOTE] YAWN
i tried to art once, i nearly vomited
I find it funny when people think they know what art is supposed to be or how it's supposed to work, even if I agree with what they're saying.
It looks like a pretty cool painting admittedly, but I'd say it's at most worth about $1000, not 21 million by any means.
Art can by anything. Just because someone can draw a photorealistic piece doesn't mean people want it, people want something different. That's the same as people buying top brand shoes like Nike etc. In this case I'm going to say its for the sake of buying one of the most expensive paintings, not for the painting it's self. If they guy likes it, the guy likes it.
FP bandwagon: Bashes religion Bashes mainstream music Bashes anything abstract
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;38019541]That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, it's basically just smeared paint.[/QUOTE] why does literally everyone here do this? Rich people spend that much money on a painting for the sake of them liking it a whole lot. It doesn't have to mean something to everyone.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;38019541]That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, it's basically just smeared paint. A selling point could be that Eric Clapton owned it but £21 million is way to much for something like that.[/QUOTE] Ricthers paintings often have 10-15 layers of paint that spands several weeks in the making just to get the outcome he wants. It's stupid to think that the sum of money is outrageous, it's the same as buying a guitar from Eric Clapton he's got just as much status in the art world as a rockstar has. I'm sorry but if you think this is easy to make, go take a lesson in art history/painting and take that naive head out of your ass. Everything doesn't have to be a boring detailed pencil drawing or photoshop to actually be something coherent and interresting in itself.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38030452]It looks like a pretty cool painting admittedly, but I'd say it's at most worth about $1000, not 21 million by any means.[/QUOTE] Well, it wasn't thought to fetch that much, so obviously only the people who continued to vote on it thought it was more. I mean for a well renowned painter, £9-12m doesn't sound entirely ridiculous.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38030384]yawn [/QUOTE] I'll admit that the subject matter isn't unique, thought that's not surprising considering that their commissioners were heavily religious. You should check out the rest of his art, you'll admire the technique surrounding them.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;38031668]FP bandwagon: Bashes religion Bashes mainstream music Bashes anything abstract[/QUOTE] This. People apparently seem to think that these paintings are just someone throwing paint on a piece of paper and then selling it for millions. If you could sell such paintings for millions, everybody would be making fortunes. Ignorance.
If art is all about the reaction it envokes, then for $21,000,000 I would be expecting it to leave me in a state of constant orgasm, and extending my life for an extra couple of decades. [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Upgrade123;38031668]FP bandwagon: Bashes religion Bashes mainstream music Bashes anything abstract[/QUOTE] Bandwagon profile's out of date. You have to say "organised religion" now, doesn't count if you just say "religion".
This makes me think about all the actually skilled artists who sell their shit for 20-100, barely enough to live, while some idiot is set for life because his "art" has a big name behind it. See ? it's art. Very thought-provoking.
[QUOTE=Dori;38020821]I'm actually a billionaire[/QUOTE] So am I!
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;38031668]FP bandwagon: Bashes religion Bashes mainstream music Bashes anything abstract[/QUOTE] I don't see anything against abstract as an entirety, just the stuff that looks like nothing but finger-smeared paint. [img]http://soler7.com/IFAQ/Abstraction_files/image007.jpg[/img] Stuff like that seems fine, if anything because the effort put into it is visible.
[QUOTE=Rebi;38036691]I don't see anything against abstract as an entirety, just the stuff that looks like nothing but finger-smeared paint. [IMG]http://soler7.com/IFAQ/Abstraction_files/image007.jpg[/IMG] Stuff like that seems fine, if anything because the [B]effort put into it is visible.[/B][/QUOTE] How can you be this wrong about anything? Let's take a look at [I]Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow[/I] by Piet Mondrain. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red%2C_Blue%2C_and_Yellow.jpg[/IMG] It looks really simple and like something you can do in MS paint, right? Well... "[I]He spent many long hours painting on his own until his hands blistered and he sometimes cried or made himself sick.[/I]" Pretty sure that debunks your assbackwards theory of "effort put in is visible."
These days, people realize that art being aesthetically pleasing takes precedence over it looking "realistic". I believe it's something mainly the Swiss started. Some modern art pieces are overblown, but this really does look like thought went into the composition.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;38036382]This makes me think about all the actually skilled artists who sell their shit for 20-100, barely enough to live, while some idiot is set for life because his "art" has a big name behind it. See ? it's art. Very thought-provoking.[/QUOTE] define "actually skilled"
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;38031668]FP bandwagon: Bashes religion Bashes mainstream music Bashes anything abstract[/QUOTE] yeah dont forget the other bandwagons: bitching about bandwagons lumping the entire site together to bitch about bandwagons
[QUOTE=Rebi;38036691]I don't see anything against abstract as an entirety, just the stuff that looks like nothing but finger-smeared paint. Stuff like that seems fine, if anything because the effort put into it is visible.[/QUOTE] protip dali isn't an 'abstract' artist its almost as if you don't know what you're talking about...
[url]http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-history[/url] you can watch a free guide to art history here for anyone who would like to learn about art and its evolution since the dawn of man. it even has a helpful video about andy warhol's artistic value! you know, the talentless hack who copied down soup cans?
this thread is great because it shows that gerhard richter's art can still annoy the shit out of people far after it was painted. by the way i like how some of you think the artist got paid 21 million. that's funny. Clapton earned 21 million, not richter.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;38037797]How can you be this wrong about anything? Let's take a look at [I]Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow[/I] by Piet Mondrain. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red%2C_Blue%2C_and_Yellow.jpg[/IMG] It looks really simple and like something you can do in MS paint, right? Well... "[I]He spent many long hours painting on his own until his hands blistered and he sometimes cried or made himself sick.[/I]" Pretty sure that debunks your assbackwards theory of "effort put in is visible."[/QUOTE] I'm not saying things had no effort put in, I'm just saying, that effort doesn't show. So maybe being all condescending to me is a bit unwarranted, I disagreed with you, no need for putting countless hours into your emotionally bubbling posts. You seem to misinterpret "Effort put in is visible" as "Effort is only put in when it's visible", did you seriously just see a few buzzwords and fly into a shitfit?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.