Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[hadespussercats]

As I just mentioned on RatSkep. If you recognise this and how it works you can do a Rothko. You can make your kitchen or bathroom look like a Rothko.

Can you come make my kitchen and bathroom look like Rothkos? That's be awesome.

[hadespussercats]

Jayzis! I've a heap of these on my fridge.

I love this painting. If I had the kind of money to buy top-shelf art, I'd want to own it.

Since y'all are talking about this aspect: I have seen it in person. It's


I love this painting.

[Rum]

Jayzis! I've a heap of these on my fridge.

I love this painting. If I had the kind of money to buy top-shelf art, I'd want to own it.

Since y'all are talking about this aspect: I have seen it in person. It's


I love this painting.

Me too. The price and the bollocks critics (and some people here) talk about it ignores the pleasure it gives to many.

[Animavore]

That second one just looks like a faded, unkempt wall on a beach public toilets, the middle stripe like a line of rust where an old pipe, stained by run-off from a corrigated roof had been pulled away.

You obviously haven's seen it in real life. If you had, you would have found yourself overpowered by the sense of floating colours brought about by the layering, which would in turn have engendered a visceral experience in you akin to tripping, where time accelerates or slows down and you feel the need to waffle on about the meaning of it all... no, not the meaning exactly... the feeling... or perhaps that's not quite the right word either... it's all so transcendental... or is it subliminal... or something. Yes, that's exactly it! Something. Can we name that something in more concrete, down to earth terms? I think so. How about 86.9 million bucks? We can get our lawyers to draw up the relevant documents that will make our experience officially consummated. Deal?

I'd probably get transported to the beach, feeling the sun on my back, remembering the good times - when suddenly I'm snapped out of it by two burly hands yanking me away from the painting and dragging me to a security room and demanding to know why I'm urinating on the painting.*


*We never actually went into the toilets to piss. They were horrible

[orpheus]

What meant was "until you see it in real life, your opinion of the real-life experience is worthless." That seems self-evident to me.

Well. Yes. Definitely. I don't know how anyone could argue with that.

In the context of the thread's tenor, though, your revised comment would seem to be a somewhat irrelevant aside.

Could be. It is hard for me to shift between two similar threads. It may have been more appropriate to the other one.

[orpheus]

Orpheus, I feel guilty for asking now.

I first read what you wrote, and then clicked on the pictures afterwards.
When I read what you wrote, I thought maybe I'm missing something here. ( although I hardly understood any of it ).
But when I clicked the pictures, to see what inspired those words, I realised that you must be completely mad.
However, mad in a nice way, I'm sure, and it obviously doesn't stop you from functioning properly.

If you love it, I can't knock it.

Well, thank you for that!

But you know, it's not surprising that you couldn't relate my words to the reproductions. That's the whole point.

[orpheus]

That second one just looks like a faded, unkempt wall on a beach public toilets, the middle stripe like a line of rust where an old pipe, stained by run-off from a corrigated roof had been pulled away.

You obviously haven's seen it in real life. If you had, you would have found yourself overpowered by the sense of floating colours brought about by the layering, which would in turn have engendered a visceral experience in you akin to tripping, where time accelerates or slows down and you feel the need to waffle on about the meaning of it all... no, not the meaning exactly... the feeling... or perhaps that's not quite the right word either... it's all so transcendental... or is it subliminal... or something. Yes, that's exactly it! Something. Can we name that something in more concrete, down to earth terms? I think so. How about 86.9 million bucks? We can get our lawyers to draw up the relevant documents that will make our experience officially consummated. Deal?

If you're satirizing my post, I think you're being unfair. I was asked to describe in plain English why these were my favorite Rothkos. I made a good faith effort to do just that - and I think I did it well, with no bullshit. I was precise, I didn't use any high-falutin' ambiguous words art critics often hide behind. I didn't waffle with woo. Any description of one's experience of any art or music will necessarily talk about feelings and sensations.

Can you describe in detail - in plain English - why a particular song is your favorite?




Edited for clarity and to add that extra touch of defensiveness.

[Animavore]

That second one just looks like a faded, unkempt wall on a beach public toilets, the middle stripe like a line of rust where an old pipe, stained by run-off from a corrigated roof had been pulled away.

You obviously haven's seen it in real life. If you had, you would have found yourself overpowered by the sense of floating colours brought about by the layering, which would in turn have engendered a visceral experience in you akin to tripping, where time accelerates or slows down and you feel the need to waffle on about the meaning of it all... no, not the meaning exactly... the feeling... or perhaps that's not quite the right word either... it's all so transcendental... or is it subliminal... or something. Yes, that's exactly it! Something. Can we name that something in more concrete, down to earth terms? I think so. How about 86.9 million bucks? We can get our lawyers to draw up the relevant documents that will make our experience officially consummated. Deal?

If you're satirizing my post, I think you're being unfair. I was asked to describe in plain English why these were my favorite Rothkos. I made a good faith effort to do just that - and I think I did it well, with no bullshit.

Can you describe in detail - in plain English - why a particular song is your favorite?

I wasn't satirising your post. I was saying what to me it looks like at face-value.

[mistermack]

But you know, it's not surprising that you couldn't relate my words to the reproductions. That's the whole point.

Hmmmm.
That was my point too.
I think we've just agreed. In totally opposite ways.

[orpheus]

That second one just looks like a faded, unkempt wall on a beach public toilets, the middle stripe like a line of rust where an old pipe, stained by run-off from a corrigated roof had been pulled away.

You obviously haven's seen it in real life. If you had, you would have found yourself overpowered by the sense of floating colours brought about by the layering, which would in turn have engendered a visceral experience in you akin to tripping, where time accelerates or slows down and you feel the need to waffle on about the meaning of it all... no, not the meaning exactly... the feeling... or perhaps that's not quite the right word either... it's all so transcendental... or is it subliminal... or something. Yes, that's exactly it! Something. Can we name that something in more concrete, down to earth terms? I think so. How about 86.9 million bucks? We can get our lawyers to draw up the relevant documents that will make our experience officially consummated. Deal?

If you're satirizing my post, I think you're being unfair. I was asked to describe in plain English why these were my favorite Rothkos. I made a good faith effort to do just that - and I think I did it well, with no bullshit.

Can you describe in detail - in plain English - why a particular song is your favorite?

I wasn't satirising your post. I was saying what to me it looks like at face-value.

Ah, ok. Never mind then. (Except remember you're describing your reaction to a reproduction. Were I to describe the reproduction I'd give it a lousy review. But I was describing the original.)

[orpheus]

But you know, it's not surprising that you couldn't relate my words to the reproductions. That's the whole point.

Hmmmm.
That was my point too.
I think we've just agreed. In totally opposite ways.

Good lord. So we did!

[Animavore]

Just saying what I see.

Seraph on the other hand I think was satirising.

[Hermit]

Seraph on the other hand I think was satirising.

I was, but the satire was not aimed at Orpheus. It was aimed at the waffle I have read over the years in the arts section of the Sydney Morning Herald and other publications, which is written by wankers and propagated by those who profit from it the most - art dealers, critics, publishers, and it is a reference to my second post on page one of this thread.

That's not to say I didn't read some good reviews. I also benefited hugely from a man who led a youth group when I was young. After studying art, under, among others, Paul Klee, he became professor of fine arts and art education at the university of Frankfurt, published about a dozen books on the subject and painted well over 2000 oils. He's retired since 1992, but still painting, and it looks like he'll be around to celebrate his 100th birthday this July. He gave us heaps of presentations and took us to scores of galleries and exhibitions, where was a fount of knowledge as well. I am definitely an amateur in regard to the fine arts, but consider myself to be a reasonably well informed one.

[PsychoSerenity]

It's a jar of marmalade, right?

[Seabass]

Just saying what I see.

Seraph on the other hand I think was satirising.

Looks like the side of an old rusty refrigerator. :shrug: