$150,000,000 for this ...

I like it. Of course I don't count the cost factor into my enjoyment.

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.

coolbeans90

Well I do like paintings and decorate my house with plenty of em... its better than staring at walls :lol:. But seriously though they do make me feel better, and that's pretty much it for me when it comes to art appreciation

Well, i still cant find the blowup to the pic so that everyone can get a better look.

Sure, art is different to everyone as with morals and such. However the ridiculous aspect of the painting, is just that it was bought for $150 million.Obviously the character who bought it has made more money than anyone can spend in a lifetime and doesn't know what to do with it. I mean lets be honest, that money couldve served betwer in the relief effort of Haiti, orthe purchasewouldn't examplify the problem with the world today. that people are consuming and continue to consume the most idiotic and unimportant items of the world adding more turbulence to this economic downturn of the world and mainly the US.

So yea, the $ definitely couldve been much more useful elsewhere, but then again since it obviously isn't my monetary issue, Idont have to worry about flushing all that money down the toilet just so that a few ppl can think that Ihave this super special eye & appreciation for art, that I'd burn $150 million.

lol

_R34LiTY_

And I've never liked this argument either. Who's to say that the person who bought this painting hasn't spent well over $150 million dollars in humanitarian efforts? Just because someone lives rich doesn't mean they're not generous.

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

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

I think you're confusing art with craft.

I bet it burns well.

and to think I have seen topics in OT that were about posting pictures that you really love that have more artistic vvalue than that.

here is a decent one for example

or heck another one that might appeal more to OT's taste

and to think I have seen topics in OT that were about posting pictures that you really love that have more artistic vvalue than that.

Serraph105

How do you define "artistic value"?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

and to think I have seen topics in OT that were about posting pictures that you really love that have more artistic vvalue than that.

How do you define "artistic value"?

I guess when money is not an issue, you'll buy things like that. I do think putting a price on things is the crazy part.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

and to think I have seen topics in OT that were about posting pictures that you really love that have more artistic vvalue than that.

Serraph105

How do you define "artistic value"?

Seems like a copout to me.

YOU were the one who said that the Jackson Pollack had "less artistic value" than what you posted as examples to the contrary.

Hey dude, YOU posted examples of good "artistic value", and YOU said that the Jackson Pollack painting had no "artistic value".

I'm just asking what you mean. You're talking about artistic value, and all I did was ask you how you define artistic value. If you want my opinion on the work, then ask. But you DIDN'T ask. So I asked you what you define as artistic value, since YOU were the one who brought that up in the first place.

[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.

I think he means "talent"

if youre an accomplished artist, and you paint something like Pollock did, then thats fine. You have already proven yourself to the art world prior, and maybe youre redifining or creating a genre of art.

but if youre some guy that wakes up one day and starts dripping paint, no, I dont think youre worth a damn. For all I know Pollock is laughing his ass off in his grave, thinking this buyer is the biggest sucker in the world.

I think he means "talent"

if youre an accomplished artist, and you paint something like Pollock did, then thats fine. You have already proven yourself to the art world prior, and maybe youre redifining or creating a genre of art.

but if youre some guy that wakes up one day and starts dripping paint, no, I dont think youre worth a damn. For all I know Pollock is laughing his ass off in his grave, thinking this buyer is the biggest sucker in the world.

mrbojangles25

Again, this seems like the difference between art and craft.

Someone might be able to paint a pretty image of a stream rolling through a flowery meadow, and simultaneously not have a single idea in his/her head.

I've seen a lot of technically okay and "pretty" drawings and paintings that I consider to be nothing more than fluff.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I think he means "talent"

if youre an accomplished artist, and you paint something like Pollock did, then thats fine. You have already proven yourself to the art world prior, and maybe youre redifining or creating a genre of art.

but if youre some guy that wakes up one day and starts dripping paint, no, I dont think youre worth a damn. For all I know Pollock is laughing his ass off in his grave, thinking this buyer is the biggest sucker in the world.

MrGeezer

Again, this seems like the difference between art and craft.

Someone might be able to paint a pretty image of a stream rolling through a flowery meadow, and simultaneously not have a single idea in his/her head.

I've seen a lot of technically okay and "pretty" drawings and paintings that I consider to be nothing more than fluff.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I think he means "talent"

if youre an accomplished artist, and you paint something like Pollock did, then thats fine. You have already proven yourself to the art world prior, and maybe youre redifining or creating a genre of art.

but if youre some guy that wakes up one day and starts dripping paint, no, I dont think youre worth a damn. For all I know Pollock is laughing his ass off in his grave, thinking this buyer is the biggest sucker in the world.

