sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
In fairness though, Rothko paintings have to be experienced in person to get the full effect, you won't get much with an image on a computer screen.
Art that people rave about that's actually shit.
- Thread starter bubblesmcgrath
- Start date
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Maybe you should consider the idea that you you are the deluded fool.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Well, you're saying "anyone who can't see that" - so you must have some idea what constitutes "good art" in your eyes to know that it isn't in this painting... so what do you think is good art?
fractionMan
Custom Title
I like rothko and dr herbz
Just like audiophiles who think they're the only people who can hear the difference a 5000 quid power lead makes, and the rest of the world are the deluded ones.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
wayward bob
i ate all your bees
i agree with your first point. your last one less so. rothko does nothing for me and i've seen them close up and personal more than once.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
I think it's very overpriced.....for what it is. .even close up. So it's still amazing to me that it commands such an extraordinary price....
I actually like the liquorice allsort one...it beats the red roller blind.
fractionMan
Custom Title
For most people, it's the seemingly random way monetary value is assigned to art (well a body of art by particular artist) that's the problem, not what's good/bad/art/not art
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Who cares about the price? Why fixate on that? I want to know what you think about the paintingI think it's very overpriced.....for what it is. .even close up. So it's still amazing to me that it commands such an extraordinary price....
I actually like the liquorice allsort one...it beats the red roller blind.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Its not like that at all.
It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You are presuming a lot about other people.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
If you can appreciate that, how can you dismiss abstraction?
wayward bob
i ate all your bees
it took me years to work out that i just don't get painting on the whole. show me a decent photograph, print, sculpture or sketch and i'll see the point. painting (in general) leaves me cold.
SovietArmy
Well-Known Member
Well if sold for few millions that mean art is shit.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Its not though is it. Just because you dont get it doesnt mean that everyone else is pretending.
That reminds me of being fourteen.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
No, it just means someone has paid a lot for it.
That Turner painting is a proper work of art, whereas a 2 year old child could have churned out those Rothko paintings.
Audiophiles use that exact same reasoning.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
But your comparison of audiophiles with people who like stuff you don't is specious.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You are going to have to do better than that. A year 9 would get a C for that argument.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The usual bollocks that comes out in these threads aside: I really don't like Dali. I had an art teacher who sniffily said "a lot of people like Dali when they're younger" which I thought was patronising at the time but I can see what he meant now; it's all rather shallow. (On the other hand, Miro is amazing - the Miro museum in Barcelona really had a huge effect on me.)
I'm not a Gilbert and George fan. They strike me, like a few other people, as sort of performance art in their entirety including all of their works, rather than making individual pieces of good art. On that note, not a huge Warhol fan either, though I like some.
There's an exhibition of really abstract stuff by William Burroughs in Shoreditch that I saw recently and didn't like - he's not really noted as a visual artist but there's an obvious halo effect. I don't think he would have been bothered by people saying "look Bill, these are a bit shit". (His street photography is excellent though. I've always thought that he was one of those artists who do best when they have certain unavoidable constraints imposed on them, with his writing too.)
I think Hockney is overrated too, if not shit. Just never really got on with the deliberately naive thing he does except in a few cases.
I'm not a Gilbert and George fan. They strike me, like a few other people, as sort of performance art in their entirety including all of their works, rather than making individual pieces of good art. On that note, not a huge Warhol fan either, though I like some.
There's an exhibition of really abstract stuff by William Burroughs in Shoreditch that I saw recently and didn't like - he's not really noted as a visual artist but there's an obvious halo effect. I don't think he would have been bothered by people saying "look Bill, these are a bit shit". (His street photography is excellent though. I've always thought that he was one of those artists who do best when they have certain unavoidable constraints imposed on them, with his writing too.)
I think Hockney is overrated too, if not shit. Just never really got on with the deliberately naive thing he does except in a few cases.
Most children could easily recreate a Rothko. Try that with a Turner.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Turner is a really bad counter-example to use if you're trying to do the "it's just a noise, anybody could do that" thing.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
I've already told you....some I like. Some I don't.
No matter what you believe, or think, you cannot dismiss the art world. They put a price on art work and that price leads to the view that certain art is exceptional...special. .collectible. ..unusual and unique.
I've looked at Rothco works very closely....and I understand and know his background and struggles...
It's a matter of personal preference tbh.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Similar threads
