$17 million crap

[essentialsaltes]

= $17,368,000.

Becca? Ice? Toren? Joyce? Anyone? Bueller? They look pretty easy to fake. I bet we could sell them out of the back of a van. "Psssst? Buddy... you wanna Rothko or a Mondrian, cheap? $5 million for one, or get two for $8 million."

ETA: new link to the art in question

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of like it. Not $17 million like it, but half of what I paint looks like that. I saw many similar things at the Tate Modern in London, and I liked them too. Aaron thought I was weird. I tend to be very inclusive when it comes to art, which means I don't get very worked up about it. So what if you could paint one just like it? Most people don't. So what if it doesn't tell you about the human condition? You want the human condition, go read a book. For me it's about using one sense only - vision - and not thinking the damn thing to death. I've come to hate the little descriptions at the sides of the paintings that tell you all about what the artist had in mind - no doubt due to all the people who see stuff like this in museums and get outraged. You don't have to like the art. Maybe somebody else does.

The trouble is many people take this Art thing way too seriously. And then the profit aspect takes over and fucks everything up, half because the rich people want to be seen as intelligent and forward-looking, and half because other people realize how much money you can make off the first group. In a hundred years it will all sort itself out, I suspect, and the people who spent all that money will all be dead, and everyone will have brand new art to complain about.

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno. The Mannerists have been worth complaining about since about 1600. Bad art sometimes sticks around. I say, don't tolerate it because it'll be gone in 10 years--excoriate it, in case it'll be around in 4 centuries. But I'm drunk, so that's no yardstick.

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

She is weird, but not just because she sometimes likes modern art. I mean, she lives with me, how weird is that?

I did like some of the installation pieces in the Tate Modern.

Ooh...I think I just had an epiphany (again). I think I like art that tells a story, or suggests a story...the painting in My Last Duchess for example.

When I see something like the Rothko above, I'm not thinking anything. "Yellow, white, blue. That's nice." I move on. Of all the posts I've done on this thread, I don't think I've looked at it more than ten seconds. Still, some people like it, and honestly, I'd love it if more rich people gave that kind of money to LIVING artists a little more often. Like...filmmakers, for example.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Since this appears to be my most fecund of entries, I'll venture a few more words.

For me, it doesn't necessarily have to tell or suggest a story, but I want art to cause at least some thought process, however trivial. The Rothko by itself inspires my brain to do nothing. The fact that it sold for $17M stirs up quite a few thoughts, but the thing itself is just.... bleah. It looks like someone is repainting a wall and made a couple test patches.
I can even appreciate modern abstract art that displays an interesting and/or harmonious shape.

But Rothko & Pollock just look like products created like this or this.

!!!

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

That second picture is Spike!

Kirsten is trying to train Spike. I think we should train him to paint.