$150,000,000 for this ...

I can understand that being art...

but being more valuable then a Van Goghor a Davinci?:?

The mere idea makes me sad, and believe that a 2012 Apocalypse would not be that bad.

My Inspiration? Dikes at their purist, cats swinging against muffled trees, the gulp of disbelief as you wake up from seasonal clown, that awakening smell of petrolium as you pass the pizza library.

...All for the low price of 300 billion.

tim22000

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

I agree with this.

exactly, that painting is pure garbage. Imagine if God created the world like that. My point is, we know the difference between what is beautiful and what is not, and you have to be extremely uppity to even pay 1 cent for that crap. Someone would have to pay me in order to take it. That is unless, if I wouldnt be able to sell it for profit ;)

That is not art. There was this news show where they had atoddler paint on a canvas. They then showed it to art critics and told them it was some long lost painting from some famous artist. The critics absolutely loved the painting. They were told later on it was done by a toddler and none of them had a comment. Wish I could remember this video, but it was years and years ago. Just goes to show you how people fool themselves to believing something as scribble that my child can do, millionaires will call art as long as you attach a famous name to it.

feryl06

That is not art. There was this news show where they had atoddler paint on a canvas. They then showed it to art critics and told them it was some long lost painting from some famous artist. The critics absolutely loved the painting. They were told later on it was done by a toddler and none of them had a comment. Wish I could remember this video, but it was years and years ago. Just goes to show you how people fool themselves to believing something as scribble that my child can do, millionaires will call art as long as you attach a famous name to it.

you mustve missed the point where I called them uppity. peaceoutmedusa

[QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"]

exactly, that painting is pure garbage. Imagine if God created the world like that. My point is, we know the difference between what is beautiful and what is not, and you have to be extremely uppity to even pay 1 cent for that crap. Someone would have to pay me in order to take it. That is unless, if I wouldnt be able to sell it for profit ;)

peaceoutmedusa

That's a ridiculous generalisation.. Many appreciate Pollock's work. I'm not sure there are any other artists who were able to adopt nature's mechanism: chaos dynamics. Pollock's work was criticised from the outset.. Numerous art critics deemed his work simply a mess, not art at all. You are just one of many who believe this.. but the truth is Pollock painted in a way that was deliberate and controlled despite the chaotic nature of his work. He painted fractals, geometric patterns which occur naturally (for example in coastlines or the branching of rivers and trees). Now for some reason, humans tend to find fractal patterns within certain fractal dimension parameters aesthetically pleasing and Pollock was able to create paintings which met these geometric criteria. If people did not continue to find his work aesthetically pleasing then why would Pollock have such lasting appeal? What he did was essentially capture nature on a canvas, and I don't think many chimpanzee or blind 4-year olds are capable of this.

Salvy41

Also applies to the other person defending this trash as 'art'.

LOL.

I remember going to the D.C. art museum in highschool and there was this picture of a white canvas with a red dot in the middle of it. That was it. The tour guide talked about it for about 20 minutes. My friend Brett goes: "So if I made a red canvas with a white dot in the middle, could I sell it as art?" and the guide promptly replied "No!".

We proceeded to ask why, and she just ignored us. Art and the art community are fail.

I do respect actual drawings and creations/tattoos as art though.

@Inconsitancy

Thats fine. I wouldn't expect everyone to understand the conceptual statement that artists like Jackson Pollock were trying to make about subjectivity. Like it or not, such conversations exist, and are very significant within the world of fine art. It is what gives it value and meaning in our culture. The fact that you don't like his art proves how successfully executed this concept was. You look at it, and you say its garbage. That is your subjective interpretation of the painting. This is exactly the kind of reaction Pollock was trying to invoke. Because the act of viewing his art is purely subjective, it means that you the observer have given the painting meaning that cannot be defined by anyone else but you. This was some very ground breaking conceptual work. In the era was active it changed the way a lot of people thought about art, and its personal affect on people.

urgh. makes me lose faith in common sense all together

What I see in this thread is plenty of people living and following what they have been told in regards to art - structure and form. It's a prison I tell you. A prison for your brain and you are all in it! :x Lord Daemon you are a free man!Sajedene

Pollock was a pretty cool artist.

