Modern Art: Someone please explain
 

An artist, Damien Hirst, just sold a medicine chest with pills on the shelves (called Lullaby Spring) for $19.1 million. It's a big steel cabinet with lots or mirrored shelves, and 6000 colorful little pills on the shelves. That's $3,183.33 per pill. I don't get it.

I was once viewing some modern art with my sister, who is something of an artist. The painting looked like it could have been painted by a monkey. I told her that I fail to grasp why paint that has been splashed onto a canvas can be hailed as "art." I further said I generally evaluate art in terms of its resemblance to reality. If an artist can paint a painting that looks nearly like a photograph, then I conclude they must be a good painter.

She said my problem is that I viewed art with my head instead of my heart. She said art's value is in how it makes you feel when you view it. Since that day I have used the yardstick she suggested, and it has helped me appreciate art much more.

On the other hand, this story does little to explain why a yard sale item with pills glued onto it might be worth more than $19m.

So I take it I can't interest you in a Mark Rothko painting for 72.9 million?


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182547365.jpg

:cool:

That's probably less than what some of the pharmaceutical companies would charge for the same pills. Here of course. In Canada they'd run five bucks a pop.

Of course, the obscene overpricing could be the point of the art exhibit - a commentary on how ridiculous it all is. Dunno.

22 million right here!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182548435.jpg

BTW, I'd suggest taking an art history class, that may at least give you an understanding of why not all art has to do with painting a purty picture.

Mom was an artist. Did not understand a lot of her work either but people sure bought it.

family member's art web site

http://www.parnasse.com/net.in.arcadia.html

NEO-Classical with some abstract stuff too

my aunt just retired from her pretty successful art career last fall. tired of the gallery deadlines i guess, will continue for joy not profit.


but i like the answer found below

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155440&perpage=20&highl ight=joke&pagenumber=34
A couple attending an art exhibition at the National Gallery were staring at a portrait that had them completely confused.
The painting depicted three very black and totally naked men sitting on a park bench. Two of the figures had black weenies, but the one in the middle had a pink weenie. The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominately white, patriarchal society. "In fact," he pointed out, "some serious critics believe that the pink weenie also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society."
After the curator left, a young man in a Kentucky T-shirt approached the couple and said, "Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"
"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?" asked the couple.
"Because I'm the guy who painted it," he replied.

"In fact, there are no African-Americans depicted at all. They're just three Kentucky coal miners, and the guy in the middle went home for lunch."
__________________
donny

From the perspective of someone who is tring to make a living on art (photography), people purchase art because of the way it makes them feel, and it is all about presentation. Sure some modern art might look like crap say if you saw it in laying alone in an alley somewhere, but when you place a 1M price tag on it in a high end gallery with the previous history that the artist has sold other works of "high value" then it turns to gold. Expensive art is an investment (and perhaps just purchased with disposable income).

Timothy hit it on the head - particularly the disposable income part.

Do you guys know where a lot of the art bought in the U.S. is sold? On cruise ships where disposable income is plentiful - so is alcohol and relaxed demeanors. You should see the drunk suckers bidding on $5K paintings!

Off topic - Tim - looked at your sig. What's your daily driver like with straight cut gears? Isn't it too loud?

If you ask me, I'd say both are examples of the "more money than brains" problems we have in this world....

I think the people who are paying big bucks for original Ss are doing so because they think they are going to worth even bigger bucks in the future. moreso than the T.

(Sorry for answering for Tim.) I've ridden in his truck many, many times. It's not too loud. Just a whine from the floor. My 951 also has straight-cut gears (for 3-5). I don't even notice it anymore.

The art market is also a very fine place to wash money. You could either work very hard to launder 72 million - or you could simply buy that Rothko pictured above.

Thanks, Chris. BTW: I pm'd you. SmileWavy

Well, I work in the art market. Currently we're consulting on the new Speed Racer movie, and it's amazing what regular unassuming people who are nonetheless fans, will do for a piece of the original cartoon.

A single original production cel of Speed and the Mach 5 from the original cartoon goes for $35,000. At the San Diego Comic Book convention that price (for a real buyer) won't bat an eye.

Ahhh Yah hit the nail on the head...Buy a painting for 250K at auction keep it a few years and sell for 750K at auction....whose to know what U paid for it?

Now the IRS is getting around to 1099 you on selling any item for more than 10K at auction..OUUUU..wait till word of that gets around.

Most of U kinow I bought some expensive spoons (Allan Adler Flatware set) a few years back well they are worth 4Xs what I paid for them today. Ohhh and the list goes on and on and on.

Now heres one for ya all. About 5 years back a Bennet Bradbury (Brother of Ray "Mr Science Fiction" Bradbury) Seascape (He cranked them out like a production line before he died) would sell for $600 to $800 (26 X 36). John Morans Auctions in Pasadena, CA (CA Plein Aire paintings is what they are FAMOUS for auctioning), got about 40 Bennet Bradbury Paintings on Consignment to auction. They put 8 or so in every auction. It wasn't long before those Bradburys were selling for 3500 to 4000 apiece. Thats called making a market for an artist.

I had about six of them at one time but sold all but one for about what I had in them...$600 to $800 apiece...the small one I had sold recently for $4250.

BTW..Bradbury did nice Seascapes.

And fking Motion couldn't be bothered by that kind of RETURN...Maybe the joke is on him...


Also I did keep the best one I had.

Here is the Bradbury that I had that recently sold for $4250.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182585670.jpg


And a larger one that I still have

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182585723.jpg

It's also about the name of the artist - Damien Hirst is well-known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst

For example, Picasso could scribble some random doodles on a piece of paper - as long as you can prove it is an original Picasso, it would be worth $$$. If you and I did the same exact doodle, it would be worth not much at all. :) Of course, an artist becomes well-known for a reason.

There is a Picasso in the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena that was done in the 50s...that is Picassos joke on the Art World... he painted a piece of crap on purpose because he knew it would be worth a bundle. Maybe he wanted to buy a Ferrari or sumthin that day and needed the cash?

However there is another Picasso in the Norton that was done in the 30s that is OFF the RICHTER SCALE.

And the Van Goghs...AUHHHH...everybody thinks the guy was manic, Horse *****...the guy was hurrying so he wouldn't lose the inspiration/light...he did many of those on site in a day... There is total control in his brush strokes..he knew what the fk he was doing.

While in Paris, I thoroughly burned out on Picasso. His work is everywhere. A case of too much too often, and I'm a fan of his.

I'm starting to get into Renoir -- to look at - not to collect. :D

Some people buy art because of how it makes them feel... then a few years later they ask themselves WTF was I thinking!

I bought a bunch of Patrick Nagel Lithos (s&n) in the late '80s. My house is a small cape cod. I don't have a wall in my house big enough for these. now I'm asking myself WTF was I thinking! I wish I had the money now and not the art.

Yeah cruise ships are awesome places to sell art. Kind of thinking that I might want to try and go that route some day.

As for the straight cut gears in my truck, yes they are loud, sometimes louder than the engine, but not as loud as you would think. Personally I find the sound soothing, and even my wife likes the sound. Much easier to rev match when downshifting when you can hear everything ;)

I guess this explains why I see so many art galleries on Hawaii.

I never bought anything there but I do have a nice Koa wood bowl that I probably paid three times what it was worth. :D

I remember when Nagel died (1987 I think). His prints went up dramatically in value. The problem is there were so many prints produced, Nagel flooded his own market.

It's the same with Thomas Kincaid.

i know a rich dude, who went to London , and bought what looked like scrap metal, randomly welded into some random shape..
payed like a mil for it, and is now often used by guests who need to take a leak at his extravagant garden parties

was once seen him swallowing heartpills down with Scotch as he hun on the phone calling other rich friends going : "i'm back!!! party at my house tonight", just 20 minutes after he got home from a 3 days visit regarding tickyticker problems...

A Nagel Limited Edition Litho (Series of 15) will now bring all of $20.00. I still have a bunch unframed, I bought them when I had no taste.

bought those last week? :D

Thomas Kincaid: "Painter of Blight"

As a contemporary artist myself I can tell you it is an exclusive club with numerous nuances, it is quite unregulated to boot. A Drug dealer has more boundaries than an Art dealer. (I often say that when giving lectures to art students) If you seriously want to learn I can recommend a few books which will help shed the scales from your eyes. You could start with the wildly entertaining and alternately dull: "On the Way to Work" Gordon Burn interviews Damian Hirst. The truth is about the living contemporary artists who are making such big prices is that they are charming and they stepped in ****. Also their art work is sometimes great. Hollywood is kind of similar. Is Keanu Reeves a good actor? No. But he gets 12 million a picture. Real estate prices are crazy too but at least you can plant corn on it or strike oil. With a dead artist, well, it is a bit about a very limited supply the rest is up to the artists 'work' and contribution to the history of art. Controlled by clever people the prices can get astronomical. I think Mr. Hirst has made some great pieces and some great pieces of crap. He is quite the showman and has managed his career cleverly. He is also generous, a bit of a simpleton and at the same time brilliant.

Anyway not understanding is a big part of it, you are half way there my friend.

We just rented a documentary called, "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?"

A 73 year old retired truck driver bought a painting for $5 from a thrift store. A friend said it looked like it was done by Jackson Pollock. The woman spent the next 10 years trying to convince the art community that this was a $50 million painting. She was offered $2 million and turned it down. Later she was offered $9 million... and turned it down. Why??? Because she thinks it's worth $50 million.

Here's the full story.

Whoever did the Painting spent a great deal of time and effort in creating a dense image, and its good. BUT Pollacks images were generally not so dense, with more open areas.

art is in the heart of the beholder

Some people want to be challenged. Others want to be held and told everything is ok. Neither is right or wrong.

I'm not a huge Rothko fan, but Kandinsky and most of the Bauhaus speaks to me.

We have some contemporary abstracts that make people stop and say "Wow!".

I did a labor trade- Turned an old garage into an art studio, and in exchange got some great art. Some was painted with us and our very contemporary house in mind, some was just so good we had to have it, and they said take it.

We like it, don't care what anybody else thinks. Everybody else happens to be amazed. That's a bonus, I guess.

Their work is now in several high-end galleries, and sells for thousands.

I don't care about the value, I don't want to be challenged, I just think our house looks cool.

Back to the original question, to understand abstract art (which I assume is the question, as for most people, modern=abstract) you have to have a pretty detailed knowledge of the art that preceded it, and how it was viewed in the time it was created, by both the artists and the public alike. Often, a certian painting style became popular (with the artists, if not the public) as a reaction to what came before it. This is all a bunch of work and best left to art historians.

To appreciate modern art, or any art for that matter, you just have to like it. This is much easier; either you like it, or you don't. No reason is required, nor any understanding. A positive response to a piece of art is often something you feel as much in your gut as you do in your head.

Keep in mind, many pieces of art were created that fall outside the boundaries of simple visual depictions of something that you recognise. Also, art doesn't have to be photo-realistic to be good. It's much easier to paint in that style successfully, than to paint like Rembrandt, or Renoir. Even works by Rothko and Pollock, as simple as they look, are harder to duplicate than you might imagine, particularly Rothko, if you paint using the same techniques he used.

Pollock and Rothko happen to be among my favorites, with Van Gogh, Gerhard Richter, Robert Bechtle and countless others.

JR

It's easy to explain:

Modern, or "contemporary" art is designed so that people with no talent can get rich off of people with no taste.
There are fools out there who are willing to spend a fortune so that they can pretend they are trendy, hip, cool, sophisticated, whatever.
So they spend huge piles of cash on stupid junk. They think it makes them cool, and it does to others who are as mentally and socially challenged as they are (keeping up with the jones') but to normal folks it makes they stupid. Andy warhol and his cambells soup can is a good example. He got rich and famous for nothing except that people pretended it was cool to hang out with him or be associated with him and everyone else bought into the scam. They stood in line with they $$$$ hanging out their butts, hoping to get their shot at coolness. BAH!

Sammy,
De Kooning also hated Warhol.
An easy target but he is not that simple. Money grubbing maybe but it is not as simple as that. There is a phenomenal shallowness with Warhol it is almost zenlike. Some claim he had Ausburgers (sp?) syndrome. Perhaps that is why he was so visionary? Who knows?

I love a lot of modern art for its creativity. But for those of you who don't get it here is a funny one. Yves Klein IKB 94 went for $2.9M. He spent something like 2 years finding the right blue and now it is patented.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182716762.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...AL._SS500_.jpg

It repels me. Yet I cannot look away.

exactly!