[ALEXIS_DH]

so, pollack´s mess of browns and yellow lines, dekooning and others are worth hundred of millions of dollars, but only after they died....
some of it is kinda cool... but from kinda-cool to raphael-genius there is a loooooooooooooooooooong way to go most modern art-enlightened ones seem to perceive as inexistant.

i think art has to have a message, an intelligible message. and skill, a lot of skill most of us have to lack in order to make it genius. while a lot of the interpretations for modern art are ridiculously pompous and almost ludicrous, they seem to mean pretty much anything you want to make from them.... which actually means they mean nothing at all.

while i really like picasso, mondrian and very few others and can find skill and genius in their work (but not all of it neither)... i really stand thinking jesustittyfuvkingchrist-wtf at most modern art....

ridemonkey´s take?
emperor´s clothes anyone?
worthless **** hyped to the max and prices irrationally pumped into stratosphere by the art aristocracy and dealers for straightforward finantial gain?

 

[Pesqueeb]

I believe this argument might be as old as "Art" itself. I think its a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing. I see stuff I like, stuff I love, stuff that makes me think, stuff that makes me think WTF, (or both stuff I love and WTF, like Dali) and then the always classic "my two year old could do that" Jackson Pollack type stuff. Like you say, a lot of it is pompous poofery, (think the Maude character from the Big Lebowski) but I suppose at some point someone looked at the Mona Lisa and thought that Divinci was off his rocker. So who knows?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Dude...if I had come up with the idea of putting a toilet in the f*cking Met, you bet your ass I would want to be paid.

Maybe I'll start an Organic Movement...Pull up a carrot and smear it on canvas. Pull up an onion and smear it on polymer. Grab some Sequoia bark and rub it on a cement block.

I'll make a mint.

It's all a scam for those not in the know!!! ha...

 

[Damo]

I agree. There is still some pretty cool stuff happening however.

http://www.sweet-station.com/blog/

This blog is in my 'daily' folder. Mixed in with the awesome is the mediocre. That's the way it is and always has been.

 

[Capricorn]

the value is based not on the art itself, but rather is a measure of the extent of desire for the piece, rubbish or not. The part I struggle with is, who comes up with the initial price, for it does NOT appear to be based on the material value of the piece, but rather some nebulous rationale for value. Whether it's actually beautiful or not? well, as someone said, that's subjective and in the end, irrelevant. It's quite confusing to be honest

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

This discussion got beat to death for me in Art School. The debate is one of those subjects that never seems to arrive at any kind of tangible solution. Circular if you will. The only real benefit from all those art philosophy and art history courses was learning how to talk about art with other academics.

While I agree that what a lot of fine artists say about their work sounds like total bullsh1t, the truth lies in the viewer. As a person with life experiences, emotions and memories, each viewer brings his/her own experiences to it. Therefore, regardless of the artists intentions it has meaning. And if it provokes thought or a feeling, then certainly the piece is of value.

Think of it in terms of something you might be more familiar with, such as music. Most people don't like every genre, style, or song they listen to but they have their favorites. For example, if you love Hip-Hop but can't stand Country, does that mean that all Country music is bad ? Of course not.

 

[Capricorn]

spot on AngryMetalsmith. The problem is, if everyone's life experiences and perceptions are different, how does the price rocket out beyond ridiculous? I guess it's a case of simple marketing principles: if demand high and supply low, the price creeps. Which then of course explains forgeries