Started By
Message

re: $500M "art" purchase

Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:53 pm to
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

Not only are you two pretentious


I know what cognitive dissonance means and it was used correctly, therefore by definition I wasn't being pretentious.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:54 pm to
quote:

and I'll continue to think that the old paint drop cloth in my storage room is equal to his work.


When you sell that paint drop cloth for 9 figures, you'll be right
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:55 pm to
Also, do you know what pretentious means? Serious question because I'm not sure you do. Please tell me what you think it means.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:57 pm to
quote:

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? 
Better question, if given a week, could you realistically recreate a Pollock painting? What about a DaVinci?
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
85538 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:57 pm to
quote:

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

No I could not except for a few of their famous pieces. But I would instantly see the piece is something I could never do, at least. People have different tastes in all kinds of art, but even though I hate opera and rap, I can acknowledge the skill that goes into them. At the very least, artwork should be difficult for the average untrained person to do for it to be worth appreciating. IMO
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
85538 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 4:59 pm to
quote:

Better question, if given a week, could you realistically recreate a Pollock painting? What about a DaVinci?


I couldn't recreate either. BUT, if given a week I could probably create something that would pass as modern art at an exhibit. In a million years, I could never create anything in the same realm as Michelangelo's sculptures or paintings.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:00 pm to
quote:

Also, do you know what pretentious means? Serious question because I'm not sure you do. Please tell me what you think it means.

Please.

Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:00 pm to
I'm serious, I really don't think you know what it means. Help me out here.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 5:01 pm
Posted by Cdawg
TigerFred's Living Room
Member since Sep 2003
62218 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:01 pm to
Do you prefer to listen to Punk Rock or classical?

What Pollock did at the time was akin to punk. Before then it was put the canvas on an easel and apply solid paint to brush then brush to canvas. Pollock bucked that and laid it on the ground and used a liquid paint and dripped it. He studied art so it wasn't like he was some hack. He was part of the New York School group. Think of Seattle (grunge) in terms of music. That was the American hotbed at the time as was Seattle in 1990. He had enough talent, charisma, etc. to be noticed by Peggy Guggenheim. That was the major notoriety he needed to get promoted by her. as was any rock artist.

That's about as simple as I can explain it.



Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:03 pm to
quote:

I couldn't recreate either. BUT, if given a week I could probably create something that would pass as modern art at an exhibit. In a million years, I could never create anything in the same realm as Michelangelo's sculptures or paintings.
This is my whole point of contention. If many people can do it, what makes it so special? Great artists have talent that very few have. Pollock was not one of them.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 5:04 pm
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:04 pm to
quote:

Great artists have talent that very few have. Pollock was not one of them.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to watch.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:05 pm to
It's very pretentious of you to think that I don't know what a word means because I think Pollock is shite.

How's that?
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
80828 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:05 pm to
quote:


I mean seriously, who the frick thinks this is some great work of art?


I do. They are far more impressive in person.

What I don't get is why he's spending ten percent of his net worth on two paintings. How does he know he didn't overpay? Would anyone give him 500 million plus one dollar for them in a few weeks or months? What of he suddenly found himself in dire straits?
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:07 pm to
quote:

It's very pretentious of you to think that I don't know what a word means because I think Pollock is shite.



It doesn't have anything to do with what you think about Jackson Pollock. The way you're using that word is what makes me think you don't know what it means.

You seem to project a lot btw.

I'll ask you again to please explain to me what you think pretentious means.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:09 pm to
quote:

You really have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to watch.
Okay Mr. Enlightened one, tell me why Pollock's work is so special that it commands $200 mil.

Please explain this painting to me. Please!

Posted by Dr RC
The Money Pit
Member since Aug 2011
61607 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:10 pm to
quote:

Better question, if given a week, could you realistically recreate a Pollock painting?


No. I couldn't.

I haven't studied painting enough to know what he was reacting to or trying to represent. I don't know what all techniques he used for each work. I don't know what kind of paints or canvases he preferred. I don't know how his process worked.

It's not as simple as flinging some paint onto the canvass and calling it a day.

quote:

What about a DaVinci?


Again no.

But then again could he have done some of the photo realistic drawings people do now? We have no idea if he had that kind of talent. However, that doesn't mean his art is shite when compared to that style of art.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 5:14 pm
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:11 pm to
I'd be happy to but first we need to deal with your understanding and mastery of the English language. Please address my question about your use of the word pretentious and we'll go from there.
Posted by Cdawg
TigerFred's Living Room
Member since Sep 2003
62218 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:12 pm to
quote:

Please explain this painting to me. Please!

I did.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
80828 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:15 pm to
I got 10/10. It's fairly obvious.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33618 posts
Posted on 2/19/16 at 5:19 pm to
Okay, a pretentious person is one who tries to impress others by appearing to be of great intellect, highly cultured or enlightened.

You exhibit this trait when you suggest that other people "just don't get abstract art", like you are more enlightened than others. When in reality, you don't get abstract either, because most of it means nothing. You're just too disingenuous to admit it.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 5:22 pm
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 9Next pagelast page

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

FacebookXInstagram