nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?