bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Concetto spaziale, Attese by Lucio Fontana - $1.5 Million
Blue Fool by Christopher Wool - $5 Million
Art that people rave about that's actually shit.
- Thread starter bubblesmcgrath
- Start date
Concetto spaziale, Attese by Lucio Fontana - $1.5 Million
Blue Fool by Christopher Wool - $5 Million
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Is it a con?
Why would you ask that?
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Because it's a question....and why not ask it?
Well, who is conning who?
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
I'd be inclined to think the buyer forkng out $5million for a canvas with the word FOOL on it is definitely not being conned.
If someone wants to pay that much for an artwork, then surely that is their choice - I doubt that they had a gun placed against their head.
Ah, a Mark Rothko. I like a lot of his work.
No... but it's the same culture that breeds Apple fanboys. It's a big part of what's wrong in the world.
I don't think it's anything like that. These are not consumer products. The prices that they fetch may well be obscene, but it's not as if it makes a difference to the likes of you or me.
Fez909
toilet expert
It does absolutely nothing for me, but I'm aware I seem to be in a minority on that(?)
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Sure.....but is it really great art?
Of course they're consumer products. If they were free nobody would bother with them. Their price tag is what makes them consumable to the nth degree and the fact that some art critic has represented them well and they've hung in a prestigious gallery is part and parcel of creating a consumer product for a wealthy investor.
IMO..
I see poverty and starvation throughout the world, then I see someone has paid enough money to feed countless starving people for a piece of shite 'art'. This does actually affect me... it sickens me.
I went to see Tracy Emin's exhibition 'Love is what you want' and really liked it. Her attention to detail with quilting is extremely skillful and her prolific writing is quality. I think she is a good artist (i dont say this lightly, i spent two hours at this exhibition, which was a kind of magnum opus of all her work) and it is actually good (and very, very detailed).
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I do like abstract stuff indeed a lot of my photography is quite abstract which begs the question why do I need a sophisticated camera to make images which comprise mainly blurring. I think the artists that command big prices are doing something interesting usually although I am sure there are volumes of artists also doing interesting work which has not hit the big time money wise. That said I like the pickled shark and the jewelled skull and they are expensive! So there!
Is what great art? The 2 pieces you put in the OP? - I don't know. I quite like the Lucio Fontana piece, I'm less keen on the Christopher Wool one, although some of his other work is interesting.
Maybe that was a bad term for me to use. What I meant, is that they are not a throw-away mass produced items.
I didn't say that it doesn't affect you. Whether the person spent their money on "shite 'art' " or just burnt it makes no difference. The fact that they have that disposable money is another thing entirely.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Yes Tracy Emin's quilting is interesting...speaking as someone who has actually made a hand stitched quilt it is a long tedious process...
I have seen fantastic hand stitched detailed quilts that are really beautiful.
Tracey makes what I'd call graffiti like quilts. And I could be wrong but I think hers are made using macine stitching.
I like truth in art....I'm not so sure that the artworld of 2014 is about truth anymore. Am I wrong?
Is it too attached to money...and who you know?
I have seen fantastic hand stitched detailed quilts that are really beautiful.
Tracey makes what I'd call graffiti like quilts. And I could be wrong but I think hers are made using macine stitching.
I like truth in art....I'm not so sure that the artworld of 2014 is about truth anymore. Am I wrong?
Is it too attached to money...and who you know?
Art has a long history of involvement with money. Without a patron, most famous artists would never have worked
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Patronage yes .... but this?
“Balloon Dog (Orange)” by Jeff Koons. The work sold for $58.4 million, a world auction record for the artist and a world auction record for a living artist, according to Christie’s..
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I do think Emin's bed is rubbish (well it is) though, she has claimed it is a seminal work, well it is seminal in that it is the first time someone has managed to get an art lover to pay that sort of price for an unmade bed certainly, but if it is seminal in the traditional understanding of the world, where are all the follow on beds from other artists? Where?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Patronage yes .... but this?
“Balloon Dog (Orange)” by Jeff Koons. The work sold for $58.4 million, a world auction record for the artist and a world auction record for a living artist, according to Christie’s..
An asset that is sure to deflate!
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
well photography sure aint art....im (told by a brother in law who is an ace photographer) that i am also very good. Do i think that is 'art?' no way! its really not hard to take a good photo...
Jeff Koons did not sell that work for $58.4 million. It was owned by Peter Brant, who bought it in the 1990s. The money raised by the sale was invested into The Brant Foundation Art Study Center.Patronage yes .... but this?
“Balloon Dog (Orange)” by Jeff Koons. The work sold for $58.4 million, a world auction record for the artist and a world auction record for a living artist, according to Christie’s..
Similar threads