[QUOTE="feryl06"]

That is not art. There was this news show where they had atoddler paint on a canvas. They then showed it to art critics and told them it was some long lost painting from some famous artist. The critics absolutely loved the painting. They were told later on it was done by a toddler and none of them had a comment. Wish I could remember this video, but it was years and years ago. Just goes to show you how people fool themselves to believing something as scribble that my child can do, millionaires will call art as long as you attach a famous name to it.

peaceoutmedusa

my kid could paint that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSuvDVj9q8

[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="feryl06"]

That is not art. There was this news show where they had atoddler paint on a canvas. They then showed it to art critics and told them it was some long lost painting from some famous artist. The critics absolutely loved the painting. They were told later on it was done by a toddler and none of them had a comment. Wish I could remember this video, but it was years and years ago. Just goes to show you how people fool themselves to believing something as scribble that my child can do, millionaires will call art as long as you attach a famous name to it.

comp_atkins

my kid could paint that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSuvDVj9q8

Okay.. 1 min of hard labor for this... I call it Crapo Magnifico... my inspiration was... I saw ahhh red, and ahh yellow.. and I ahhhh, decided... yes.., yes this will do.. ahh s---plotch here, and ah one there.. Perfecto! Masterpiece!.

Gimme 156million right now. (this random looking crap.. is NOT ART)

(3 mins of work, re-did stuff to make it.. 'prettier')

Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"] exactly.PannicAtack

my kid could paint that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSuvDVj9q8

Art like this being created today just doesn't have the same cultural impact as it did back then. Which is why for the time he was working, it was revolutionary. Hence the price.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

my kid could paint that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSuvDVj9q8

Darthmatt

Art like this being created today just doesn't have the same cultural impact as it did back then. Which is why for the time he was working, it was revolutionary. Hence the price.

I wont sit here and pretend to understand art

but I will say that is an overpriced piece of work anyone could have made.

not saying it isnt art...but your paying for the artists, not the actual work of art.

Thats like paying 10 million dollars to have Robert Deniro come fix your sink. Is it worth that much? Hell no, but Robert Freaking Deniro fixed my sink! DENIRO!

[QUOTE="tim22000"]

My Inspiration? Dikes at their purist, cats swinging against muffled trees, the gulp of disbelief as you wake up from seasonal clown, that awakening smell of petrolium as you pass the pizza library.

...All for the low price of 300 billion.

comp_atkins

Personally, I love this stuff. I've grown to appreciate this type of artwork after trying to do some myself. Some of these modern pieces take many months to complete.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] You are aware that the authenticity of said kid's artwork has been VERY heavily questioned, right?comp_atkins

Art like this being created today just doesn't have the same cultural impact as it did back then. Which is why for the time he was working, it was revolutionary. Hence the price.

For the record, I don't think its worth $150 million. I see it's value more in cultural ripple effect that emanated from its creation.

The most expensive painting in the world..a Jackson Pollock

LoL

Some people need to waste their money on other crap, or perhaps I'm just not appreciating the 'art' in this swashbucket painting

_R34LiTY_

WHEN LORD!?!?!? WHEN DO I GET TO SEE THE ******** SAILBOAT!?!?!?!?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]That and the kid isn't working in the late 1940s like Pollock. It was a time when the thought police and conformity were becoming more prevalent in American culture. The cultural impact Pollock made helped break a lot of minds out of their intellectual prisons and helped usher in the post modern era.

Art like this being created today just doesn't have the same cultural impact as it did back then. Which is why for the time he was working, it was revolutionary. Hence the price.

Darthmatt

For the record, I don't think its worth $150 million. I see it's value more in cultural ripple effect he helped create.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

Okay.. 1 min of hard labor for this... I call it Crapo Magnifico... my inspiration was... I saw ahhh red, and ahh yellow.. and I ahhhh, decided... yes.., yes this will do.. ahh s---plotch here, and ah one there.. Perfecto! Masterpiece!.

