Do you understand this art

So is H.R. Giger's work. Female bodies with alien heads with high heels seamless to their feet. As well as all that creepy spine detail.
 
It is the person.

If Emma Watson as an example did one it would probably sell for 7 figures too.

If I did the same one it wouldn't sell at all.
 
Nitefly said:
I didn't really appreciate art as such until I saw this at a gallery:

It just scared the crap out of me. I then read about all of the techniques used to draw it, including the vertical shuttering and boxing effect that give it that nightmarish feeling of anxiety and isolation.

I don't enjoy the painting. I guess it just taught me that it's more important that a piece makes you feel something rather than appreciating the technical skill that goes behind it. That's why I now prefer modern art to fine art.
Click to expand...

The majority of Carl Melegari's work is pretty haunting, he rarely paints anything but human figures and in real life they're pretty dramatic - all his work extends a good 1/2" from the canvas with the layering of paint. You may appreciate him too?

abe49tK.jpg

era3t56.jpg


Larger version of the second for detail: http://www.carlmelegari.co.uk/images/figurative/large/3.jpg
 
One thing: yes, to a large degree the value of art is pretty much down to who painted it, and who is in fashion. Look at what happens to the value of old masters (Rembrandt is a common one) where it turns out that the work is by a much less well-known artist. The work is the same, but that value plummets because it no longer has a "name". But then badge price inflation is hardly restricted to art, as firms like BMW and Bang&Olufson have shown.

But...

As I find myself saying every time these "modern art is rubbish" threads come up: you tell me what art is, and I'll tell you whether these are art. Of course some modern art is massively over-rated - but then so is a lot of traditional art. Take a look at the water colours Prince Charles does: they are barely art at all.
 
simpletom said:
Love Rothko.

There is nothing you have to understand. If you like it, you like it.

I cannot really take to The Hay Wain or other 'classics' as they really do little for me. However, some of the more abstract stuff may engage me a little more.

In fact, I really don't like landscapes and stuff commissioned by wealthy patrons representing idyllic country scenes, hunting and dogs. Bloody dull. However, if you do then fair enough.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

The life-size pieces are huge. Stood in front of them you just get lost in the colours. It's pretty cool.
 
I like the first picture in the OP. If I was looking for art to put in my house I'd probably buy a £100-£200 large print of it.

I certainly prefer stuff with colours and madness to paintings that try to be too real, for that I could just have a really nice print of a photo which I do have. I have a nice photo of the steam train that fell out of the french station. I wouldn't want a painting of that though, no matter how accurate it was.
 
jsmoke said:
Can you explain this to me, [..]
Click to expand...

Art has no objective definition and no inherent value. Any item is as much art as anyone says it is and is "worth" as much as anyone is willing to pay for it.

If I could persuade someone that my desk chair has become art because of the impression that my bum has made on the seat over the years, then my desk chair is art to that person.

If I could persuade that person to pay £1M for it, then my old desk chair is art "worth" £1M.

It's all rather silly.
 
Not abstract or contemporary art, but I adore Renaissance or Dutch Masters art. The level of detail, the idea that this art were created through the eyes of someone that lived long before. Something really fascinating about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom