Started By
Message

re: The lucrative business of crappy art

Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:34 pm to
Posted by Zappas Stache
Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Member since Apr 2009
38682 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:34 pm to
quote:

Sounds eerily similar to Nick Saban's answer when asked how the field goal return coverage broke down.


Nick Saban is big in the Dadaist world.
Posted by PortlyDawg
GA
Member since Aug 2011
2400 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:35 pm to
quote:

Most artist do not live long enough to reap the rewards of these paydays.


You're wrong. Newman and Pollock were both wealthy in their own time. As are many current practitioners. There's a lot of money to be made in this business.
Posted by Caplewood
Atlanta
Member since Jun 2010
39156 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:38 pm to
Art is supposed to be oil paintings of horses
Posted by PortlyDawg
GA
Member since Aug 2011
2400 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:39 pm to
quote:

The lucrative business of crappy art


Why you hatin'? You apparently have an interest. Read/learn about the subject. It's fascinating and pre-dates all written and mathematical language by eons. This works serves a very specific purpose in relation to human development and the evolution of consciousness.
I would be more pissed about rich people buying stupid cars and such, which depreciate in value.
Posted by LSUTigersVCURams
Member since Jul 2014
21940 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:40 pm to
quote:

The true art is convincing people they should pay for it



Very, very true. Many artists will admit that, too.
Posted by PortlyDawg
GA
Member since Aug 2011
2400 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:43 pm to
quote:

Many artists will admit that, too.


Name two.
Posted by LSUTigersVCURams
Member since Jul 2014
21940 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:50 pm to
I'm talking small time art dudes. The big deal Jackson Pollocks probably would never admit it. You're right about that. Too much cash on the line. It's all about the illusion. Art is all about producing things you can convince other people have value. Be it artistic value or otherwise. The greatest artists have always been able to convince the right people their art has value - particularly, monetary value.

ETA: I like art, by the way. I just like to be honest about it rather than think it happens by some kind of magic.
This post was edited on 8/19/14 at 9:55 pm
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:52 pm to
IT'S UPSIDE DOWN!!

Posted by Isabelle
Member since Jul 2012
2726 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:54 pm to
It's all in who the artist knows that supports the art and self-serving for the supporter.
Posted by Isabelle
Member since Jul 2012
2726 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:56 pm to
Me too. How boring it must be to "create" these. Waste of time and $.
Posted by PortlyDawg
GA
Member since Aug 2011
2400 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:58 pm to
quote:

ETA: I like art, by the way. I just like to be honest about it rather than think it happens by some kind of magic.


I can respect that. However, like most everything else - the market determines value - not the maker. Quality it evident/inherent. Whether you're talking about a watch, a drawing or a piece of conceptual art.
Posted by John McClane
Member since Apr 2010
36690 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:59 pm to
I like his take on the modern feminist ethos.
Posted by PortlyDawg
GA
Member since Aug 2011
2400 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:00 pm to
quote:

Me too. How boring it must be to "create" these.


Christ, read about it rather than presume. Jackson Pollock was an alcoholic womanizer who happened to be a brilliant, but strategic artist.
Posted by RollTheRock
Member since Feb 2014
478 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:02 pm to
Art is a great way to legally funnel drug money. It's a vehicle used to pay for illegal activities.
This post was edited on 8/19/14 at 10:03 pm
Posted by Methuselah
On da Riva
Member since Jan 2005
23350 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:03 pm to
For me, art peaked with the Impressionists. It went beyond the older art which, while often brilliant was more designed to give a photographic like representation (I think maybe the advent of photography had something to do with art branching out from that). And when done right it added an emotional element that you could feel while viewing it.

Once art hit the Abstract stuff and beyond it just isn't for me. I never found it appealing at all.

Here's a kind of freaky gif of some pretty good Impressionist stuff:

Posted by SabiDojo
Open to any suggestions.
Member since Nov 2010
83929 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:08 pm to
quote:

I like his take on the modern feminist ethos.


Posted by Zappas Stache
Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Member since Apr 2009
38682 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:18 pm to
quote:

The greatest artists have always been able to convince the right people their art has value - particularly, monetary value.


Not true. Van Gogh never sold a thing in his lifetime. Monet didn't sell much....same with Greco, Vermeer, Gaugin, Toulouse-Latrec and Manet. They all died poor and unknown.
Posted by LSUTigersVCURams
Member since Jul 2014
21940 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:47 pm to
quote:

Not true. Van Gogh never sold a thing in his lifetime. Monet didn't sell much....same with Greco, Vermeer, Gaugin, Toulouse-Latrec and Manet. They all died poor and unknown.



They may not have been rich and famous in their lifetimes, but I bet (not knowing the life story of many of these) that they were able to eat, pay rent, and make a few dollars by painting or teaching art. How did they do that? By convincing others their art was good. Is a piece of art's merit (or lack thereof) objective or subjective? These guys made good art that people liked. They wouldn't have made it if they didn't. I'm not saying artists are charlatans or salesmen. I'm saying they have to make art people like.
Posted by biglego
Ask your mom where I been
Member since Nov 2007
76282 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 10:51 pm to
Modern art is so much more interesting than old art. Imagine the Sistine Chapel ceiling painted today.
Posted by Hester Carries
Member since Sep 2012
22421 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 11:16 pm to
quote:

Modern art is so much more interesting than old art. Imagine the Sistine Chapel ceiling painted today.



Well seeing how a textured ceiling is a mono-colored jackson pollock, id say im looking at that right now.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram