[Closed] Art appreciation..

There’s more to a valuation of a piece of Art than what’s on the paper/wood...

Looks nice IMO.

[i]There’s more to a valuation of a piece of art than what’s on the paper/wood...[/i]

I know that.

Pablo Picasso - It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.

Think the guy aboces taken it a button far though.

It’s like buying a classic Ferrari innit? An investment

Personally I wouldn’t give you your bus fare home for that, but whatever floats your boat.

It’s just going to sit in a dark, temperature-controlled bank vault anyway, so maybe they’re doing us all a favour 😉

I hadn't realised that the works my son was knocking out every five mins at the age of three some of which still adorn my home office wall could be classed as masterpieces ..worth hanging on to methinks ( certainly every bit as good as that crap ) 😆

I could look at that from now until, oooo, the end of time, and I'd still say "don't get it". I wish I did, but art and poetry just pass me by. I feel I miss out because of it. 🙁

Not necessarily. I’ve studied art history extensively. As part of my degree, and just because I love it, and find it fascinating. My favourite art is abstract expressionism

That, however, is just....... erm..... what’s the technical term......

‘A bit shit’

I hadn't realised that the works my son was knocking out every five mins at the age of three some of which still adorn my home office wall could be classed as masterpieces ..worth hanging on to methinks ( certainly every bit as good as that crap )

Yaaaaawn. You sound like a daily Mail reader.

Certainly not to my taste, but nor are a lot of other highly regarded (and priced) artists like Bacon, on the other hand I love the works of Rothko, so go figure, as they say in some quarters.

[i]Yaaaaawn. You sound like a daily Mail reader.[/i]

And you sound like someone who can’t answer a simple question. Which is worse?

I love modern art [edit]my son's middle name is actually "Tate"! I know how art is valued and all that, I was just interested to know what people thought of this particular piece as it actually made me laugh.
eg. ‘a bit shit’ ...thanks Bin Bins 🙂

There was an interesting piece on R4 this morning, in which someone (I forget who) posited the opinion that modern art is no longer art, in that the art of storytelling, interpretation, message etc has disappeared. It's just a model of a balloon dog. That's all.

Rather good point, I felt.

I think that in the case of the likes of Damian Hirstt and Tracy Emin it’s an experiment in how far you can push the ‘Emporers New Clothes’ analogy to relieve idiots of the most money.

50 million quid diamond-encrusted skull anyone?

It’s proper classy, like....

[img] [/img]

And is probably a metaphor some old shit or other, that occurred to him in between lines at the Groucho

Newrobknob..
Zzz zzz
Are you trying to pretend that you understand the painting ..if so I would be delighted if you could talk me through it ..

[i]I would be delighted if you could talk me through it ..[/i]

Apparently the spirally scribbly bit in the middle is 2 eggs. Cos that's what is in the story of Leda & the Swan, you know 🙂

There was a Hirst on the same programme - it was fantastic. Completely made out of dead flies.

Is this where someone chirps with.

“Well you’re all talking about which is the point of art”

I really don’t see how it can be worth $35-55k sorry but it makes no sense. Maybe someone can try to explain it rather that trying to be cool and trivial?

Apologies for employing a cliche but I suspect it might be a bit "if you don't get it, I can't explain it to you" (especially me as I don't get it either! 🙂 ). I mean, I'm not untouched by the arts - I love a good play, I love films, I wouldn't be without books or music, and I saw a ballet on Friday night that moved me almost to tears. But I couldn't explain it to you, not in any way that could move you like it does me. Maybe it's my poor wordsmithery. 🙂

Drac..I'm assuming that you tidied up my post ..ta.
Just to point out though the k following the amount you quoted for its valuation should be an m
It actually realised $52,800,000+

[i]not in any way that could move you like it does me[/i]

That's what I found interesting about this painting - normally, if I don't like something, I go.. hmm nah. But this one made me laugh, does that mean I don't like it? I'm actually more interested in it for me having a (quite extreme) reaction. That's why I started a thread really. Not so someone can be all superior cos they get it, or otherwise. It's just that instant reaction. (To a bunch of scribble 😆 )

I quite like it. I haven't got $50,000,000 to buy it though sadly.

I think the reaction for me is related to the guide price - without the price I'd think it visually striking but I would mark it down for seemingly being unrelated to the title. I wouldn't give $35 for it though. 🙂

It actually realised $52,800,000+

****ing hell!

Yup what Pondo says.

