"Some people think they can buy into that 'why' by paying a lot of money to own the painting."

And some people pay the money because they believe that it will make a nice little investment for the future.

It has always been thus in the art world.

fourm member

"Rothko thought he could discover something meaningful about being human by reducing artistic expression to the very minimum.

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

Personally I didn't consider the attack as defacing the canvas. I thought the juxtaposition of the diagonally orientated text alongside the parallel blocks and using the same colour as some of those blocks a statement on the conflict we face as human beings whilst finding similarities within those conflicts.

Easy innit!!!

These arty-farty people try to convince normal people (us) (well me anyway) that they can see things in the pictures that are above and beyond our comprehension. As you say the so called artist is laughing all the way to the bank.

The people who pay huge sums of money to buy a canvas that an elephant has perhaps painted, deserve to lose their money of course. But I can't help thinking of all the worthy causes that could do with that money. any money they have left should be confiscated and given to a worthy charity.

The artist is of course nothing more than a con man/woman. In the cases where an animal does the painting, or there is some other outrageous method of putting paint on canvas, there is a con man/woman behind it.

Myself I prefer to look at children's paintings of matchstick men and houses and their mums and dads etc.