$150,000,000 for this ...

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Unless you're Bill Gates, even if you scale the world's billionaires' net worth to that of the upper middle class person, it's still many thousands of dollars for a painting. Not $50.Sajedene

This is lame and pretentious. I don't know if the guy who made this is dead or not, but if I was him, and I knew this garbage painting of mine was worth that much money, I would be paralyzed with guilt. Then again, this isn't all too surprising, people see what they want to see, whether it's beauty in this crap, or Jesus' face on my toast. If you make an incredibly lame piece of work, than that is what it is. If you make a lame piece of work- and then label it "avant garde", you have made a masterpiece.

To all the people saying this guy broke the wall back in the day, and revolutionized art, no he didn't. He just paved the way for a new kind of crappier "art", one that takes significantly less skill and imagination. I guess I know who to thank now for this kind of stuff, anyone who thinks this is good art has been fooled, thankfully the rest of us can see the joke from a far.

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]Unless you're Bill Gates, even if you scale the world's billionaires' net worth to that of the upper middle class person, it's still many thousands of dollars for a painting. Not $50.F1_2004

I couldn't call that a painting. $150 million for that? :lol:

I want to know who bought that.

I'm gonna splash some paints over my naked body and roll around on a canvas and see if someone buys it.

I'm gonna splash some paints over my naked body and roll around on a canvas and see if someone buys it.

elblanquito_81

I'd rather buy that than Pollocks ugly ass painting.

Maybe I should start painting. :D

Well, It's just beautiful! (sarcastic tone)..:roll:

My personal opinion about abstract art is the following:

I will consider giving it a serious consideration, ONLY and I repeat - ONLY if the artist can show me what he/she can do realistically! Show me your realistic art, sweep me off my feet, shut me the (bleep) up with what you can do with your realism, hyper-realism, even with your boring still life - and only then I will take your abstract art seriously! But only then. I don't really need to explain why, I mean we're all intelligent people, right?

Well just in case...

If you cannot produce realistic art, or you can produce really bad realistic art - I'm not interested. You failed to convince me. You are mediocre at best! You're like a singer, who doesn't really have the talent, but has a catchy phrase, nice make-up, interesting hats, charisma, intelligence even - but cannot sing! Same with visual artist - your composition is good, nice color balance, interesting concept - but no talent! In the meantime go ride someone's disco stick...

The beauty about talent is that you cannot deny it. Both know that. The one with, and the one without the talent. The later compensates that lack with other qualities...

Well, It's just beautiful! (sarcastic tone)..:roll:

My personal opinion about abstract art is the following:

I will consider giving it a serious consideration, ONLY and I repeat - ONLY if the artist can show me what he/she can do realistically! Show me your realistic art, sweep me off my feet, shut me the (bleep) up with what you can do with your realism, hyper-realism, even with your boring still life - and only then I will take your abstract art seriously! But only then. I don't really need to explain why, I mean we're all intelligent people, right?

Well just in case...

If you cannot produce realistic art, or you can produce really bad realistic art - I'm not interested. You failed to convince me. You are mediocre at best! You're like a singer, who doesn't really have the talent, but has a catchy phrase, nice make-up, interesting hats, charisma, intelligence even - but cannot sing! Same with visual artist - your composition is good, nice color balance, interesting concept - but no talent! In the meantime go ride someone's disco stick...

The beauty about talent is that you cannot deny it. Both know that. The one with, and the one without the talent. The later compensates that lack with other qualities...

2eachhisownmask

Art is not about realism.

[QUOTE="2eachhisownmask"]

Well, It's just beautiful! (sarcastic tone)..:roll:

My personal opinion about abstract art is the following:

I will consider giving it a serious consideration, ONLY and I repeat - ONLY if the artist can show me what he/she can do realistically! Show me your realistic art, sweep me off my feet, shut me the (bleep) up with what you can do with your realism, hyper-realism, even with your boring still life - and only then I will take your abstract art seriously! But only then. I don't really need to explain why, I mean we're all intelligent people, right?

Well just in case...

If you cannot produce realistic art, or you can produce really bad realistic art - I'm not interested. You failed to convince me. You are mediocre at best! You're like a singer, who doesn't really have the talent, but has a catchy phrase, nice make-up, interesting hats, charisma, intelligence even - but cannot sing! Same with visual artist - your composition is good, nice color balance, interesting concept - but no talent! In the meantime go ride someone's disco stick...

The beauty about talent is that you cannot deny it. Both know that. The one with, and the one without the talent. The later compensates that lack with other qualities...

metroidfood

Art is not about realism.

Each could probably produce what Mr. Pollock did. I mean less skillful people than him could, on a good day. My question is - Could he produce what they did? Can ...hhmmm Lady Gaga sing like Sarah Brightman? But it's not about realism, you're right...

Then show me ONE picture, download it, or give me the link, that I will be absolutely swept off my feet, that is ABSTRACT and not in any way associated with realism. You or anyone else who holds your opinion... Teach me for I am lost...

You are right. The singing is not about the voice. .. That's why the old Masters are not called masters... they're just old fools... throwing their pearls before swine... Each and every one of them were highly skilled at what they did; have created masterpieces unsurpassed to this day: Da Vinci, Bernini, Correggio, Caravaggio, Rubens, Renoir etc. and each and every one of them - great abstract artists, that have nothing to do with realism, right?2eachhisownmask

I'd buy it then burn it in front of thousands of people and say how stupid this painting is.

