|
One of the things that you have to remember when having this conversation is that the amount a work of art goes to auction is not connected to its subjective aesthetic quality, or the nature of its creation for the most part. So we can't say "500 mill? But it's just a splatter of paint on the canvas! My 8 year old niece could have done that!", because its price is simply a reflection of the desire people have to own it. This can be for a number of unconnected reasons, such as a display of wealth, an investment, or that the work has historical or cultural value independent of the subject matter. You can probably reconcile people paying a lot of money for a limited edition rare NES cartridge for similar reasons - it is a desirable object. But in reality it is a crude circuit board encased in cheap plastic that cost very little to make. Now consider the impact and history of art over even just the past 1000 years (compared to say, the relatively short cultural phenomenon of video games) and you can see why the prices for one-of-a-kind, hand-made art objects are vastly higher, even if the sum total of the cost of the materials that comprise it are less by many orders of magnitude. If you're having problems understanding why many people value Pollock's art, perhaps read up on postwar Abstract Expressionism and try and get an understanding of where it sits in the bigger picture. These paintings have cultural capital. There is, secondary to this, the most obvious answer which is that his canvases, especially viewed in person form a wonderfully intricate and dynamic web of forms and return to the viewer something that cannot ever be extracted from traditional representational art. The irony is that all paintings are an illusion of some kind, and even looking at a Rembrandt close enough can look like a Barnett Newman or a Rothko. I think many people feel that they're being "tricked" somehow because they are not given everything right away.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Yes but why couldn't he just paint a picture of a badass Mecha robot
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkSG9wrFPCQ
o.m. 94 fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
greazeball posted:The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe has a lot to say about the intersection of art and culture and money and art theory. Basically he says the different movements had different critics who championed them and these critics became stars in their own right. Probably part bombastic bullshit and part truth, I only had one semester of art history but it was interesting at any rate. Modi for instance o.m. 94 fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 01:02
|
|