Gimme 156million right now. (this random looking crap.. is NOT ART)

(3 mins of work, re-did stuff to make it.. 'prettier')

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

Okay.. 1 min of hard labor for this... I call it Crapo Magnifico... my inspiration was... I saw ahhh red, and ahh yellow.. and I ahhhh, decided... yes.., yes this will do.. ahh s---plotch here, and ah one there.. Perfecto! Masterpiece!.

Gimme 156million right now. (this random looking crap.. is NOT ART)

(3 mins of work, re-did stuff to make it.. 'prettier')

nintendo-4life

That you make some sort of mockery of scribblings and try to compare it to Jackson Pollock's masterpieces is downright insulting.

PannicAtack

=O My really old deviantart page is all dead n stuff, only like 2 pictures load.. wtf =(... OOOH guessing game.. lets play one.. Guess the mispelled word before .deviantart.com that is my account! =D

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]That you make some sort of mockery of scribblings and try to compare it to Jackson Pollock's masterpieces is downright insulting.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

Okay.. 1 min of hard labor for this... I call it Crapo Magnifico... my inspiration was... I saw ahhh red, and ahh yellow.. and I ahhhh, decided... yes.., yes this will do.. ahh s---plotch here, and ah one there.. Perfecto! Masterpiece!.

Gimme 156million right now. (this random looking crap.. is NOT ART)

(3 mins of work, re-did stuff to make it.. 'prettier')

nintendo-4life

Actually, I have seen some rather brilliant art that only used white paint. The true art behind it was the texture of the many layers of paint on the canvas. Paintings like this are never done justice from a picture.

Personally, I love this stuff. I've grown to appreciate this type of artwork after trying to do some myself. Some of these modern pieces take many months to complete.

mindstorm

Maybe $150 M is too much for this painting. But say the Mona Lisa. Its considered a priceless piece of work. Some guy can pain the Mona Lisa on MS Paint. Does that make the painting by Da Vinci any less? No. Heck, any other artist with skill can do something similar to or better than the Mona Lisa - but there is a whole lot more than just some woman with a half smile to that painting. There is the perception - the depth. The horizon, the muted colors, etc etc etc.... And yes, In the art world... besides everything I mentioned above - the name attached to the painting will raise its value.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] what's the saying? beauty is in the eye of the beholder? 30 million people could say that something is beautiful and amazing etc.. but if i don't believe it i don't believe it. you'd never convince me something like that is worth a hundred million dollars just as i could not convince you that something you see as rubbish is actually worth a fortune.. it's all opinion and what some person is actually willing to pay for it

PannicAtack

For the record, I don't think its worth $150 million. I see it's value more in cultural ripple effect he helped create.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] what's the difference between those two then? All you guys being insulted never explained the actual technique Pollock used in his work.. I am not a fan of abstract art unless it was computerized so please, tell me.

nintendo-4life

If you just derisively look at a Pollock painting and say "it's random scribbles," then you miss the point. As another person in the thread said, it was a challenge of the traditional standards of art in way similar to Gustave Corbet and Michael Duchamp. Also, you need to understand "Action Painting" - the end product is not the only aspect of Pollock's painting, but much of the art was in the process of making the work.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Exactly. Pollock's work was about invoking a purely subjective response. When you strip away any objectivity, what do you get? You get what ever your mind want it to be, and no two reactions will be the same. And as I said, for the time he was working this was a rather unconventional approach to creating artwork.

For the record, I don't think its worth $150 million. I see it's value more in cultural ripple effect he helped create.

comp_atkins

"I am now in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me. In a minute, it will be behind me." - Johannes Brahms

"Better [to be the Puccini of the poor] than the Boulez of the rich" - Gian-Carlo Menotti

"Pay no attention to what critics say; no statue has ever been put up to a critic" - Jean Sibelius

Jackson Pollock was a bamf. I can see why his artwork would go for so much.

Art is so lame these days. I don't even know why they call it art. I mean it's a bunch of splatters on canvas. Anyone can do that. I wouldn't pay 1$ for that because probably a piece of white paper is cheaper and looks better. Dude_ownage

You gotta know how to make a story behind it and have a big name...

