…I just don’t get it. This looks like art done by a crazy person. Why do these people who are filthy rich spend money on such nonsense? It’s so gross.
I mean art is all based on one’s perspective, so I guess it’s hard to judge. But this? Really? My thoughts are that the kind of cash that is dropped on art is utterly ridiculous .
This semester I had to fill my schedule with an elective and I chose Art History II (focused on art in Western civilization from the 14th century until the present.) My mother was an art history major, and I’ve always had a layman’s appreciation for art. Halfway through the course, I declared art history as a minor.
I used to look at a lot of abstract art and think similar things. Believe me, I don’t want to come across as an art snob who sneers when people say “Oh, I could’ve done that!” (especially since I’m still fresh in the world of art.) I used to think Pollock and Warhol were hacks. I still think Warhol was a hack at times but I even grew to like some of his work.
I’m digressing. I do that.
We moved through the course chronologically. It was easy to appreciate the older, more established art. Partly because it’s straightforward and has strong historical context, making it easy to comprehend, and partly because it’s esteem is widely accepted societally.
I call to mind something you’re familiar with – Van Gogh. Take any of his works and look at them. They have subject matter, sure, but are they aesthetically realistic? Do the flowers in his landscapes have crisp, defined edges like real ones would? Do the spires of the city in Starry Night resemble something you’d see in real life? The answer is no. Van Gogh, along with a lot of other Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, sought to portray their works as how they might be perceived by a newborn baby – not in age and stature, but in the absence of any sort of conditioning or influence. This was, of course, impossible, but they strove for it nevertheless, hoping to get as close to the mark as possible. This shift in the end-goal for painters from attempting to achieve aesthetic realism to conveying something more subtle and more potent is what would eventually lead to works like the one above. Many of these artists were trained to paint images in aesthetic realism, to portray something as you might find it in a photograph, and they did it well, but they reached a point where they chose not to.
Take a look at some of Rothko’s work. By this point, artists are feeling comfortable in painting works without any sort of recognizable subject matter. This has been going on for a while, but Rothko is a good example for this conversation. Take a look at Rothko’s “No. 14”, but do take into consideration it doesn’t hold anywhere near the power it should if you view it through a computer screen. In the image, there isn’t anything, spare for two fuzzy squares comprised of two colors. Rothko was extremely interested in harnessing the power of color, and the work is more than just an exercise. The colors are unique, aren’t they? They’re soft, like you could fall in, and this is only furthered by his use of soft, frayed edges. Then take a look at the orange. It’s the prominent square of the two, isn’t it? Pretend for a moment that the blue is instead, and see how the painting changes.
What I’m saying about the Rothko is this: it’s not supposed to connect to anything in the real world, it’s not making a comment on a historical event (like, say, Picasso’s “Guernica”), but it’s trying to cut through right to viewer and evoke something. A feeling. In his writings – and a lot of artists at the time accompanied their abstract works with writings to validate their work – Rothko said that if you didn’t weep when you stood before one of his works, you didn’t get it.
I am not terribly familiar with Basquiat. Was this painting worth a hundred and ten million dollars? Probably not, but that says more about the inflated art world and the ability of an artist’s controversy and profile to influence value. Pick apart that painting and see what you can make of it. Just from glancing at it while I’m writing this, I noticed the angry brushstrokes that are so common in this style of work. It’s crude, but intentionally so. Pay attention to the colors, the intricate details, the way the painting moves. Now that’s not to say this is a Rothko and holds no relation to reality, or that it shares intentions. Like I said, not too familiar with Basquiat, but there is more here than just a bunch of nonsense.
Thank you for sharing. I like learning more about you – I find you quite fascinating not-Charlie.
And yes, my response was more towards the inflated cost of art. Every piece of art that is created is done so from a place within that we may or may not be able to comprehend. But to the artist, it makes sense…and if they are able to capture the attention of others with their work, I suppose that’s all they can hope for.
I see anger and frustration in this piece. Many works tried and retried again until the artist saw themselves in the mess of the canvas that laid before them. Maybe not even just themselves…but everyone. We are all works of art and we try and try again to change or improve different aspects of ourselves. Just under our skin lies the different layers that make us whole. But in my opinion, still not worth that kind of money. When compared with the problems of our world, money like that could be better spent.
More or less. At home my mom has tons of knickknacks that she’s been given over the years and has bought herself. It’s a weekly chore to move everything, dust, replace. I’d rather not have that much junk. Even my library (books) I could almost due without, though on occasion I am needing a specific word, and finding it on an online dictionary, or thesaurus doesn’t come up with it. Therefore, that’s when the Word Menu comes in handy.
Actually I DO get it. Enjoy art in public. Enjoy public concerts. Enjoy the books located in libraries, enjoy movies…BUT at the EXACT SAME TIME with equal enjoyment
— make sure to pepper your own place with artwork that inspires you, that you can enjoy privately. Knickknacks to pick up and rearrange
— make sure to have copies of music to listen to (whether on an electronic device or hard storage [tape, record, cd/dvd])
I’m surprised by how much energy it emanates off my iPad. I’m thinking this could provide a pretty overwhelming impression in real life especially if it’s on a big canvas.
It appears to me that the artist took a piece of something within and placed it there for all to see. There is something more than a visual here and maybe I exaggerate a little, but it might be something like a soul that revolves around the inanimate strictly because the artist tried.
The value itself is another more complex issue that can mean different things to different people. To some, who don’t have the luxury to “have” anything they want; it’s a waste, but to those competing for anything they want, ownership is a symbol of power. An elitism over the other elite. There is only one and it is MINE!
This is a good painting for that type of mindset. I see an almost God-like power that is rather ugly, yet within a midst of bright positivity. Maybe it is the monster within screaming to get out…or maybe, it’s too late.
Just read your response to mamajoy. I saw a Pollock at the Chicago Art Institute. It has a similar expression of energy that hit me and left me wondering, “how do they do that?” Maybe part of it lies within me to want to feel it, but whatever it is, it is not unique to visual artist. Two different people can sing the same song and one version can be kareoke and the other emotionally influential.
If you really want someone’s HONEST opinion about this, just show the painting without the price. People have ‘sticker shock’ over things initially. They will spend most of their paychecks on ‘stuff’ – bigger and bigger TVs, the newest cell phone, the latest gadget. There is no thought on price because they have been taught they need the latest and greatest thing.
Then ask them about something they are really passionate about – wine, food, art, cars, whatever – rugs, knitting, or painting little Civil War era toy soldiers. Most would find a way to pay for their passions.
If an art connoisseur like this, can afford it, and it gives them pleasure, then good for them. Most comments we see and hear are ‘how much?’ or ‘I wouldn’t pay $1 for that’ – that’s because they do not have the passion.
Ironically enough, i’m the opposite.If I can’t find the RPGs free (i.e. through file-sharing) i’m not going to use it. Free is always superior to paid for me.
25 responses to “Basquiat sold for a record-breaking $110 million at Sotheby’s”
…I just don’t get it. This looks like art done by a crazy person. Why do these people who are filthy rich spend money on such nonsense? It’s so gross.
I mean art is all based on one’s perspective, so I guess it’s hard to judge. But this? Really? My thoughts are that the kind of cash that is dropped on art is utterly ridiculous
.
This semester I had to fill my schedule with an elective and I chose Art History II (focused on art in Western civilization from the 14th century until the present.) My mother was an art history major, and I’ve always had a layman’s appreciation for art. Halfway through the course, I declared art history as a minor.
I used to look at a lot of abstract art and think similar things. Believe me, I don’t want to come across as an art snob who sneers when people say “Oh, I could’ve done that!” (especially since I’m still fresh in the world of art.) I used to think Pollock and Warhol were hacks. I still think Warhol was a hack at times but I even grew to like some of his work.
I’m digressing. I do that.
We moved through the course chronologically. It was easy to appreciate the older, more established art. Partly because it’s straightforward and has strong historical context, making it easy to comprehend, and partly because it’s esteem is widely accepted societally.
I call to mind something you’re familiar with – Van Gogh. Take any of his works and look at them. They have subject matter, sure, but are they aesthetically realistic? Do the flowers in his landscapes have crisp, defined edges like real ones would? Do the spires of the city in Starry Night resemble something you’d see in real life? The answer is no. Van Gogh, along with a lot of other Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, sought to portray their works as how they might be perceived by a newborn baby – not in age and stature, but in the absence of any sort of conditioning or influence. This was, of course, impossible, but they strove for it nevertheless, hoping to get as close to the mark as possible. This shift in the end-goal for painters from attempting to achieve aesthetic realism to conveying something more subtle and more potent is what would eventually lead to works like the one above. Many of these artists were trained to paint images in aesthetic realism, to portray something as you might find it in a photograph, and they did it well, but they reached a point where they chose not to.
Take a look at some of Rothko’s work. By this point, artists are feeling comfortable in painting works without any sort of recognizable subject matter. This has been going on for a while, but Rothko is a good example for this conversation. Take a look at Rothko’s “No. 14”, but do take into consideration it doesn’t hold anywhere near the power it should if you view it through a computer screen. In the image, there isn’t anything, spare for two fuzzy squares comprised of two colors. Rothko was extremely interested in harnessing the power of color, and the work is more than just an exercise. The colors are unique, aren’t they? They’re soft, like you could fall in, and this is only furthered by his use of soft, frayed edges. Then take a look at the orange. It’s the prominent square of the two, isn’t it? Pretend for a moment that the blue is instead, and see how the painting changes.
What I’m saying about the Rothko is this: it’s not supposed to connect to anything in the real world, it’s not making a comment on a historical event (like, say, Picasso’s “Guernica”), but it’s trying to cut through right to viewer and evoke something. A feeling. In his writings – and a lot of artists at the time accompanied their abstract works with writings to validate their work – Rothko said that if you didn’t weep when you stood before one of his works, you didn’t get it.
