Eyemus Lutt
Member
I'm sure 99% of people can't tell the value of different types of art, it just seams very random on what's expensive and what's cheap.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
At $142.4 Million, Triptych Is the Most Expensive Artwork Ever Sold at an Auction
- Thread starter Fox318
- Start date
- Status
Slayer-33
Liverpool-2
This is getting depressing...lol
Might as well do some random ass shit, get some hipster ass clothing and hope you hit the jackpot
Might as well do some random ass shit, get some hipster ass clothing and hope you hit the jackpot
As someone who spent 5.5 years in art school and took numerous art history classes, I never have any answers for why shit like this sells for so much. Most of the time it's because the painter is both famous and dead, so they're not producing any new stuff anymore which means the price of their old shit goes way up. Sort of like when a video game like Xenoblade goes out of print, suddenly every copy out there triples in price - rarely does it matter if the game is any good. It's rare and therefore in-demand.
I saw student work sold at our annual student sale for hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars and it would be the most mundane crap sculptures and paintings I've ever seen.
I saw student work sold at our annual student sale for hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars and it would be the most mundane crap sculptures and paintings I've ever seen.
Legendary_Red
Banned
/thread
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
It's depressing the number of people intimating Bacon's work is just some contemporary art con job in this thread. This isn't "my kid could have done that!" art, regardless of whether you personally enjoy his aesthetic. Anyone who thinks they could fart out a Bacon-esque painting is sorely deluded.
This on the other hand, angers up my blood. All empty bullshit concepts and verbal fluff, and he doesn't even make the fucking things himself. Look at his studio, a bunch of other craftsmen sitting around fabricating objects for him, almost no hand of the "artist" involved whatsoever. What a presumptuous turd.
This on the other hand, angers up my blood. All empty bullshit concepts and verbal fluff, and he doesn't even make the fucking things himself. Look at his studio, a bunch of other craftsmen sitting around fabricating objects for him, almost no hand of the "artist" involved whatsoever. What a presumptuous turd.
$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.
It started with a P and ended with a retentious.
Wolf Akela
Member
$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.
Please explain this to me. Please.
DiscoJer
Member
And yet, one of the more iconic paintings, one of the series of Dogs Playing Poker, only sold for about $600,000 for two of them.
I mean, sure, they aren't anything deep or meaningful, but they are some of the most recognized works of art in the US at least.
I mean, sure, they aren't anything deep or meaningful, but they are some of the most recognized works of art in the US at least.
^ You know, that reminds me this artist's portfolio. Careful, it would take your sleep because yes, it looks rather scary.
On topic: I dig it. It's something I would love to have on a book cover. You can see how the artists love to play on a 3D plane.
On topic: I dig it. It's something I would love to have on a book cover. You can see how the artists love to play on a 3D plane.
pseudocaesar
Member
Not saying it is worth that, but Francis Bacon was an amazing artist.
[IG]http://theversatilegent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Versatile-Gent-Francis-Bacon-Exhibition-Art-Gallery-NSW-1954-figure-meat.jpg[/IMG]
[IG]http://www.phaidon.com/resource/innocent.jpg[/IMG]
He was also known for his triptychs.
[IG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Three_Studies_for_a_Crucifixion_Francis_Bacon_1962.jpg[/IMG]
And head series.
Obviously, they're much much larger irl.
Wow.. these are amazing. The last one in particular.. that is brilliant.
Devolution
Member
You have to see them in person. It's huge and pretty cool.
bodyboarder
Member
Fine art prices still amaze me. Though if you can spend $100mil on artwork you've pretty much got the very best of everything so why not go all out.
Sure thing.
paradise_circus
Member
that doesn't justify 180 million dollars for the works in the op or the money gerhard richter is printing.
I am going to be rich.
Devolution
Member
god Kinkade. lol.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Oh, the big swath of meaningless color is bigger. Okay, that clearly alleviates all of the issues a person might take with it.
Edit: Kinkade was a cornball hack, but if I have to spend a month quarantined in an art museum, I'd MUCH rather it have Kinkade paintings than Pollock or Rothko, since he at least did a thing.
There isn't an explanation outside of one peripheral to the piece itself.
Devolution
Member
Spoken like a true hermit.
call me crazy, but thats a pretty good photo
i dont think i could ever get one to come out like that
If you ever get the chance, go see a Rothko peice in person. I hated his stuff when I first saw it in highschool, but I say one of his peices in San Fran a couple of years ago...
Pictures like this really don't capture the depth of color at all. I hate to sound pretentious or something, but it's honestly true. Rothko experimented with color in a way that everyone in this thread parroting 'I'm going to be an artist!' wouldn't be able to get even close too.