Now, I can't comment on the painting since I'm not looking at the real thing, but the person who bought it probably experienced something while looking at a painting that makes the 150 million he paid for it look like a bunch of paper. Personally, if the painting was already on public display, I'd just travel to see it whenever I wanted if I had 150 million dollars. If the painting was hanging in someone's living room, I'd purchase the painting and give it to a museum so that it goes on public display.

This thread really makes me wonder if many of you have actually been to a museum and looked at an actual painting. And then, if you have, if any of the paintings you've seen have caused you to really look at the thing for a good half-hour. Just a couple weeks ago, I saw Ingres's Comtesse d'Haussonville and I was blown away. The painting itself was like a presence in the room that immediately stood out compared to the paintings hanging on the other walls. If I had to pay 150 million for the painting, and I had that amount and much more in order for me to live out the rest of my life, and the painting was not on public display, I'd purchase it and give it to a museum in order for others to see it, hoping that they, just as I did, will experience something quite special.

The point I'm trying to make is that being in front of a masterpiece is something quite special that photographs of them can't do for you. I've seen Rembrandts, Cezannes, Van Goghs, and other works from famous artists, but none of the work I've seen from them compares to the painting by Ingres. Someone who has seen the same paintings I have might disagree with me. And maybe the person who purchased that Pollock feels something quite special in front of it that most people can't see.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] At least Pollock actually covers the whole canvas.

PannicAtack

If you just derisively look at a Pollock painting and say "it's random scribbles," then you miss the point. As another person in the thread said, it was a challenge of the traditional standards of art in way similar to Gustave Corbet and Michael Duchamp. Also, you need to understand "Action Painting" - the end product is not the only aspect of Pollock's painting, but much of the art was in the process of making the work.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] That's it? :|nintendo-4life

If you just derisively look at a Pollock painting and say "it's random scribbles," then you miss the point. As another person in the thread said, it was a challenge of the traditional standards of art in way similar to Gustave Corbet and Michael Duchamp. Also, you need to understand "Action Painting" - the end product is not the only aspect of Pollock's painting, but much of the art was in the process of making the work.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] That's it? :|nintendo-4life

If you just derisively look at a Pollock painting and say "it's random scribbles," then you miss the point. As another person in the thread said, it was a challenge of the traditional standards of art in way similar to Gustave Corbet and Michael Duchamp. Also, you need to understand "Action Painting" - the end product is not the only aspect of Pollock's painting, but much of the art was in the process of making the work.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] No, that was a snarky remark to indicate my disdain for the thread.

If you just derisively look at a Pollock painting and say "it's random scribbles," then you miss the point. As another person in the thread said, it was a challenge of the traditional standards of art in way similar to Gustave Corbet and Michael Duchamp. Also, you need to understand "Action Painting" - the end product is not the only aspect of Pollock's painting, but much of the art was in the process of making the work.

Darthmatt

[QUOTE="tim22000"]

My Inspiration? Dikes at their purist, cats swinging against muffled trees, the gulp of disbelief as you wake up from seasonal clown, that awakening smell of petrolium as you pass the pizza library.

...All for the low price of 300 billion.

comp_atkins

:oops:

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] pretty much you agree that the painting itself is nothing special. You never complemented the painting itself, rather the idea behind it. One would assume that this painting is only being complemented because of it's creator, nothing more. If that was the case, however, then why are you so baffled by the people "not getting" this piece? No one in this thread (neither supporters nor opposers) praised this piece enough to validate it's $150 million worth. The best compliment a person could get from such a painting is "I like it". As you've said, apparently the painting itself holds no value what so ever.. but it was the artist who was praised. PS. Please don't be offended, i just want to have a civil argument. If you are offended, just tell me and i'd happily delete this post :)PannicAtack

it defently cool, but not a thing worth THAT much

man, some rich people really don't find what to buy anymore

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]You are on the right track. Not only is it's value associated with its creator, but also the social and cultural impact his paintings had the world of fine art. Artists like Pollock helped shape a new way of free thinking in an age where conformity and social order were narrowly defined. Its like asking why is a baseball card of Babe Ruth so valuable to a sports collector? It's just paper right?

Darthmatt

True, which is why there are so many people who just don't get certain works of art. Its understandable, and I have nothing against them.