- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: $500M "art" purchase
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:07 pm to Zappas Stache
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:07 pm to Zappas Stache
Okay, let's put it to a vote.
I'll start a thread about Pollock's art and see what people think.
Please feel free to post your pretentious opinions defending his work so everyone on the OT can laugh at you as I am.
I'll start a thread about Pollock's art and see what people think.
Please feel free to post your pretentious opinions defending his work so everyone on the OT can laugh at you as I am.
2
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:11 pm to bhtigerfan
quintuple downing on that pretentiousness ehh?
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:16 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Okay, let's put it to a vote.
I'll start a thread about Pollock's art and see what people think.
On this board? Ha! I was at a Pollock exhibit a couple months ago and it was packed. So plenty of people do like Pollock and are willing to pay money to see his stuff.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:18 pm to bayoudude
quote:
Dude blew 10% of his net worth on those paintings...
He will sell it for 700 mil in a few years. Pretty smart guy.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:20 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:No he won't. He paid $200 mil for it. Paid $300 for the other one (not a Pollock).
He will sell it for 700 mil in a few years. Pretty smart guy.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:21 pm to Zappas Stache
I want to set up a show at a place like the art institute and just fill it up with paintings my buddies and I do while we're drunk, just slopping paint around, and attach it to some abstract artists, and see if any of those snobby assholes even tell the difference. I'm guessing they wouldn't.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:22 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Do you really think people pay that ridiculous amount of money for a Pollock painting because it's a beautiful piece of art?
Absolutely
quote:
No. It's an investment for pretentious wealthy people to say, "I own a Pollock."
That happens too
quote:
I think the "Dogs Playing Poker" is a better piece of art than any Pollock.
That's fine. The anti-abstract crowd is the only side telling people what to like and what is or isn't "real art", then yall have to audacity to call someone else pretentious
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:24 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
No he won't. He paid $200 mil for it. Paid $300 for the other one (not a Pollock).
Then he will sell the 2 paintings for 700 mil. To simplify it for you, he will sell the Pollock for 300 and the De Konning for 400. My point is he will make money on his investment.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:24 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:Oh, so you think this board is full of idiots, yet you have almost 14,000 posts on TD?
On this board? Ha!
quote:Wow, I'm shocked that pretentious assholes like to hang out with other pretentious assholes.
a! I was at a Pollock exhibit a couple months ago and it was packed. So plenty of people do like Pollock and are willing to pay money to see his stuff.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:26 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:I'm sure that's why he bought it. Not because he thinks it's some beautiful piece.
My point is he will make money on his investment.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:27 pm to bhtigerfan
You calling other people pretentious assholes while being one yourself is such a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance it's almost a work of art itself.
I may print out this thread and hang it up on my wall, in a few decades it will probably be worth a lot of money.
I may print out this thread and hang it up on my wall, in a few decades it will probably be worth a lot of money.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:29 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Not because he thinks it's some beautiful piece.
So, to clarify, because you can't imagine that someone might find that painting beautiful, that means it's impossible? You're literally saying your standard of beauty is the only legitimate one.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:30 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
I want to set up a show at a place like the art institute and just fill it up with paintings my buddies and I do while we're drunk, just slopping paint around, and attach it to some abstract artists, and see if any of those snobby assholes even tell the difference. I'm guessing they wouldn't.
Of course they wouldn't. It's random splatters. Put a Jackson Pollack label on it and people will drool over it. No one would say, "hmm these splatters and streaks and drippings look different than his ordinary work"
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:34 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
cognitive dissonance
You and your big words are so fricking pretentious.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:41 pm to Zappas Stache
I know, right?
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:44 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Of course not. I'm saying that people who pretend that Pollock's work means anything more than random splatters of paint on a canvas are fooling no one, except their like minded fools.
You're literally saying your standard of beauty is the only legitimate one.
Listen, you can like Pollock's work all you want, just don't look down your snobby nose at me because I think it's shite.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:46 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Listen, you can like Pollock's work all you want, just don't look down your snobby nose at me because I think it's shite.
But it's okay for you to look down your snobby nose at me for thinking it's great? frick you, hypocrite.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:47 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:You're proving my point about you two. Not only are you two pretentious, but you're narcissistic and pompous also.
You and your big words are so fricking pretentious.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:47 pm to biglego
quote:
Of course they wouldn't. It's random splatters. Put a Jackson Pollack label on it and people will drool over it. No one would say, "hmm these splatters and streaks and drippings look different than his ordinary work"
Serious question, can Joe Public instantly tell the difference between a Michelangelo or a Donatello sculpture compared to a lesser known work from the Renaissance period?
Hell, forget a work that that came from an artist whose name has been lost in time, could you even tell which is which between a Donatello or Michelangelo unless you were versed on what to look for?
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:52 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Okay, let's agree to disagree here.
But it's okay for you to look down your snobby nose at me for thinking it's great? frick you, hypocrite.
You can think Pollock was some great artist, and I'll continue to think that the old paint drop cloth in my storage room is equal to his work.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News