Art and its value

OldGoat wrote: »

OK, I could (just) endure your criticism of the Ferraris but this? THIS! Taking you off my christmas list, ya philistine.

Gotta agree with Wibbs on this, Jazz is just musical mastrubation....

conorhal wrote: »

Gotta agree with Wibbs on this, Jazz is just musical mastrubation....

Your implication is that masturbation is a bad thing? Lols.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's a reason that I use 'Jackson Pollock' as rhyming slang, I do appreciate Charles Rothko though, I couldn't say why but his work gives me a general sense of peace.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

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 would be similar. I have no appreciation for a lot of art. Especially painted and sculpted art. But since reading and studying more about the links between neurology and the human appreciation of art I have realized that a lot of it really is a lack lying with me.

The scientific endeavor to produce a list of "Aesthetic universals" in a "Theory of Art"..... despite the staggering diversity of art across the world geographically and temporally....... is very informative.

And the "genius" of many top artists is that they could tap into those universals.... likely without even being internally aware of how.... or even THAT.... they were doing it.

So there are genuine measures of the quality of art to be had, and my brain is simply unable to parse and appreciate them. Just one of the limitations in life I can do little more than live with and be aware of.

Even if Modern Art does illicit incomprehensible rage within me. Such as that exhibition I was at up near Heuston Station recently where they were doing things like parking two cars beside each other and calling it "art".

That kind of "art" really does do little but facilitate those that appreciate it in developing quite in depth and intricate narratives about what the creators was thinking, or feeling or trying to say. And those narratives tend to be hugely more impressive and awesome than the "art" they used as their spring board.

valoren wrote: »

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

Ah well not much one can do about fakers and people who feign appreciation and knowledge to garner the respect of others. I feel heartened to know at least that for every person who made the cut in that little video, probably many many more spotted the fakery and were simply edited out.

But such hypocrisy and feigning of knowledge and appreciation is not new in art. For example when the English colonials reached India and saw Indian art many looked at things like Indian sculptures from 11th century and complained they did not look "real" and were distorted and unrealistic. They described it as pagan and primitive.

And when they viewed the early examples of Indian Miniature paintings they complained they lacked realism and perspective and so forth.

Then of course the likes of Picasso and Matisse enter the scene producing works reliant heavily on distortion of reality and perspective and it is lapped up as "Genius" and a liberation from realism. Yet this was all re-inventing what was known 1000 years earlier in India.

So yes it certainly does appear to be a realm of discourse punctuated heavily by pretension and bull****. The comparison to turning white wine red and getting the "experts" to taste it is in many ways very apt. A lot of people can parse art through a narrative and context, resulting in them disliking one set and thinking another set genius..... even though they are tapping in equally well to the artistic universals that make art what it is.

Haven't read the thread.

To me, 120m = 120 metres.

Those old artists used mirrors and shit to fool us, and so appear to be better than us.

Bacon used a fairground mirror. Dali probably used mind-altering pigments.

Perspective is everything nothing.

Jesuits own this world.

Pigs can paint, but usually use their snout to find food. Food is the reward.

120m is approx 396 ft.

Buy it by the yard - it's cheaper that way.

good example of art and value would be windows xp wallpaper now everyone knows and seen it,but theres short documentary on youtube,basically guy who shot the image sold it for smth like 20$k or so,his only dissapointment was not to sign deal to get at least 1c per windows copy could been millionaire for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVXY8OEZAEQ