Sajedene

Again, this seems like the difference between art and craft.

Someone might be able to paint a pretty image of a stream rolling through a flowery meadow, and simultaneously not have a single idea in his/her head.

I've seen a lot of technically okay and "pretty" drawings and paintings that I consider to be nothing more than fluff.

ShoO! Go away!

and people say I wasted my money on Street fighter 4 face plates for my 360 and they were only $25.

and people say I wasted my money on Street fighter 4 face plates for my 360 and they were only $25.

Grandotaku

Faceplates are really that much? Those things should be 5 bucks a pop.

[QUOTE="Grandotaku"]

and people say I wasted my money on Street fighter 4 face plates for my 360 and they were only $25.

Nifty_Shark

Faceplates are really that much? Those things should be 5 bucks a pop.

[QUOTE="Nifty_Shark"]

[QUOTE="Grandotaku"]

and people say I wasted my money on Street fighter 4 face plates for my 360 and they were only $25.

Sajedene

Faceplates are really that much? Those things should be 5 bucks a pop.

Oh well my 360 looks awesome now, and you have to admit it's better value then that painting.

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Nifty_Shark"]

Faceplates are really that much? Those things should be 5 bucks a pop.

Grandotaku

Oh well my 360 looks awesome now, and you have to admit it's better value then that painting.

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"]i wouldn't even wipe my ass with that piece of crapMcJugga

It has a purpose?

[QUOTE="Salvy41"]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.

Inconsistancy

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

So that's it? That's your argument? You post a stupid macro? So basically, this is your argument: "You're wrong". Hmm yes this is sure to convince a lot of people. Why don't you define art for us all oh wise one?

Salvy41

And I don't see the fractals in his 'art' I see incoherent squiggly lines.. Unlike the picture of that fractal (which happens to be pretty cool)

This kinda crap is just like the new modern trash 'music' that you may or may not have heard, where it's just incoherent sounds.. many prententious idiots defend it as music, and hold it up higher than even the most lowely forms of rock (like craptallica) when it's just utter bs. A good example of this 'music' is ~1:57-2:08 in Buckethead's Bloody Rainbow Spiraling Sherbert Scoop.. if you imagine it w/o the actual music in the background.. it's not much more than noise, and there's no way a normal non-braindead human could want to listen to it as a whole song alone, but some do... And I'm sorry, just like there is a bad question (regardless of what your mom said) there is bad art, and bad music. =)

[QUOTE="Salvy41"]So that's it? That's your argument? You post a stupid macro? So basically, this is your argument: "You're wrong". Hmm yes this is sure to convince a lot of people. Why don't you define art for us all oh wise one?

Inconsistancy

And I don't see the fractals in his 'art' I see incoherent squiggly lines.. Unlike the picture of that fractal (which happens to be pretty cool)

This kinda crap is just like the new modern trash 'music' that you may or may not have heard, where it's just incoherent sounds.. many prententious idiots defend it as music, and hold it up higher than even the most lowely forms of rock (like craptallica) when it's just utter bs. A good example of this 'music' is ~1:57-2:08 in Buckethead's Bloody Rainbow Spiraling Sherbert Scoop.. if you imagine it w/o the actual music in the background.. it's not much more than noise, and there's no way a normal non-braindead human could want to listen to it as a whole song alone, but some do... And I'm sorry, just like there is a bad question (regardless of what your mom said) there is bad art, and bad music. =)

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde...

... I'm dumb... ? Fractal: A rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole. Did you even read what I wrote? A fractal is not ONE specific shape! Like I said, a coastline displays a fractal pattern. There's a strong irony in you calling me dumb when you completely fail to grasp the meaning of 'fractal', instead deciding to use one image you found on Google images to base your entire argument off. Pollock's work has been mathematically analysed and fractals were found. Human beings have been psychologically tested by being shown images which contained fractals and others which didn't. There was a clear majority indicating a preference for images which contained fractals within the 1.3-1.5 range of fractal dimensions. Pollock managed to create some paintings which fit within this fractal range. And, many people like Pollock's art. You so easily and offhandedly label Pollock's work trash, but have you even seen one of his works in the flesh? And you still haven't defined art.. What makes Pollock's 'end result' any less valuable than another artist's? Salvy41

His end result is incoherent lines, that look to be of that quality that a 5 year old could produce... regardless of how tedious it was to make it.. I don't see the dificulty... and if I had a canvas and some (oil i guess?) oil paint.. I'd start splattering it all over the place to make one of your beloved modern 100% incoherent art things. Hell, I'd make another account and post in Pollock's defense it as being one of his.. and have you and maybe even others telling everyone how 'amazing' it all is(may even contained fractals within the 1.3-1.5 range of fractal dimensions)... Then I'd reveal it to be some bs I made and you'd say.. well it's worthless... If the end result can't stand alone and have value.. wtf is the point? "It's beautiful art" No, it's just trash.... hell, when I was 3ish?, if my mom and dad knew that my drawing incoherent lines all over the drywall could have been worth 150m, I don't think they would have stopped me.