At that level I reckon art is more about tax avoidance than it is about what’s on the canvas.

I could look at that from now until, oooo, the end of time, and I'd still say "don't get it". I wish I did, but art and poetry just pass me by. I feel I miss out because of it.

If you’re still looking at or reading stuff and thinking about it then it’s far from wasted on you, you don’t necessarily need to reach a conclusion.

Expensive art like this just a money laundering scheme anyway, isn't it? There is a scam in there somewhere that we are all too poor to know about. Meanwhile the odd fanny here and there will chime in pretending the art is real and they get the meaning behind it etc, etc. The laugh the rich folks get from this is just a wee bonus.

More people go into an art gallery every week than to football matches. And yet we have one of the forum’s biggest football fans (well, in that he watches a lot of it from leafy Ramsbottom on TV) positing that a piece of art is a bit shit while fapping himself silly over Paul Pogba, who cost £379m and is also “a bit shit” sometimes.

He’s such a philistine that the irony of it is lost on him.

😛

It’s a fair cop guv 😉

It is a bit shit though, isn’t it Bravissimo?

I quite like it. Don't think it's worth $55m though!

It's not Mogrim..it sold for a lot less .. 🙂

[i]More people go into an art gallery every week than to football matches[/i]

Jeez, which one? Sounds busy.

According to government figures only three million people visited museums & art galleries in November 2017 ..a figure that is in decline ..
I would venture to say that the Premier league attendance figures alone would top that in any given month ..

Average premier league match attendance is 38k. Are there 78 premier league games a month?

According to government figures only three million people visited museums & art galleries in November 2017 ..a figure that is in decline ..
I would venture to say that the Premier league attendance figures alone would top that in any given month ..

According to the internet, just about 20 million people have attended footy in the top 4 leagues this season. I guess they've been playing for about 6 months so a bit over 3 million / month.

Are there 78 premier league games a month?

Feels like there's hundreds.

[img] [/img]

Feels like there's hundreds.

🙂

Am I allowed to go to both?

If you’re still looking at or reading stuff and thinking about it then it’s far from wasted on you, you don’t necessarily need to reach a conclusion.

I like that, I could stare at it for ages which Is he point of art right?*

* i don’t see the value of it though.

It's worth what someone will pay. See also bitcoin thread.

(ETA John Berger in his book "the success and failure of Picasso" noted that Big P was already a very very successful artist in, I dunno decades ago I read it so let's say the 30s. That meant a top professional type income, nice big house in a nice Parisian suburb. It was only after US financiers started looking for new places to put their money that prices went mad, so that by the 60s a few strokes of his brush were worth a house.

If I wasn't on the phone I'd say something about the KLF trying to jump in to the art world by burning £1m. A worthy failure, which might have come off if it hadn't looks too close to taking the piss. Which is to say, if it's that easy, you do it.

On topic, I don't like Cyber Twombly much, but I do like art. Especially the modern shite that makes you wonder about the point of stuff, init.)

johnx2 - Member
It's worth what someone will pay.

That wasn’t the question.

???
Longer answer available

What bothers me most about this form of abstract art is the lack of craft and technique behind it. I know when I create something there is a piece of me in it and the ideas that I am trying to express, but to do it with what appears to be a complete absence of skill would degrade me as an artist. I would feel like I am taking the piss out of anybody buying it, but that may be more a reflection of who I am rather than the work of art Itself. Art is massively personal so I can only look at it that way both as a consumer and a producer.

Each to their own, I guess, and the main point here is that it is no longer about the art more as an object of monetary value far beyond the original artist’s intention. The bit that grates the most is the people with very little talent or appreciation talking such utter codswallop about any of these sorts of pieces. I am sure that they believe what they say, but I they do come across in the most pompous way that makes it less likely that I would try and understand it and tend towards the “It’s a bit shit” line of thinking.

* i don’t see the value of it though.

I doubt whether the artist thinks is actually worth that monetary value.

What bothers me most about this form of abstract art is the lack of craft and technique behind it.

All abstract art?, would you include the works of Jackson Pollock?

[img] [/img]

You can't look at art like this in isolation. He made paintings for over 60 years. He worked in the US army as a cryptologist at some point, so probably not short of a few brain cells.

It's very very easy to not understand this painting. It is laughable, and why could it not be that was what he was going for?

Given what manton69 says above, you could perhaps say it could be difficult to make a shit painting - especially when you're an artist who practices painting, has invested their life in it & made it their career.

Personally don't like it, wouldn't want it in my home. I studied art at university and loved painting. At various points I tried to make paintings absent of skill but which I could still value. Difficult, so can appreciate it for that alone.

....... you could perhaps say it could be difficult to make a shit painting [s]- especially when you're an artist who practices painting, has invested their life in it & made it their career.[/s]

How does anyone one know, except the artist themselves, [i]how long[/i] it took to paint it?

Was the artist on some sort of piecework production line y’a think?

And [i]how long[/i] is irrelevant, it’s the thought application and application to the work that’s the important bit and not necessarily the outcome of the work.

As to what this particular piece is “worth”, well it’s in the same category as a classic vehicle or a diamond ring or a bespoke watch. It’s only of value to those that own them or those that want to own them.

Ok, seems I am going to go against the grain here.

I quite like it!

I find it petty moving actually. Which is great as I am totally out of laxatives at the moment.

Actually,I could do with the painting being here right now so I can,erm, enhance it with some of my bottom painting.

The artist missed a trick on making it scratch and sniff I reckon.

I'd like to see it in the flesh to comment more, currently one of the more interesting pieces I have seen is a huge and quite abstract but the detail close up is amazing, would be good to have the time to see the detail in that painting and the depth of it.

What bothers me most about this form of abstract art is the lack of craft and technique behind it.

All abstract art?, would you include the works of Jackson Pollock?

Definitely not Jackson Pollock. His work was interesting because although it looked random there was an systematic order in which he painted that gave his work a style and structure. This work looks more like a thought sketch for a work that was to be completed later, especially as we know the source material.

would be good to have the time to see the detail in that painting and the depth of it.

Agree, actually seeing the painting can make a massive difference. for example, I was alway indifferent to Mondrian when just looking at pictures in books but when actually seeing a painting I enjoyed it and liked it.

I like this painting and pretty sure I would like it more if I actually saw the real thing. Is it worth millions of pounds? I don't really care as that is irrelevant to whether I like it or not.

The £ value of a piece is market led (obvs) and there's a whole conversation about how (or not) this is tied to the artistic value of something. Arguably, (?) there is also some reverse artistic value conferred upon a piece by its monetary worth.

The artistic value and worth are subjective. The degree of that subjectivity is another matter but fundamentally context is key; resize it to A4, hang it on the wall alongside kids scribbles - it'll be judged wholly differently to seeing it hanging it in the National. Grab someone from the street, tell them this was knocked up by Jimmy the Monkey from London Zoo - they'll come to a different view to a scholar of the artist's work who places it in the canon of a lifetime of creativity.

Can't say it floats my boat but as said ^^ that's irrelevant to what someone'll pay for it. Could I knock up a pastiche? I'm sure plenty could. But that rather misses the point...

What bothers me most about this form of abstract art is the lack of craft and technique behind it.

It can be instructive to look at the early works, school exercises etc, of artists you claim to "lack craft".

I'm renaming that "Swan in a liquidizer".

[i]I doubt whether the artist thinks is actually worth that monetary value[/i]

He's dead, so won't have any thoughts 🙂
Interestingly, after posting this, I read an article about him - he didn't care whether people liked his work or how much it was worth.
Just don't laugh at his name! 😉

Are you sure that Christies isn't getting confused with the Michaelangelo version of Leda and the Swan?

I did have a surprise when I googled "Leda and the Swan" and so many classical works appeared!
Twombly's ahem masterpiece was well down the page.
Francois Boucher's one was an interesting variation..

I'm keen on Yves Klein and his monochromes don't even have brushmarks (all done by roller or spray). The concept and the colour is what it's all about. Nice thing is, it's easy(ish) to copy. My other obsession is Work by FMB, completely at the opposite end of the artistic scale.

Dr J I did not say that the artist lacked craft and skill, more that the pice itself appears to lack it. If you were to present this as an unknown, or young, artist you would be told to come back later when you had learned to paint. Being slightly more charitable, as I said in another comment, that it looks like a rushed or preparatory work. You can see where the work has almost certainly been done in one go, with little over painting and it is very expressive, but as we know the source material the idea looks half baked.

That is only my opinion and the fact that we are discussing this adds a bit of weight to the fact that it is a worthwhile work of art, but I still cannot escape the feeling that it was just chucked at the side of the studio with a casual “Yep. That will do.” If that was the result of anything I made then I wuold probably concentrate on the day job a bit more 😉

I'd like to see it in the flesh to comment more, currently one of the more interesting pieces I have seen is a huge and quite abstract but the detail close up is amazing, would be good to have the time to see the detail in that painting and the depth of it.

Its easy to take the mick out of paintings when they are shown in a photo on a website, but most paintings are completely different in real life, you can see the detail and colour and scale of it all.

If you were to present this as an unknown, or young, artist you would be told to come back later when you had learned to paint.

This is the problem with most peoples view on art, that somehow it has to display some level of skill - most commonly it has to look "realistic". Apart from photorealistic stuff its never going to look like real life and it isn't meant to. Paintings are done to express things, they might be the artists feelings, desires, or maybe something about the subject. This has been true throughout art history, it's nothing new.

With modern art (remeber all art was modern at some point! A lot of very valuable paintings were completely revolutionary when they were painted) I always say to people

1. Go and look at it for a bit.
2. If you like it look at it a bit longer. Don't worry about why you like it. You don't have to have a reason for liking it, don't read the guff in the description next to it as its always pretentious nonsense.
3. Don't dismiss it because it's not a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh or like a photo
4. If you don't like it move on.

I like going to the Tate Modern as my wife and I like modern art. But only about 10% ish of it. Most of it I think its a bit lame but some I just stare at and think "awesome" or smile or laugh or just enjoy the colours or whatever. Keep it simple.

I have no idea why some paintings become extremely valuable, often its because the artist hit on something when he/she painted it that maybe no-one had done before and the ball starts rolling down the mountain from there. I do know that most artists who sell stuff don't really care if it sells or not, very little art actually ever earns enough to make it full time occupation for the artist.

Still undecided then eh?

I prefer to approach art in utter ignorance of the artist.
😀

Initially, anyway.

I do like to do a bit of research later, but I don't want my first impressions coloured by my own, inevitable preconceptions.

Still undecided then eh?

😆

I went to the MoMA recently and don't remember seeing its sister painting (which I assume is quite similar?) so it's probably didn't catch my eye. So if this is the same I personally would probably just walk by it. It's mildly interesting to me but thats all.

Is it worth the money? To the buyer it must be. To anyone else, well, it doesn't really matter does it?

I prefer to approach art in utter ignorance of the artist.

thats a good way of doing it.

Giving people advice on how to like (modern) art it a bit odd, I reckon.
Like, you should like this music because it's got a good beat, type of thing. If they don't like it, they don't like it. They can go back to watching Gogglebox or something 😉

I quite like it, though I'd have to see it in person to form a proper opinion. I like the slightly hidden erotic nature of it.

But I don't get the point of getting so upset if you don't like it. Just accept that some people like it and you don't and move on. And so what it's worth that money, it's worth that because someone is willing to pay that and that's fine for them.

[i]I don't get the point of getting so upset if you don't like it.[/i]

Did someone get upset?

Giving people advice on how to like (modern) art it a bit odd, I reckon.
Like, you should like this music because it's got a good beat, type of thing

Probably, but what's being said by a lot of people here seems to be along the lines of "you can't like this music because it doesn't sound like Mozart".

Dr J I did not say that the artist lacked craft and skill, more that the pice itself appears to lack it.

So, consider that a highly skilled person made this painting. Do you think it ended up like they wanted it to look (whether or not that's something you find pleasing), or just came out random?

[i]Do you think it ended up like they wanted it to look, or just came out random?[/i]

That is quite a thought... if that's exactly what was in the artist's head and he reproduced it... Wow.

I quite like the cock ups when things go wrong and I find an idea I would never otherwise have thought of. If this came out as that raw and exactly what was meant then fair play. It is also refreshing to have this sort of discussion as it helps seeing something thorough somebody else’s prism. No side to it at all so you can challenge your own view on things.

Maybe we can expand the thoughts with other paintings that could challenge in the same way? Anybody for Bret Whitley’s take on heroin addiction?

[img] [/img]

Each to their own on whether they like it or not...be shocking, thoughtful or just an investment.

The current state of the painting:

Its basically a status symbol to prove to visitors to your castle that you have money and taste. Twombly made some great art, the massive prices put me off a bit.

I like Twombly's sculptures.

All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.