sold for millions? One is a paintings of fruits, another looks like my little sister can make it, and the last is a guy. They all cost over $50 million. What-the-F*ck.
I definitely don't get why anyone would pay anything for a Jackson Pollack painting. It just looks like he threw up on a canvas and then covered it in paint.
man i should throw a bunch of paint together and call it art... maybe ill be a millionaire
actually it is funny that you say that because Omar Vizquel when he was on the Giants went to an art show and saw a painting go for 10,000 dollars. he thought he could do that so he now is a painter as well as a baseball player.
I've never really understood the outlandish prices of art. I mean, if it's something you like to look at, who cares who painted it or how much you paid for it? Dunno, just always gotten the vibe that it's this circle jerk for the bourgeoisie to one up one another. Guess my uncultured self just doesn't get it.
This reminds me of I think the Washington Post piece that had world renowned violinist Joshua Bell (a Hoosier, just sayin) set up on a subway platform playing some amazingly complex Vivaldi renditions during the middle of the work rush, looking like a commong street performer. Just a few people even paid him any mind. The point was to see where our priorities lie in the grand scheme of enjoying life, a stop and smell the roses type deal. At least that's the spin they put on it. I think it just shows a shift in what we consider worth stopping for, for better or worse. Best believe if it were Britney Spears or Metallica or something the majority would've stopped.
Art is just like any other dumb hobby, it is valued by its rareness and appreciation by a select few. Most artist are not even successful until death. The one in the middle above looks like a jackson pollack, but dont take my advice I have only taken a intro level art history class, got an A though.
Art is just like any other dumb hobby, it is valued by its rareness and appreciation by a select few. Most artist are not even successful until death. The one in the middle above looks like a jackson pollack, but dont take my advice I have only taken a intro level art history class, got an A though.
yeah the one in the middle is a pollock.
and of course the high prices of these paintings are not because of their breathtaking beauty, but because of a lot of other factors. an important one being the painter's place in art history.
cezanne (who did the one with the fruit) is considered the bridge between impressionism and cubism, and is therefore kind of a big deal. pollock invented action painting, and that's why he's a big deal. van gogh (who did the portrait of the guy) has this crazy lifestory, how he was poor and went crazy and cut his ear off and then died, never selling a painting in his lifetime. people eat that stuff up.
in a sense, you could make a comparison to popular music. imagine if you were someone who knew barely anything about it. then, you listen to a beatles song and someone tells you that they are considered the greatest band of all time. but, you'll say: "how can they be? i know a woman in my church who can sing a lot better than them! i once heard a guitar solo somewhere from a guy who could play the guitar a lot faster and harder than them! there's no way they're the GOAT band!"
for van gogh, the same analogy could be made with a band like the velvet underground or something.
and of course, owning a painting by one of those artists is a way of showing off that you both have money and sophistication.
Because, to those interested in art, each one represents a certain 'genre' and history. Especially the van Gogh one. He's been hugely influential in art history.
If you don't understand the value of van Gogh, I won't even try to point out Francis Bacon's paintings to you.
Who here understand paintings?