That painting is six feet-ish by eight feet-ish. It's huge. Much larger than you are when you stand in front of it. It's pretty intense.
I'm not saying it's worth 87 million dollars or anything, but you probably should trash it based on what others have assigned a monetary value to.
Also, Rothko was a tragic artist. Cultural touchstone. If Hendrix's Stratocaster sold for a hundred million tomorrow, how many people would get upset?
I think the fact that the subject of the paintings is Lucian Freud just basically added a multiplier to the price.
I don't doubt that it's more impressive in person and understand that a small pic posted on a forum does not do the actual work justice.
However I doubt I'm going to do a 180 on it if I did see it in person.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I've seen such paintings in person. They're "cool" in the sense that colors filling your vision is a form of stimulation, much as a pencil or bag of salt might be. If they give you some kind of emotional buzz, hey, whatever. But there is NOTHING to them. It really is that simple, and the convolutions that people go through to argue otherwise are nothing short of amazing to me. Red on black is red on black, no matter how big it is, and "experimenting with color" is a pretty thin justification for an outright refusal to communicate anything of specificity or import - usually because, when such artists painted figuratively, they did a rather poor job.
Just watch Pollock work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s . There is, rather obviously, zero technique to what the guy is doing, no vision, and his justifications are ad hoc, at best. Perhaps there's a flick of the wrist, some tiny little thing that would show up if measured microscopically - I've seen such suggested before - but the reason such paintings are so oft-forged is that, at the level of perception we humans actually occupy, there is little to no tangible difference.
Phat Michael
Banned
You probably wouldnt. However ive always thought that seeing an art piece in person vs a 2D image is like the difference between hearing a song on the radio and seeing a rock band playing it live in a stadium.
Yes the song is inherently the same, however the delivery of the audio/visual medium is really what will influence your decision.
Art is obviously very subjective and it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The rarity of the piece and the story behind the art and the artist often influences the price much more than subjective artistic merit.
Phat Michael
Banned
You sound like Karl Pilkington talking to Stephen Merchant when he compared art to "dust".
This is my favourate Pollock peice. You don't get any feeling at all out of it?
I get a hell of a lot more out of it than that tacky cottage painting someone posted up the page.
Just like playing the guitar fast doesn't make you a great musician, painting realistic doesn't make you a great artist.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I don't know of the conversation.
I love art. What I don't love is people throwing paint on a canvas, throwing out alot of pseudointellectual BS to justify why it's "great", why an emotional response to a swath of colors (which seems almost certainly a physiological one) has some "deep meaning", and making bank on it.
If you like the paintings, great. I enjoyed seeing some of them in person, myself. There was one with some particular shade of blue that the artist had developed himself that was pretty neat. But liking something and there being real communicative value there are two different things. I'm perfectly willing to argue the latter on any particular piece, but the artist has to make a good faith effort to try to actually communicate something, in the first place.
Edit: When did I ever say it was about painting realistically vs. non-realistically?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
It's a bit prettier than most Rorschach tests, I suppose, but it doesn't really communicate anything more. Whether I feel something is irrelevant to whether or not the art actually communicates anything of cogency or depth, though.
Devolution
Member
The point is to get lost in a field of color. A textbook or .jpg completely loses it. If it does nothing for you fine. But you can still "get the concept" without really liking a piece. Art isn't meant to be experienced sans it's space, texture and scale.
Saying it communicates nothing is laughable.
Saying it communicates nothing is laughable.
curlyfriski
Banned
Yet, this is just as satisfying and enjoyable.
You all sound like those pretentious fucks who think tasting menus are better than mcnuggets.
:lol. Must be a nuke going off inside, only way it could look that bright.
But yes, the art market is weird, and many artists agree that it's weird and don't like the influence it has in the art world.
painting realistic might not make you a very original artist but the artist is no doubt SKILLED
those random fucking paintsplashes clusterfuck paintings is something a baby can do
Devolution
Member
But they're not random.
With such works, it is a case of how deep your pockets are, and can you keep up with the hype.
I wonder if they would sell it to me, if I stated that my intention was to burn it. And display its ashes in a jar with the following caption:
"Remains of world's most expensive painting. 100% accurate digital replica on wall behind".
If people want to enjoy the art they can.
Edit: hmm.. That'd make for a decent short story. Gonna put it on the back burner.
I wonder if they would sell it to me, if I stated that my intention was to burn it. And display its ashes in a jar with the following caption:
"Remains of world's most expensive painting. 100% accurate digital replica on wall behind".
If people want to enjoy the art they can.
Edit: hmm.. That'd make for a decent short story. Gonna put it on the back burner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s
posted earlier in thread
LOOK at that fucker going at it
i.....come the fuck on
*dips brush*
*SPLASH SPLASH SPLASH*
jesus christ
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked