I Guess I Don't Get Art

[crokett]

3.5 million pounds for this? Maybe I can make something like that and laugh all the way to the bank. At that price it would only take one suckerrr... person who appreciates art.

[Richard in Smithville]

Gee....with all the road kill I see on my way to work every day....hmmm

[Uncle Cracker]

Like many collectibles, the value is in the artist, not the art. Ugly things, painted and sculpted by famous people, command fortunes, while beautiful things, done by schmendricks nobody ever heard of, languish on flea market tables. The true geniuses are those who figure a way to get themselves on the A-list while they are alive, so that they can profit from the insane value that star-struck fools with unlimited disposable income will place on any crap that ever had anything to do with them.

[kwgeorge]

Guess I don't get out much or keep up too much but I did not know he was Gay!

[blame]

lol i didnt know he was gay either but thats not what shocked me the fact it cost 12 million pounds to make a skull with real human teeth 8000+/- a few diamonds on it and he is trying to get 50 mil out of it some people i swear

blame

[Mrs. Wallnut]

Hey there was a skunk that was hit down the road from us. Wonder if I can run down there and figure out how to sculpt it and get someone to pay me a bunch of money.

Maybe I can make a wooden box for it and title it "Life Stinks Like....."

I knew that he was gay the minute I saw him dance on a video......LOL

[ragswl4]

You would think that someone who has been blessed with a gift (his voice) and has managed to make millions and millions could somehow figure out how to help the less fortunate. But no, lets buy a dead cow and add it to our art collection. Absolutely sick in the head. Guess I should be glad I'm not rich, it seems to make people stupid.

[gsmittle]

A large part of my education/training had to do with defining and characterizing Art. I don't get it either.

g.

[Tequila]

I'll admit it - I'm a Damien Hirst fan. I think "Mother and Child Divided" is a great concept piece.

[scorrpio]

It's a concept, originality of idea and novelty that counts. The idea to illustrate a concept with a sculpture made from a real dead animal is apparently something totally novel and original, hence the fame and appreciation. And leave the skunk where it is. The concept is claimed, and anyone trying to do the same will be seen as a knock-off. Think up something really original, and you just might get rich. It'll probably require a certain degree of insanity to accomplish that, however.
Herein lies the catch. You need to be insane enough to think along a previously untapped vector, you need the skills and means to execute your visions, you can't be really 'way out there' - so others can still make a connection between concept and the image - and finally, you need to be rational and savvy enough to recognize what you have and find a way to present it to the proper public.

In centuries past, an artists worth often lay in his/her ability to imitate reality. The ideas were often unoriginal, taken from biblical or historical sources, and it was the mastery of presenting that counted. Getting the colors right (without the benefit of modern chemical industry), the proportions, the shapes, etc - to make your paintings or sculptures appear lifelike.
A shift occured sometime late in 19th century. Was it the emergence of theories of Darwin, Freud and such, that proved our animal origins and drove artists to seek proof of human ascention in higher and abstract concepts? I mean, even the most crude and base individual would 'get' a work of Rembratdt or Michelangelo. Seeing Titian's 'Danae', he won't be appreciating the subtlety of colors and gracefulness of forms - but he would recognize a nude woman and would be fascinated by the boobs, finding an appeal to his animal core. But what would he see in Picasso's Female Bather with Raised Arms? Hardly anything he could identify. Rather, abstraction by the artist, and interpretation by the connosseur, is an act of mutual self-congratulation on "achieving a higher level". And of course, there is always the 'Emperor's New Clothes' factor. The desire of those with wealth to appear superior not only financially - and thus showing their appreciation for things they often don't 'get' by paying exorbitant sums of money for anything that received recognition of the artistic clique. (However, I think that George Michael is a genuine connosseur)

Not 'getting' someone's really weird concoction doesn't make us primates either. As they say, there is but one step from genius to lunatic, and in modern art, too often the artist has made that step and kept walking.

[germdoc]

This is proof that some people have too d*** much money.

On a somewhat related note, did you see that Lindsay Lohan got arrested again?

I say that wealth is wasted on the wrong people.

[mschrank]

It's a concept, originality of idea and novelty that counts. The idea to illustrate a concept with a sculpture made from a real dead animal is apparently something totally novel and original, hence the fame and appreciation. And leave the skunk where it is. The concept is claimed, and anyone trying to do the same will be seen as a knock-off. Think up something really original, and you just might get rich. It'll probably require a certain degree of insanity to accomplish that, however.
Herein lies the catch. You need to be insane enough to think along a previously untapped vector, you need the skills and means to execute your visions, you can't be really 'way out there' - so others can still make a connection between concept and the image - and finally, you need to be rational and savvy enough to recognize what you have and find a way to present it to the proper public.

In centuries past, an artists worth often lay in his/her ability to imitate reality. The ideas were often unoriginal, taken from biblical or historical sources, and it was the mastery of presenting that counted. Getting the colors right (without the benefit of modern chemical industry), the proportions, the shapes, etc - to make your paintings or sculptures appear lifelike.
A shift occured sometime late in 19th century. Was it the emergence of theories of Darwin, Freud and such, that proved our animal origins and drove artists to seek proof of human ascention in higher and abstract concepts? I mean, even the most crude and base individual would 'get' a work of Rembratdt or Michelangelo. Seeing Titian's 'Danae', he won't be appreciating the subtlety of colors and gracefulness of forms - but he would recognize a nude woman and would be fascinated by the boobs, finding an appeal to his animal core. But what would he see in Picasso's Female Bather with Raised Arms? Hardly anything he could identify. Rather, abstraction by the artist, and interpretation by the connosseur, is an act of mutual self-congratulation on "achieving a higher level". And of course, there is always the 'Emperor's New Clothes' factor. The desire of those with wealth to appear superior not only financially - and thus showing their appreciation for things they often don't 'get' by paying exorbitant sums of money for anything that received recognition of the artistic clique. (However, I think that George Michael is a genuine connosseur)

Not 'getting' someone's really weird concoction doesn't make us primates either. As they say, there is but one step from genius to lunatic, and in modern art, too often the artist has made that step and kept walking.

Well said...but if I saw boobies in the Picasso, does that mean I'm an abstract animal?