Do you understand this art
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
It's an emotive response because of the price tags and I think they look like frauds, money could be spent better elsewhere?, poverty, crime, education, health, public services et cetera.
Or the media has created such a stellar job on how people view things now. Bet so many people now say when a flash car passes them and so on, so on… that could feed the starving families such and such… and so it goes on.
Remember how so many people started viewing Muslims as… through the media.
Well, obviously. I think the argument here is more why people are willing to pay that much for it.
Is it because it's actually that good? In my opinion (which seems to be shared by the majority in this thread) no.
It's more likely a combination of:
- Who the artist is - I.E. bragging rights "You might have a Picasso Reginald, but I've got a Kandinsky hanging in the library don't you know."
- People with too much money artificially pushing the price up to show they've got so much money they can afford to throw it away; how best to show this? By paying far more for something than it is actually "worth". If I won the lottery, I could go into Asda and buy a stick of smartprice butter for £1mil just to show off to the "peasants". Does that mean that a stick of smartprice butter is worth £1mil?
Do these pictures mean anything to me? No.
I think anyone could have painted these type of images and their monetary value seems to be based on the amount of ******** the artist or art types can spin to explain to the proles exactly what these image mean and what we are all missing in their message.
Images like those posted may be valuable but to an outsider they have no worth.
I think anyone could have painted these type of images and their monetary value seems to be based on the amount of ******** the artist or art types can spin to explain to the proles exactly what these image mean and what we are all missing in their message.
Images like those posted may be valuable but to an outsider they have no worth.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,382
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Anything outside it's circle of admirer has no worth.
A computer to a computer illiterate has no worth.
A diamond has no worth to a guy who is lost at sea.
A football to paraplegic has no worth.
Those animate figures posted here has no worth to most of us.
The empty plastic bottles you throw away has no worth, yet there are people who look for them in dump sites.
It's all relative.
All of those things once did have a worth and a purpose to everyone, whether they could use those items or not their purpose could be understood. A painting surely has little purpose other than to be admired and I believe that is something that even an outsider should be able to do without the BS from a skilled wordsmith.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,382
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
A painting has a purpose, you even said it yourself, to be admired. The fact that people do is enough reason alone. The fact that OP has done, whether he dislikes it is irrelevant, what is interesting is it created enough interest in him to start this thread!
Is it worth million and million to me? No.
Can the money better spent elsewhere? Of course.
But do I see the other side of the coin? Yes, I don't draw a blanket statement and say his piece is worth nothing because I say so. They are admired just the same as the Mona Lisa.
Last edited:
#1, no idea, it's just colourful and energetic, imagine what you like.
#2, this is where art is split down into different ideas about how to represent something, like -
. make a realistic 3D depiction
. give the impression of form
. play with light/shade
. mess about with depth of an image
. just draw the lines
. make it a flat 2D image
. just paint blocks of colour
these are all ways of playing with the idea of representing something, to convey a set of ideas which are deeper than say a photograph.
in #2 we have big slabs of colour, no depth (just like van Gogh), it has complementary colours and it's almost abstract. It's deliberately doing the opposite of trying to depict something, it's just giving you a shape and a colour.
Instead of filling in all the detail it's just showing blocks of colour instead, the brain reacts emotionally to colour, which is possibly the effect he's looking for.
#3
a bit like #2, we have a shape that dominates the image and a blending of colour, it's basically a symbol and we can attribute whatever we like to a symbol. Usually we associate symbols with something mystical.
It does have a vibrating visual effect, like a glowing ingot in a furnace, so there is an impression of movement here.
None of these mean anything, they are just creative ideas on how to depict the abstract. This kind of art expects you to have some kind of understanding of the process and the language of art, and to not look at something as some kind of literal photograph in oil paint. Nothing is being visually handed to you on a plate.
I like #3 the most
#2, this is where art is split down into different ideas about how to represent something, like -
. make a realistic 3D depiction
. give the impression of form
. play with light/shade
. mess about with depth of an image
. just draw the lines
. make it a flat 2D image
. just paint blocks of colour
these are all ways of playing with the idea of representing something, to convey a set of ideas which are deeper than say a photograph.
in #2 we have big slabs of colour, no depth (just like van Gogh), it has complementary colours and it's almost abstract. It's deliberately doing the opposite of trying to depict something, it's just giving you a shape and a colour.
Instead of filling in all the detail it's just showing blocks of colour instead, the brain reacts emotionally to colour, which is possibly the effect he's looking for.
#3
a bit like #2, we have a shape that dominates the image and a blending of colour, it's basically a symbol and we can attribute whatever we like to a symbol. Usually we associate symbols with something mystical.
It does have a vibrating visual effect, like a glowing ingot in a furnace, so there is an impression of movement here.
None of these mean anything, they are just creative ideas on how to depict the abstract. This kind of art expects you to have some kind of understanding of the process and the language of art, and to not look at something as some kind of literal photograph in oil paint. Nothing is being visually handed to you on a plate.
I like #3 the most
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
worthless tat, glad i don't have to like it. if it's emotions i'm seeing its a combination of anger towards the con-artist and pity towards the poor sap that spent all that money for it.
if anyone wants to lend me a polo neck and some wine the lack of circulation would allow me to translate that into "abstract" talk for you.
if anyone wants to lend me a polo neck and some wine the lack of circulation would allow me to translate that into "abstract" talk for you.
Art and classic cars are the best investments during a recession, as you get nothing from a bank.
Art generally never loses value either because each painting is unique, you'll always get your money back.
Besides, this kind of thing wasn't made for all you plebs
Art generally never loses value either because each painting is unique, you'll always get your money back.
Besides, this kind of thing wasn't made for all you plebs
No you won't, nothing is being depicted here, you are just expected to understand why he's done what he has, what makes his idea of art different from others.
Basically you are paying for the philosophy behind his creative thought.
Pretty sure I explained this all in a previous post;
#1 is the bit of paper he used to mix the colors for #2 and #3.
#2 is Jesus riding a velociraptor.
#3 is all about angst and carrots