Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I never got Rothko. Maroon rectangles just don't seem to engage emotionally with me. And yes, I have seen his stuff in galleries, but all I get is meh.

I just finished a biography and having some information on him and how he thought and what motivated him and his working method, I find I have an affinity for Rothko the artist and an appreciation for his work that I might not have otherwise have had.

I watched this documentary, hoping to get some insight into his popularity. While interesting, it didn't show me what I was missing in his huge rectangles - they still looked like large rectangles. Some of his earlier stuff was quite good - but the things he is famous for... meh.

[Gallstones]

One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?

I am an Philistine myself in some respects. I'd be interested in tasting some (alleged) high quality (expensive) wine, but I may not have a pallet that can appreciate it so more than a taste might be wasted on me.

An important aspect of the average person's ability to be able to appreciate the finer things like fine art and fine wine is education. One needs both access to and desire for that education.

[Gallstones]

I never got Rothko. Maroon rectangles just don't seem to engage emotionally with me. And yes, I have seen his stuff in galleries, but all I get is meh.

I just finished a biography and having some information on him and how he thought and what motivated him and his working method, I find I have an affinity for Rothko the artist and an appreciation for his work that I might not have otherwise have had.

I watched this documentary, hoping to get some insight into his popularity. While interesting, it didn't show me what I was missing in his huge rectangles - they still looked like large rectangles. Some of his earlier stuff was quite good - but the things he is famous for... meh.

Vive la différence.

My tastes in art are like my tastes in music and food and fashion---eclectic.
But I did have to be exposed to different styles and types and tastes to discover that, and I was motivated to do so.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I never got Rothko. Maroon rectangles just don't seem to engage emotionally with me. And yes, I have seen his stuff in galleries, but all I get is meh.

I just finished a biography and having some information on him and how he thought and what motivated him and his working method, I find I have an affinity for Rothko the artist and an appreciation for his work that I might not have otherwise have had.

I watched this documentary, hoping to get some insight into his popularity. While interesting, it didn't show me what I was missing in his huge rectangles - they still looked like large rectangles. Some of his earlier stuff was quite good - but the things he is famous for... meh.

Vive la différence.

My tastes in art are like my tastes in music and food and fashion---eclectic.
But I did have to be exposed to different styles and types and tastes to discover that, and I was motivated to do so.

Very much the same here. I had to learn to appreciate Picasso, Pollock, Kandinsky, etc. and I seriously tried to 'get' Rothko - I couldn't. He has always struck me as emperor's new clothesish - mind you, so did Pollock for years, but seeing his paintings up close and reading about his ideas helped me to overcome that in his case. Nothing has dented my apathy where Rothko is concerned however.

[Gallstones]

Matisse then?

[Gallstones]

Do you suppose that artists have a different relationship to other artist's work that non-artists do not?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Matisse then?

Another one I never really got. I have seen a handful of his works that I quite enjoyed but most is just... more meh.

[Seabass]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

[Gallstones]

Matisse then?

Another one I never really got. I have seen a handful of his works that I quite enjoyed but most is just... more meh.

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel?

[Gallstones]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

[Gallstones]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

The Department of Collective Artworks of course.





Socialism seems to facilitate a lot of bureaucracy.
I don't trust Bureaucrats.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Matisse then?

Another one I never really got. I have seen a handful of his works that I quite enjoyed but most is just... more meh.

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel?

Now him I do like! The surreal in the real. lovely stuff.

(Although I did need to google to remember who he was!)

[Gallstones]

Matisse then?

Another one I never really got. I have seen a handful of his works that I quite enjoyed but most is just... more meh.

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel?

Now him I do like! The surreal in the real. lovely stuff.

(Although I did need to google to remember who he was!)

John James Audubon?
Van Gogh?
Arnhem Aboriginal dot and x-ray?
William Turner?
Norman Rockwell?
Navajo sandpainting?

[Gallstones]

I get a great deal of visceral and emotional pleasure from art (and music). It isn't just something I look at (or just listen to) and like or don't like. I think that affects what I can and can not like. So, work that is more creative in nature affects me more as I like to be affected than work that is mostly craftsmanship/draftsmanship.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think so.

Should a person's personal wealth define their aesthetic experience?

Ordinary people can listen to great music like Mozart with relative ease - concerts are reasonably inexpensive, so the live experience is accessible to all and sundry. But art is obviously different - prints, photocopies, jpegs and the like don't convey the sheer drama and magic of great paintings - nothing beats an afternoon in a gallery soaking up the intimate experience with great art.



The painting above is "Prince Baltasar Carlos on horseback", painted in 1636 by Velasquez and valued at around $100 million. It is currently owned by the Duke of Westminster and he has full control over who sees the original - if he wants he can put it in a room and lock the door, he can choose to be the only person in the world to get up close to this masterpiece.

I think it's wrong that such great narratives of the human condition, the towering works of some of the greatest of our species, can be hidden away from humanity as a whole by people who happen to have more money than the rest of us.

Back to the OP, no, in short, fuck no, isn't wrong at all.

To do what you're suggesting would be wrong.