Art and its value

sonofenoch

A 'Caravaggio' found in an attic in France valued at 120m.....is it the name or the painting that has been decided it's worth? the painting is worthless surely to any sane mind, it's worth is the price of canvass and paints ....or as the saying goes 'it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it'.......I don't and never will understand the decadence of art

the running joke

A Page 3 man so?

smash

you just don't get it man! see that squiggle over there? That represents the oppression and pain the artist endured!!!! Or some other such bollox!

sonofenoch

the running joke wrote: »

A Page 3 man so?

More a Sky Atlantic man....but no seriously, lets go pay 120m for this thing and stick it on a wall....just because we can

Herb Powell

It's just a monetary value assigned to it. An original Caravaggio is of enormous value, historically and otherwise.

o1s1n

sonofenoch wrote: »

A 'Caravaggio' found in an attic in France valued at 120m.....is it the name or the painting that has been decided it's worth? the painting is worthless surely to any sane mind, it's worth is the price of canvass and paints ....or as the saying goes 'it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it'.......I don't and never will understand the decadence of art

One of the greatest painters of all time, clearly worthless...

Sometimes the ignorance on here astounds me.

me_irl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I

SEPT 23 1989

I would have thought a Caravaggio would be priceless

osarusan

Art (high art) always seems to me to be the perfect example of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Except for the art I actually like, obviously.

ScumLord

sonofenoch wrote: »

A 'Caravaggio' found in an attic in France valued at 120m.....is it the name or the painting that has been decided it's worth? the painting is worthless surely to any sane mind, it's worth is the price of canvass and paints ....or as the saying goes 'it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it'.......I don't and never will understand the decadence of art

That's like people saying why does a TV cost €800 when the parts in it are only worth €40? You forget the months of development, all the people that have to go into making it, overheads etc. etc..

Same for an artist, they don't just pick up paint one day throw it at a canvas and ask for money, there's an entire lifetime of experience in a painting. You may not value that, but it doesn't mean it has no value.

Modern art is a bit of a cattle mart where thousands of artists fight for a minority of places. That's if they just want to be famous for the sake of being famous. There are plenty of artists that are more like Davinci, where their artistic skills are just tools they use to do other things. Art can be applied in so many ways most people don't realise they're surrounded by it all the time.

There is a popular art scene, it doesn't represent art. That kind of art is a dead end circle jerk.

Mesrine65

ScumLord wrote: »

Same for an artist, they don't just pick up paint one day throw it at a canvas and ask for money, there's an entire lifetime of experience in a painting. You may not value that, but it doesn't mean it has no value.

Jackson Pollock?

ScumLord

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Jackson Pollock?

Still spent years learning the trade.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sonofenoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's my point, it's the name behind it isn't it really not the actual 'work'....poor oul Leonardo da Caprio lived around the corner from Leo V. he was a painter too at the time, couldn't get tuppence for his paintings

o1s1n

sonofenoch wrote: »

That's my point, it's the name behind it isn't it really not the actual 'work'....poor oul Leonardo da Caprio lived around the corner from Leo V. he was a painter too at the time, couldn't get tuppence for his paintings

Have you ever actually seen one of Caravaggio's paintings? He tends to be the kind of painter where the great unwashed go 'I don't get this stupid modern art crap, but God damn this guy is good'

valoren

It's not the paintings that incur the derision of people it's the pretentious **** that espouse the art itself. See below.

Art will always have an intrinsic value to people, and the masterpieces of a particular style will always have a high price. It's just unfortunate that the uberwealthy view it more in terms of investment and discard the cultural importance of a work of art.

Anything over a nominal value of say $10 million belongs in a museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BlLX03OJRU

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

It's not the paintings that incur the derision of people it's the pretentious **** that espouse the art itself.

I saw something similar a few years ago, where they added flavourless, odourless colouring to turn white wine red, and then the wine tasters were going on about the characteristics of red wine.

To be fair to the presenters of that programme, they didn't try to portray the tasters as bluffers - it was actually about how our brain can associate things with colour, appearance, and so on, and we actually genuinely think we do taste the things that our brain subconsciously expected to taste.

I wonder if the same thing can apply here.

Boom_Bap

I had an ex who had a love of art and she opened my eyes a bit on some of the nuances that make something unique in art.

I remember her talking particularly about Carvaggio and how he used 'real' people as his subjects. This could be seen by the colouring of the cheeks, they were more red from working outside as opposed to using noble folk who would not have been in the sunshine for sustained periods to get sun burnt. This would have been rebellious during the time period and location.....I'm not sure if this was for just one painting or all, but it made me look a bit closer at paintings and ask more questions.

Herb Powell

There's also a difference between "modern art" and "contemporary art". Calling either "a load of bolloccks" is about as worthwhile as calling music as a whole a load of bolloccks.

I mean if that's your opinion, fair enough, but it makes you look like a gobshhite.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

smash wrote: »

you just don't get it man! see that squiggle over there? That represents the oppression and pain the artist endured!!!! Or some other such bollox!

me_irl wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I

So we've gone from a great master to modern art purely to justify the idea that art is ****. And people sometimes wonder why I moved away...

melekalikimaka

the more ignorant people to art the lower the price will be, so I encourage this talk

cowboyBuilder

valoren wrote: »

It's not the paintings that incur the derision of people it's the pretentious **** that espouse the art itself. See below.

Art will always have an intrinsic value to people, and the masterpieces of a particular style will always have a high price. It's just unfortunate that the uberwealthy view it more in terms of investment and discard the cultural importance of a work of art.

Anything over a nominal value of say $10 million belongs in a museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BlLX03OJRU

Proof that its a load of absolute bollix.

Can you imagine fooling a five star michelin chef that a pot noodle was top gourmet cuisine ?

Wibbs

There's a wide gulf between Caravaggio and can often pass for "art" in the postmodernist world. Caravaggio was a master of light long before the impressionists. He lit scenes like a modern cinematographer, indeed some of the latter cite him as a hero of theirs. The lad could paint. He had tremendous skills and a very keen eye. Tat he has a value is, or should be obvious. The amount is another day's work and a separate issue, but if that's what the market reckons, then..

Valoren wrote:

It's just unfortunate that the uberwealthy view it more in terms of investment and discard the cultural importance of a work of art.

It is possible to be aware of both.

I would agree the art market can be dodgy as fook. Arthur Daley's in better suits and there is a lot of fakery and dubious provenance going on. NOt so much for big ticket names, but mid range stuff, drawings and the like of well regarded, but not widely known artists have a lot of fakes around. For some buyers the modern stuff can be a better investment as it's generally easier to prove if it's fake or not. It's also a great way of hiding and transporting money.

osarusan

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Can you imagine fooling a five star michelin chef that a pot noodle was top gourmet cuisine ?

I wouldn't describe all those people as 'experts' anyway - they're just people in an art gallery as far as I can see.

And I can easily imagine people waffling on about how a particular food/restaurant is waaaaay better than some other, when there might be no difference.*



*if we can even establish criteria for evaluation and comparison.

ScumLord

Herb Powell wrote: »

There's also a difference between "modern art" and "contemporary art". Calling either "a load of bolloccks" is about as worthwhile as calling music as a whole a load of bolloccks.

I mean if that's your opinion, fair enough, but it makes you look like a gobshhite.

I think a lot of art is a load of shyte. A lot. although that said, as someone else pointed out, it's mainly down to the art connoisseurs and not the artists fault. I know plenty of artists and they're nothing like the people that buy their stuff.

I did art in college and it turned me off art altogether, I quit the course and changed my opinion on art entirely. I much prefer art in other places now, I guess I like functional art because I believe more thought goes into it, it's based in reality and not just a flight of fancy. A ferrari is the culmination of a number of art forms into a distinct piece of art.

Wibbs

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Proof that its a load of absolute bollix.

Can you imagine fooling a five star michelin chef that a pot noodle was top gourmet cuisine ?

It can be a contextual thing and more, an ego thing. Your general person off the street and especially the suburban pseudo doesn't want to look uncultured, so if they see something in context they're more likely to buy into it. Their brains join up the dots, even when dots are missing. This can happen with experts too. There was that elderly couple and their son who were passing off complete fakes of works of art and antiquities that the son was knocking up in the shed. They'd find old auction catalogues from the area and look for vague descriptions of sold lots(context and provenance), say "Old Kingdom sculpture, Egypt" and ready up a suitably distressed Old Kingdom sculpture, Egypt in the shed. The son was a talented man so could ready up convincing enough items that would pass muster stylistically, so with the context and provenance the dealers and museums bought into the story. Even when some admitted later to be suspicious. They also admitted they got caught up in the dream of discovery. Suspicions were raised when an expert in cuneiform spotted that the writing made no sense. And this was after many years of this old couple "finding" a long list of items that would keep the Antiques Roadshow going for a year.
I've seen one big ticket auction of vintage watches where experts and the watch company who originally made them pass off and certify a few watches that were clearly dubious. They were very well done, but…

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

I much prefer art in other places now, I guess I like functional art because I believe more thought goes into it, it's based in reality and not just a flight of fancy.