[QUOTE="Salvy41"]... I'm dumb... ? Fractal: A rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole. Did you even read what I wrote? A fractal is not ONE specific shape! Like I said, a coastline displays a fractal pattern. There's a strong irony in you calling me dumb when you completely fail to grasp the meaning of 'fractal', instead deciding to use one image you found on Google images to base your entire argument off. Pollock's work has been mathematically analysed and fractals were found. Human beings have been psychologically tested by being shown images which contained fractals and others which didn't. There was a clear majority indicating a preference for images which contained fractals within the 1.3-1.5 range of fractal dimensions. Pollock managed to create some paintings which fit within this fractal range. And, many people like Pollock's art. You so easily and offhandedly label Pollock's work trash, but have you even seen one of his works in the flesh? And you still haven't defined art.. What makes Pollock's 'end result' any less valuable than another artist's? Inconsistancy

His end result is incoherent lines, that look to be of that quality that a 5 year old could produce... regardless of how tedious it was to make it.. I don't see the dificulty... and if I had a canvas and some (oil i guess?) oil paint.. I'd start splattering it all over the place to make one of your beloved modern 100% incoherent art things. Hell, I'd make another account and post in Pollock's defense it as being one of his.. and have you and maybe even others telling everyone how 'amazing' it all is(may even contained fractals within the 1.3-1.5 range of fractal dimensions)... Then I'd reveal it to be some bs I made and you'd say.. well it's worthless... If the end result can't stand alone and have value.. wtf is the point? "It's beautiful art" No, it's just trash.... hell, when I was 3ish?, if my mom and dad knew that my drawing incoherent lines all over the drywall could have been worth 150m, I don't think they would have stopped me.

I just had to repost some of my previous posts...

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

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...

Aside from what Pollock did for mankind by making people look at art subjectively, without the previously conceived concepts, etc., etc, fast forward a bit, then we have Pop Art and 'blaze' (read with a french accent : blah zeh) Warhol to thank for recognising the marketing aspect of art etc, etc, ...

All these were radical ideas of their respective times, and aside from being eternally linked to their place in history and human thought, once decoded, they seem to be also stripped of their mystery.

Art must be mysterious in order to live, and to live it must. If you rid the piece of it's enigma, no one would be re-reading books (Dostoyevski, Nabokov, Wilde, ...) One reading would suffice. True art is timeless, and always reveals new depths upon exploration.

Mr. Pollock had his place. Now his picture has hers. On a wall of some rich, rich person, with a deep pocket, somebody else's opinion, and a really bad taste.

It's about the shapes that you can make out of the different colored lines... I saw a butterfly across the whole painting in yellow. Pretty sweet piece.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Well, i still cant find the blowup to the pic so that everyone can get a better look.

Sure, art is different to everyone as with morals and such. However the ridiculous aspect of the painting, is just that it was bought for $150 million.Obviously the character who bought it has made more money than anyone can spend in a lifetime and doesn't know what to do with it. I mean lets be honest, that money couldve served betwer in the relief effort of Haiti, orthe purchasewouldn't examplify the problem with the world today. that people are consuming and continue to consume the most idiotic and unimportant items of the world adding more turbulence to this economic downturn of the world and mainly the US.

So yea, the $ definitely couldve been much more useful elsewhere, but then again since it obviously isn't my monetary issue, Idont have to worry about flushing all that money down the toilet just so that a few ppl can think that Ihave this super special eye & appreciation for art, that I'd burn $150 million.

lol

MrGeezer

And I've never liked this argument either. Who's to say that the person who bought this painting hasn't spent well over $150 million dollars in humanitarian efforts? Just because someone lives rich doesn't mean they're not generous.

I dont care what you like or dont like. It's just my opinion.

Sure, being rich doesn't meant they're not generous, just irrational IMO

I dont care what you like or dont like. It's just my opinion.

Sure, being rich doesn't meant they're not generous, just irrational IMO

_R34LiTY_

And to someone with nothing, most of the people here look rich by comparison.

Don't tell me that you've never wasted money on anything stupid.