Did someone break it?Bourbons3

No, but I'd hit it.

I'd buy it then burn it in front of thousands of people and say how stupid this painting is.

Gaming-Planet

[QUOTE="2eachhisownmask"]You are right. The singing is not about the voice. .. That's why the old Masters are not called masters... they're just old fools... throwing their pearls before swine... Each and every one of them were highly skilled at what they did; have created masterpieces unsurpassed to this day: Da Vinci, Bernini, Correggio, Caravaggio, Rubens, Renoir etc. and each and every one of them - great abstract artists, that have nothing to do with realism, right?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="2eachhisownmask"]You are right. The singing is not about the voice. .. That's why the old Masters are not called masters... they're just old fools... throwing their pearls before swine... Each and every one of them were highly skilled at what they did; have created masterpieces unsurpassed to this day: Da Vinci, Bernini, Correggio, Caravaggio, Rubens, Renoir etc. and each and every one of them - great abstract artists, that have nothing to do with realism, right?2eachhisownmask

Hmm.. I think I know a way how to retire early now0Tyler0

Hey, that's a lot harder than it looks!

But yeah, 5 bucks tops.

[QUOTE="2eachhisownmask"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Actually, the Renaissance artists weren't about realism. They were about idealism. Realism and naturalism is more the forte of the likes of Gustave Corbet.

PannicAtack

what an 'artistic' piece of crap

what an 'artistic' piece of crap

legend26

i wouldn't even wipe my ass with that piece of craplonewolf604

i wouldn't even wipe my ass with that piece of craplonewolf604

Pollock was a pretty cool artist.

PannicAtack

And a nutcase

Really? First off how in the world could any painting be as much as the the freaking Manor, the one that's like 55,000+ sq. feet. Second off for that?

I'd say get a copy for 20 bucks and save 150 million dollarsmohfrontline

I think my 6 year old cousin made something like this last week.Fe_Maiden

LOL give the money to Haiti

uhhh what is it?CoolSkAGuy

I honestly think people could spend money on more better things that that.

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

:lol: :lol: :lol: I would have voted for that for one-liner of the year!

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Pollock was a pretty cool artist.

Jesus_on_fire

And a nutcase

Many great artists were.

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]

I'm gonna splash some paints over my naked body and roll around on a canvas and see if someone buys it.

CrystalFox

I'd rather buy that than Pollocks ugly ass painting.

[QUOTE="CrystalFox"]

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]

I'm gonna splash some paints over my naked body and roll around on a canvas and see if someone buys it.

elblanquito_81

I'd rather buy that than Pollocks ugly ass painting.

Even better. Can you also make me a full plaster body cast of yourself naked?

That way when I go to sleep at night I won't feel lonely.

I think I made something like that doing finger paints in Kindergarden, had more red in mine though.

honestly, Jackson Pollak is my favorite artist. I like it

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]

[QUOTE="CrystalFox"]

I'd rather buy that than Pollocks ugly ass painting.

CrystalFox

Even better. Can you also make me a full plaster body cast of yourself naked?

That way when I go to sleep at night I won't feel lonely.

rich people....weezyfb

Hahahahahaha!!!! So true though.

Honestly, it is rather nice to my eyes, but I'd have trouble dropping more than $50 for that piece in particular. Not quite my tastes. I see the appeal though. I'm just content with viewing pretty things on the internet every once in a while, for free. Appreciate. Continue life.

This is lame and pretentious. I don't know if the guy who made this is dead or not, but if I was him, and I knew this garbage painting of mine was worth that much money, I would be paralyzed with guilt. Then again, this isn't all too surprising, people see what they want to see, whether it's beauty in this crap, or Jesus' face on my toast. If you make an incredibly lame piece of work, than that is what it is. If you make a lame piece of work- and then label it "avant garde", you have made a masterpiece.

To all the people saying this guy broke the wall back in the day, and revolutionized art, no he didn't. He just paved the way for a new kind of crappier "art", one that takes significantly less skill and imagination. I guess I know who to thank now for this kind of stuff, anyone who thinks this is good art has been fooled, thankfully the rest of us can see the joke from a far.

TheGrayEye

I agree, I've heard the musical equivalent of this trash.. it is pathetic, not grounbreaking. (however it fits in well with Buckethead's stlye)

I don't get it, but that's due to my utter lack of artistic appreciation towards anything that requires the use of abstract imaginations...

To the people who like it: How do you understand it? What is the criteria use to judge a piece of art? How do you derive meanings from such work?

I have never spend anything time studying art and don't see myself doing so in the future, but I'm still curious nevertheless

I don't get it, but that's due to my utter lack of artistic appreciation towards anything that requires the use of abstract imaginations...

To the people who like it: How do you understand it? What is the criteria use to judge a piece of art? How do you derive meanings from such work?

I have never spend anything time studying art and don't see myself doing so in the future, but I'm still curious nevertheless

ariz3260

I'm sort of in the same boat. I never really look at art, and I think the Mona Lisa is a really boring painting of a fat woman. (Sistine chapel is really cool though...)

That being said, I don't know why, but I like this painting. It's fun to look at. Not really a meaning behind it that I've noticed. The colors and trails just mesh very nicely. First time I have ever seen it.