We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Can anyone explain how ...


Nontek
Resolved

Likes # 0

a Painting of a rough black frame on a plain colored background can be worth £Millions?

I am sure most of us could create a similar 'picture'!

Like this post
wee eddie

Likes # 0

csqwared: "If that's the case why didn't he produce a blank canvas?"

Someone else, quite famous, has already done that!

Firstly - You need talent, but not necessarily skill.

Secondly - A Patron, who is admired by his peers, for his good taste, and is prepared to pay big bucks for your works.

Thirdly - a devious mind, able to find ideas that have not already been flogged to death, or, in Damion Hurst's case, are so expensive to make, that no one in their right mind would attempt to create them!

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

It's called market forces.

Supply and demand, If you want this thing I've got, it will cost you!

Like this post
Nontek

Likes # 0

forum member

I was not aware of those facts - thanks for putting me right!

Hmm, I don't feel so clever now! May he R.I.P.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

I think that it's a serious mistake to dismiss all unconventional art as the work of 'conmen'. If that was really the case we would be overwhelmed with millions of strange pictures and sculptures that purported to be 'art', but were really just produced to trick people.

That isn't the case, so perhaps we should think a little more deeply before leaping into the attack. When the French impressionists were first exhibited people were shocked and outraged, and some of what are now the world's most famous and valuable paintings were condemned as worthless daubs - the products of conmen in fact.

Mark Rothko studied English, French, European history, elementary mathematics, physics, biology, economics, the history of philosophy, and general psychology at Yale university in the 1920s, and originally wanted to be an engineer or a lawyer.

He started painting his rectangles and colour blocks in the early 1950s, and his famous Seagram murals were so-called because he was commissioned to paint them for the restaurant in the new building erected on park Avenue by the Seagram whisky company.

You either like this kind of art or you don't, and that's exactly what art is all about, but disliking it isn't really a good reason for dismissing it as 'a blob'.

The fact that some people may pay huge sums for paintings like it is just that - a fact, and presumably it's their money to spend as they choose. Suggesting it (the money) should be taken away from them because you don't like the art they choose to buy is just silly.

Like this post
SimpleSimon1

Likes # 0

FE

All very true but I am reminded of a [I think] Candid Camera show about 40 years ago when they gathered a random group of youngsters off the street and let them loose in a junk yard with some emulsion paint, under instructions to use whatever they like (e.g. old car tyres dipped in paint and dropped on canvas) to produce pieces of modern art, in 20 mins or less. They then professionally framed them, hired a private art gallery in Chelsea and sent out invitations to the high and mighty of the modern art world to attend the first UK showing of a [made up] internationally-renown Swiss modern artist. At the showing, they had an suitably strange looking actor playing the part of the artist and the placed was mic'd and camera'd to the hilt.

It then went off exactly as you would expect with the invitees fawning on the actor, saying to each other how much they'd always admired his works and spouting very pretentious analyses of the "passion and modernisitic realism" of the works. Several of them also bought some of works at silly prices.

When the reveal occurred and they were shown how the real artists had actually produced the paintings in the junkyard, they were (to put it mildly) not happy. Strangely enough, the people who had bought the paintings a few minutes before didn't want to go ahead with the purchases when they realised that they had been made by some street plebs!

Always thought that was a useful insight into the modern art world and also [possibly] fairly depressing for a real artist viz. no matter how knowledgeable or passionate you are, your potential audience is more focussed on the 'wrappings' rather than your art.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

SimpleSimon1

As has already been pointed out, when you buy modern art you are buying more than the assembled materials or the painting - you're buying into the thinking that went into its creation. A photographically realistic painting of a landscape can be admired for its artist's technical ability, and for the beauty of the view, but that's it - there's no underlying philosophical thinking involved.

Modern art is different, and of course it's not difficult to find people who will admire and buy something when they have been deliberately deceived with regard to its provenance. It's why the art world is full of pitfalls for the unwary, but it's not a justification for dismissing modern art as a giant con trick - which you haven't, I hasten to add.

Beauty is in the eye, and to a large degree also in the mind - of the beholder. If you like something, and you can afford it, where's the harm?

Like this post
SimpleSimon1

Likes # 0

FE

"Beauty is in the eye, and to a large degree also in the mind - of the beholder. If you like something, and you can afford it, where's the harm?"

Absolutely agree, I just think it's a pity that some of an audience can be so shallow as to be willing to pay for an item when they think it is by someone famous but then dump it when it turns out to be by someone not famous. Must be very discouraging for an artist who is just starting out.

Like this post
SimpleSimon1

Likes # 0

fourm member

Some, of course, don't want people to buy their work because their whole motivation is showing a view of the world that nobody else sees. As soon as somebody else 'gets it' their reason for being an artist disappears.

Ugh, my head is starting to hurt :-)

I'm just a simple engineer and this is getting far too confusing for me. All I can do is confess that when I saw the original painting and its additional 'mark-up', my first thought was "what difference does it make"? OK, I know that probably makes me a Philistine but honestly, it wasn't exactly as obvious as if someone had painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa, was it?

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"They are driven to do it and won't stop just because people don't buy it."

My wife paints constantly, just about every day if she is at home, and sometimes lectures.

She send up to half a dozen for exhibition twice a year.

She has sold a couple, and completed one commission.

Other than that her paintings, of which there are very, very, many are for (and my) pleasure.

Like this post
interzone55

Likes # 0

Nontek

more money than sense! Though that is just my opinion.

That may be your opinion, but in many cases you'd be wrong as paintings in this league almost never decrease in value, it's why pensions tend to invest in art.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Black Friday 2014 tech deals: Get bargains on smartphones, tablets, laptops and more

IDG UK Sites

What the Internet of Things will look like in 2015: homes will get smarter, people might get fitter

IDG UK Sites

See how Trunk's animated ad helped Ade Edmondson plug The Car Buying Service

IDG UK Sites

Yosemite tips: Complete Guide to OS X Yosemite