I am not terribly familiar with Basquiat. Was this painting worth a hundred and ten million dollars? Probably not, but that says more about the inflated art world and the ability of an artist’s controversy and profile to influence value. Pick apart that painting and see what you can make of it. Just from glancing at it while I’m writing this, I noticed the angry brushstrokes that are so common in this style of work. It’s crude, but intentionally so. Pay attention to the colors, the intricate details, the way the painting moves. Now that’s not to say this is a Rothko and holds no relation to reality, or that it shares intentions. Like I said, not too familiar with Basquiat, but there is more here than just a bunch of nonsense.
Thank you for sharing. I like learning more about you – I find you quite fascinating not-Charlie.
And yes, my response was more towards the inflated cost of art. Every piece of art that is created is done so from a place within that we may or may not be able to comprehend. But to the artist, it makes sense…and if they are able to capture the attention of others with their work, I suppose that’s all they can hope for.
I see anger and frustration in this piece. Many works tried and retried again until the artist saw themselves in the mess of the canvas that laid before them. Maybe not even just themselves…but everyone. We are all works of art and we try and try again to change or improve different aspects of ourselves. Just under our skin lies the different layers that make us whole. But in my opinion, still not worth that kind of money. When compared with the problems of our world, money like that could be better spent.
That reminds me of De Kooning’s “Woman 1”, which he allegedly re-did nearly 200 times before he was satisfied with it.
http://www.actingoutpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DeKooningWoman1-1950-52.jpg
what if it costs $10? what if someone gave it to you?
would your opinion on the piece change?
my thought is to take price and money out of the equation.
No, I don’t think so. It’s just not something that I find appealing. But I do like your thought about asking opinions about art without a price.
That’s a lot of money. I wouldn’t spend a dime on art. Why? it’s not a need.
So do you adhere to a strictly utilitarian lifestyle?
Strictly, no. But could I live in a (more or less) white box (or almost any plain color), yes
I’m sure that you could, but why would you? How does utilitarianism benefit you?
Less stuff to dust or clean!
So your rationale for utilitarianism is ease of cleanliness?
More or less. At home my mom has tons of knickknacks that she’s been given over the years and has bought herself. It’s a weekly chore to move everything, dust, replace. I’d rather not have that much junk. Even my library (books) I could almost due without, though on occasion I am needing a specific word, and finding it on an online dictionary, or thesaurus doesn’t come up with it. Therefore, that’s when the Word Menu comes in handy.
That just seems so empty to me. There’s so much to be taken from art and literature.
Leave that to museum curators, librarians, and art collectors, of which I am not.
They are there to manage the respective artwork in order for the rest of us to enjoy, not for them alone to enjoy it.
but they are public venues. Not something in one’s home to clean!
I think you’re missing my point. We could continue this, but it would be one of those circular conversations. Thank you and have a nice day.
Actually I DO get it. Enjoy art in public. Enjoy public concerts. Enjoy the books located in libraries, enjoy movies…BUT at the EXACT SAME TIME with equal enjoyment
— make sure to pepper your own place with artwork that inspires you, that you can enjoy privately. Knickknacks to pick up and rearrange
— make sure to have copies of music to listen to (whether on an electronic device or hard storage [tape, record, cd/dvd])
— make sure to have your own books
— have your own library of movies
It’s not my thing but one man’s art is another man’s mystery.
awesome!
The monetary value aside; I like this.
I’m surprised by how much energy it emanates off my iPad. I’m thinking this could provide a pretty overwhelming impression in real life especially if it’s on a big canvas.
It appears to me that the artist took a piece of something within and placed it there for all to see. There is something more than a visual here and maybe I exaggerate a little, but it might be something like a soul that revolves around the inanimate strictly because the artist tried.
The value itself is another more complex issue that can mean different things to different people. To some, who don’t have the luxury to “have” anything they want; it’s a waste, but to those competing for anything they want, ownership is a symbol of power. An elitism over the other elite. There is only one and it is MINE!
This is a good painting for that type of mindset. I see an almost God-like power that is rather ugly, yet within a midst of bright positivity. Maybe it is the monster within screaming to get out…or maybe, it’s too late.
Just read your response to mamajoy. I saw a Pollock at the Chicago Art Institute. It has a similar expression of energy that hit me and left me wondering, “how do they do that?” Maybe part of it lies within me to want to feel it, but whatever it is, it is not unique to visual artist. Two different people can sing the same song and one version can be kareoke and the other emotionally influential.
If you really want someone’s HONEST opinion about this, just show the painting without the price. People have ‘sticker shock’ over things initially. They will spend most of their paychecks on ‘stuff’ – bigger and bigger TVs, the newest cell phone, the latest gadget. There is no thought on price because they have been taught they need the latest and greatest thing.
Then ask them about something they are really passionate about – wine, food, art, cars, whatever – rugs, knitting, or painting little Civil War era toy soldiers. Most would find a way to pay for their passions.
If an art connoisseur like this, can afford it, and it gives them pleasure, then good for them. Most comments we see and hear are ‘how much?’ or ‘I wouldn’t pay $1 for that’ – that’s because they do not have the passion.
sorry for the ramble…..
Ironically enough, i’m the opposite.If I can’t find the RPGs free (i.e. through file-sharing) i’m not going to use it. Free is always superior to paid for me.
but there comes a point where free is costing you time (the search)