Painting owned by Eric Clapton sold for £21,000,000 - New record. It's a bit crap.
197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;38038887]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]
it's kind of funny how the people who get up in arms about this kind of thing are the ones that preserve these controversial works in culture. does anyone think that the urine-soaked crucifix would've been given much widespread attention if people hadn't gotten furious about it?
[editline]14th October 2012[/editline]
i kind of feel sorry for them in that their struggling against it is ensuring that these works are remembered more than they ever will be
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38039004]does anyone think that the urine-soaked crucifix would've been given much widespread attention if people hadn't gotten furious about it?[/QUOTE]
obviously not, and that was the point wasn't it. Richter knew very well what he was doing when he painted.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRgbCqbE_I8[/media]
just as this guy knows very well that what he is doing is abstract and would be considered "easy" and "without effort" by random groups of people.
if you think you can do this then [b]great[/b], that's a good thing. richter would want you to do something like it.
of course, such things can still be appreciated for their aesthetic value regardless of the concept behind them. i thought the photos of the piss christ looked pretty unique, and i think this painting is very aggressive and open to interpretation as to what it looks like. some of the posts in this thread have proven that.
[QUOTE=usaokay;38039184][img]http://www.marcelduchamp.net/images/bicycle_wheel.jpg[/img]
Art.
No lie. Around that time, there were painting that mean something. The creator of this, Marcel Duchamp, wanted to let people know that meaningless and outrageous things could be art.[/QUOTE]
who was the guy that photographed a urinal? thats apparently art
[QUOTE=usaokay;38039184][img]http://www.marcelduchamp.net/images/bicycle_wheel.jpg[/img]
Art.
No lie. Around that time, there were painting that mean something. The creator of this, Marcel Duchamp, wanted to let people know that meaningless and outrageous things could be art.[/QUOTE]
art doesn't have to have meaning, and alot of the time, silly shit that nobody would every think of is far more beautiful (in my opinion at least) than a big colourful ultra realistic painting that has a life story behind it.
not exactly
duchamp wanted people to become part of the art process by making them attribute meaning to something otherwise meaningless
[editline]14th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheJoey;38039210]who was the guy that photographed a urinal? thats apparently art[/QUOTE]
duchamp
[QUOTE=TheJoey;38039210]who was the guy that photographed a urinal? thats apparently art[/QUOTE]
that was also duchamp
original clapton
[QUOTE=usaokay;38039184][img]http://www.marcelduchamp.net/images/bicycle_wheel.jpg[/img]
Art.
No lie. Around that time, there were painting that mean something. The creator of this, Marcel Duchamp, wanted to let people know that meaningless and outrageous things could be art.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I remember that guy, he was [b]the[/b] troll of the art. It's amusing how he pissed the shit out of people.
[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]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/HE9Pp.png[/img]
i'm crying tears
yeah why didn't piet mondrian just use MS Paint
sure would have gotten it done faster
[QUOTE=usaokay;38039184][img]http://www.marcelduchamp.net/images/bicycle_wheel.jpg[/img]
Art.
No lie. Around that time, there were painting that mean something. The creator of this, Marcel Duchamp, wanted to let people know that meaningless and outrageous things could be art.[/QUOTE]
Readymades own and I wont have any dissent towards that literal fact
[QUOTE=MisterMedia;38030574]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.[/QUOTE]
yeah
if you want something photorealistic, we have cameras these days
today painting is more about representing something you can't just take a picture of.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;38037892]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]
It came around when photography rose to prominence. The one of the primary purposes of painters (and 'artists' such as sculptors, etc) had been to record history; through portraiture and landscapes. Photography meant that realistic paintings were no longer sought after. Cubism, surrealism and other forms of abstraction appeared and we started to develop the modern and postmodern focus on imaginative and unusual ways to present ideas about the world and about art itself.
Or at least that's the understanding I have
[editline]15th October 2012[/editline]
Relevant (but you can stop watching after 4:50 because I don't want this to turn into a religion-bashing thread)
[video=youtube;nB1BTehhzBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB1BTehhzBI&feature=player_detailpage#t=226s[/video]
[editline]15th October 2012[/editline]
Art also gains value based on where it's been and who's owned it, as well as who created it. A piece of art that's been in Elton John's house and Sting's house and John Lennon's house will have much more value than a piece that's just been in one old lady's home for it's entire lifetime. At collectors tend to pay more to get their hands on art that has a history
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.