Craft. Yep I'd be with you on that. Certainly when considering the vast majority of art post say 1970(I do like quite a few of the modernists and their stuff. Matisse and the like). Though funny enough I'd not be sold that much on Ferraris. I know, sacrilege. For me an E-Type Jag(first series) blows the doors off pretty much anything Enzo came up with. Yes they can be lovely cars, often pretty, but for me they nearly always "go wrong" from some angles.

cowboyBuilder

Wibbs wrote: »

It can be a contextual thing and more, an ego thing. Your general person off the street and especially the suburban pseudo doesn't want to look uncultured, so if they see something in context they're more likely to buy into it. Their brains join up the dots, even when dots are missing. This can happen with experts too. There was that elderly couple and their son who were passing off complete fakes of works of art and antiquities that the son was knocking up in the shed. They'd find old auction catalogues from the area and look for vague descriptions of sold lots(context and provenance), say "Old Kingdom sculpture, Egypt" and ready up a suitably distressed Old Kingdom sculpture, Egypt in the shed. The son was a talented man so could ready up convincing enough items that would pass muster stylistically, so with the context and provenance the dealers and museums bought into the story. Even when some admitted later to be suspicious. They also admitted they got caught up in the dream of discovery. Suspicions were raised when an expert in cuneiform spotted that the writing made no sense. And this was after many years of this old couple "finding" a long list of items that would keep the Antiques Roadshow going for a year.
I've seen one big ticket auction of vintage watches where experts and the watch company who originally made them pass off and certify a few watches that were clearly dubious. They were very well done, but…

Excellent !!

fair play to them, what happened ?

did they get fined or charged with fraud ?

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Craft. Yep I'd be with you on that. Certainly when considering the vast majority of art post say 1970(I do like quite a few of the modernists and their stuff. Matisse and the like). Though funny enough I'd not be sold that much on Ferraris. I know, sacrilege. For me an E-Type Jag(first series) blows the doors off pretty much anything Enzo came up with. Yes they can be lovely cars, often pretty, but for me they nearly always "go wrong" from some angles.

An e-type jag is lovely but there's so much more to a modern car, Old British cars, in particular were famous for their shoddy construction. It had the art part in spades but hasn't as concerned over the practicality. Modern sports cars do both, although watching some owner videos on supercars they're still not all that reliable, but still, way, way better than they used to be.

It's often the little details I like too, when you go to do something and whatever it is you notice something that makes you go "that's clever", and you almost have a direct connection to the engineer who thought about what you'd be doing and made it easier for you to do it. I know that's probably not "art" but when all these practical and aesthetic things come together and make you love an inanimate object I think it's basically the same effect.

Skylinehead

sonofenoch wrote: »

A 'Caravaggio' found in an attic in France valued at 120m.....is it the name or the painting that has been decided it's worth? the painting is worthless surely to any sane mind, it's worth is the price of canvass and paints ....or as the saying goes 'it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it'.......I don't and never will understand the decadence of art

Switch "Caravaggio painting" for "Beatles song", would you still be making the same argument?

lawlolawl

osarusan wrote: »

I saw something similar a few years ago, where they added flavourless, odourless colouring to turn white wine red, and then the wine tasters were going on about the characteristics of red wine.

I've seen similar stuff done with craft beers and gourmet coffee.

Experts can't tell the difference if they don't know ahead of time that something is "supposed" to be good.

Caravaggio was a genius. It is impossible to study a painting like the Taking of Christ and conclude otherwise. It is depressing that his talent is reduced to something as grubby as money, as someone else has said it should be priceless, but that's a product of market forces and the fact that almost everything has a price.

lawlolawl

Deleted User wrote: »

It is impossible to study a painting like the Taking of Christ and conclude otherwise.

I'd sooner look at a painting called Taking a ****e.

Iwasfrozen

sonofenoch wrote: »

A 'Caravaggio' found in an attic in France valued at 120m.....is it the name or the painting that has been decided it's worth? the painting is worthless surely to any sane mind, it's worth is the price of canvass and paints ....or as the saying goes 'it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it'.......I don't and never will understand the decadence of art

It's not decedance, art can be a good investment that increases in value over time or as a means of legally avoiding tax.

MacauDragon

Same as with that 'yellow on blue' "masterpiece" .... Its worth that amount because theres a big enough consensus that says its worth that amount.

Like paper money. Its the reputation that counts.



Plus owning such a rarity endows status upon the owner and allows him to go nyyyuuh look at me with my Caravaggio, nyyuuuh.

o1s1n

MacauDragon wrote: »

Same as with that 'yellow on blue' "masterpiece" .... Its worth that amount because theres a big enough consensus that says its worth that amount.

Like paper money. Its the reputation that counts.



Plus owning such a rarity endows status upon the owner and allows him to go nyyyuuh look at me with my Caravaggio, nyyuuuh.

You're talking about two different things.

I agree that there is a lot of contemporary art that's absolute muck and many do wish to own it for name alone. (believe me, after studying Fine Art in College for 4 years it's definitely something you come into contact with on a day to day basis)

However, the difference between something like Yellow on Blue and Caravaggio's masterpieces (especially if you're at all interested in artistic rendering, especially realism) are staggering. In the sense of film, it's like comparing a BBC test card and a 2001 A Space Odyssey. You just don't.

Zaph

While I'm not an art lover and I think that an awful lot of it is pretentious nonsense, I will make an exception for Caravaggio. Even a philistine like me can see that the guy was a genius. If you're ever in Rome there a small church on Piazza del Popolo that has a couple on an altar that are well worth seeing.

However as regards the value of art, while the OP has a point about the nominal value of the materials etc., he's ignoring the effort put into it by the artist. But how is the value of that effort ascertained? Why is this new painting worth €120m and not €80m? Or €200m? Who decides what these paintings are worth? And if a Caravaggio is worth €120m, then how is a Jackson Pollock painting that is essentially a load of splashes on a canvas that I could have done myself worth $200m? Surely the Caravaggio should be worth more than the Pollock? But presumably I don't understand the mindset of the artist when he splashed painted it and what emotions he was conveying so what do I know?

Wibbs

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Excellent !!

fair play to them, what happened ?

did they get fined or charged with fraud ?

Oh they were charged alright CB. The son ended up in prison for a time(the parents were considered too frail IIRC?). Lotsa red faces all around. Remarkably few experts spotted it at the time. They faked a Gauguin sculpture of Pan again IIRC that was displayed in a major retrospective of his work and the critics duly salivated. Another one was an ancient egyptian(Armana period) sculpture in alabaster that yer man dropped while making it and glued it back together with superglue. That was a centrepiece of a museum and the Queen of England was wheeled out to ooh and ahh at it. There is a strong suspicion that there are fakes out there yer man hasn't admitted to. He has claimed a purported Leo DaVinci head of a woman is one of his. And he based her on a lass who worked the till in his local Tesco.

I'd say there are a few longstanding fakes in museums and collections. An obvious one IMH and others is the very famous bust of Nefertiti found in 1912 and in a German museum. It's suspiciously modern and is a stylistic outlier for Egyptian art, even Armana stuff. It's missing an eye and the space provided wouldn't fit a replacement. How it's made is odd too. It's made of a head shaped stone covered with plaster. That's a very cheap and cheerful way to do things and not the usual for a royal portrait where the best in the kingdom would be doing the carving into raw stone. The damage to the piece is remarkably fortunate, as the face is fine. It wasn't mentioned once in any of the original dig notes, nor shipping notes. It wasn't fully described until a decade after the so called discovery. The biggest thing he ever discovered in his career? Eh…

Funny enough we may have a guaranteed bust of Nefertiti, or one of her close relatives, but in an odd place. The world famous bust of Tutankhamun. It's unlikely to have been specifically made for him, but he died suddenly and his burial was a major rush job. They even took a chunk out of the tomb wall and chopped off bits of his coffin to fit him in. The famous mask has some odd features. For a start it has holes for earrings. Adult Egyptian men and certainly Pharaohs didn't have earrings. The holes themselves were covered with a thin layer of gold foil to cover this up at the time.

osarusan

Zaph wrote: »

While I'm not an art lover and I think that an awful lot of it is pretentious nonsense, I will make an exception for Caravaggio. Even a philistine like me can see that the guy was a genius. If you're ever in Rome there a small church on Piazza del Popolo that has a couple on an altar that are well worth seeing.

However as regards the value of art, while the OP has a point about the nominal value of the materials etc., he's ignoring the effort put into it by the artist. But how is the value of that effort ascertained? Why is this new painting worth €120m and not €80m? Or €200m? Who decides what these paintings are worth? And if a Caravaggio is worth €120m, then how is a Jackson Pollock painting that is essentially a load of splashes on a canvas that I could have done myself worth $200m? Surely the Caravaggio should be worth more than the Pollock? But presumably I don't understand the mindset of the artist when he splashed painted it and what emotions he was conveying so what do I know?

Seconded on all this.

And you can be sure that for all the effort, there are a thousand painters out there who put in just as much effort, just as time, just as much sacrifice, and felt their talent burn just as brightly....and the paintings are worth a fraction of the price, if they're worth anything at all.

AtomicHorror

lawlolawl wrote: »

I'd sooner look at a painting called Taking a ****e.

The Taking of Christ is an incredible painting. If you can't be arsed to go look at it when it's right there in the National Gallery then that's a bad decision and a real shame. If you've seen it and you just don't get it, then I genuinely feel sorry for you and would be concerned that you might be a sociopath

osarusan

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If you've seen it and you just don't get it, then I genuinely feel sorry for you and would be concerned that you might be a sociopath

That's a ridiculous statement to be honest, if you are serious (smiley suggests you might not be).

AtomicHorror

osarusan wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement to be honest, if you are serious (smiley suggests you might not be).

I do feel sorry for anyone who isn't at least astounded by the technical achievement, if not moved by the work itself. But no, I obviously don't think that would be an indicator of mental illness.

Cianmcliam

Some interesting points in this worth discussing

I remember walking up as close as they will let you to the Caravaggio in a cathedral in Malta, The Beheading of St. John the Baptist. It is absolutely incredible, the man was a genius and an innovator in the use of light, far ahead of his time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lantus

Art is good. Paint, dance, sculpture etc. Good for people to do and enjoy. Unfortunately money and cultural obsessions with fashion and exclusivity have made a mockery out of a lot of paintings. They are not worth what they fetch. Not at the expense of thousands of equally good paintings and artists.

Banksy tried to sell original pieces in NY on a stall. If his art had a universal beauty then it would if been ripped out if his hands. Instead he struggled to sell anything. Two pieces for 60 dollars at the end of the day. That man will net 140k from selling them.

That's the absurdaty of art in a modern financial system that's places a distorted value on it.

donegaLroad

I remember posting this before over in the Arts forum. This guy (J.S.G. Boggs) is an American artist who draws fake money with a pen, and spends it for it's face-value.

I think he has 'spent' over $300,000 worth of bills which he has drawn himself.

He then sells the change and the receipt of the transaction to various art collectors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtKSqzpj0Q

cowboyBuilder

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh they were charged alright CB. The son ended up in prison for a time(the parents were considered too frail IIRC?). Lotsa red faces all around. Remarkably few experts spotted it at the time. They faked a Gauguin sculpture of Pan again IIRC that was displayed in a major retrospective of his work and the critics duly salivated. Another one was an ancient egyptian(Armana period) sculpture in alabaster that yer man dropped while making it and glued it back together with superglue. That was a centrepiece of a museum and the Queen of England was wheeled out to ooh and ahh at it. There is a strong suspicion that there are fakes out there yer man hasn't admitted to. He has claimed a purported Leo DaVinci head of a woman is one of his. And he based her on a lass who worked the till in his local Tesco.

I'd say there are a few longstanding fakes in museums and collections. An obvious one IMH and others is the very famous bust of Nefertiti found in 1912 and in a German museum. It's suspiciously modern and is a stylistic outlier for Egyptian art, even Armana stuff. It's missing an eye and the space provided wouldn't fit a replacement. How it's made is odd too. It's made of a head shaped stone covered with plaster. That's a very cheap and cheerful way to do things and not the usual for a royal portrait where the best in the kingdom would be doing the carving into raw stone. The damage to the piece is remarkably fortunate, as the face is fine. It wasn't mentioned once in any of the original dig notes, nor shipping notes. It wasn't fully described until a decade after the so called discovery. The biggest thing he ever discovered in his career? Eh…

Funny enough we may have a guaranteed bust of Nefertiti, or one of her close relatives, but in an odd place. The world famous bust of Tutankhamun. It's unlikely to have been specifically made for him, but he died suddenly and his burial was a major rush job. They even took a chunk out of the tomb wall and chopped off bits of his coffin to fit him in. The famous mask has some odd features. For a start it has holes for earrings. Adult Egyptian men and certainly Pharaohs didn't have earrings. The holes themselves were covered with a thin layer of gold foil to cover this up at the time.

What a shame - they did nothing wrong

Yet the greedy sociopathic pig bankers get rewards for defrauding working people of money.

Vandango

ScumLord wrote: »

Still spent years learning the trade.

Toddlers can perfectly imitate the style within minutes...:pac:

Zaph

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Genuinely they'd be wasted on me. I just had a look at them on Google, and tbh if I went to see them in a museum I'd probably just spend my time taking the p*ss out of them. To be fair to the Mural one, it does look like he attempted to paint rather than throw pots of the stuff around. Though what he was painting is anybody's guess.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.