Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Clinton Huxley]

Of course it isn't just about paintings. It's about any frivolous expense. And I doubt one could get a more frivolous expense than this one. Well, maybe solid gold hubcaps or something.

How about you cut off the royals and use the revenue they eat for foreign aid or home poverty relief?

Would get no complaint from me....

[Audley Strange]

Of course it isn't just about paintings. It's about any frivolous expense. And I doubt one could get a more frivolous expense than this one. Well, maybe solid gold hubcaps or something.

Two words... Millennium Dome.

Nice. My go...... trapezium eggplant.

The Dome was a waste of money. And?

I was pointing out that in comparison the purchase of paintings is chickenfeed and much less frivilous. Many many things are. I'd hazard a guess that there was more money pissed up walls at the weekend than that painting cost.

So why are you specifically targeting art? I'm curious to what it is about art that irks so when something sells for a high price when individuals and societies squander much more on their own frivolous entertainments?

Many works of art bought privately are bought as investments and many are given on loan to galleries so the public can see them. While it's by no means a philanthropic endeavour, it means that art has an economic and social value not to mention a historical, educational and aesthetic value. We have paintings and artifacts that have lasted longer than the societies from which they came. Not many of the big price label paintings are excluded permanently for public view.

Do you and others really not see the value of it?

Is feeding a dying kid long enough so that she can grow up to have a dying kid of her own so much more important?

[Hermit]

if people want to give you, legitimately, a large sum of money for something you created

In the real world this does not normally happen. The price of something an artist creates traditionally balloons after said artist parts company with it. It's a pyramid scheme.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm not specifically targeting art, just happens that is what this thread is about. People are more important than paintings.

[orpheus]

The interesting thing here is that Rothko would have agreed completely.

Didn't prevent him from making a living making rubbish that he would already sell at overinflated prices to people with more money than sense or moral fiber.

Actually, he was not able to support himself via his art until he was into his 50s. He was pretty much a financial failure and had a day job as a teacher until then. And real financial security came in his late 50s. He died at 66.

Also, he was actually reluctant to part with many of his paintings. According to the Wiki article: "He feared that people purchased his paintings simply out of fashion, and that the true purpose of his work was not being grasped by collectors, audiences or critics." You may think his concern for the "true purpose" of his work is pompous. But I think it's pretty clear that your estimation of his attitude and career are wrong.


Edit: clarity

[orpheus]

But mainly I like it because it puzzles me: it's so different from the direction Rothko was to take later - and I couldn't see the connection. I still can't. And I found that odd, because I'd just been looking at an exhibition of Mondrian, and the chronological development of his work is obvious (and fascinating). It's similar with Bacon, and indeed with Rembrandt. But not with Rothko, and that was a new discovery for me. So I like that there's something going on here I don't completely understand. That intrigues me.

This seems inconsistent with your earlier claim that the artist doesn't matter.

For what it's worth, I liked the image in the original post, and I doubt seeing it in the original would add much for me. The title was misleading, though, since it seems the painting was done by someone in his 50s.

I can see how I was unclear. Maybe I should have put it this way: I don't care about the artist insofar as that knowledge would prejudice my experience of the art itself. I certainly don't care about the reputation of the artist. But I'm definitely interested in how somebody's work progresses from piece to piece. One work can yield new insight into another. For example, I try to ignore the reputation and image of Beethoven. But I certainly understood parts of his 9th symphony better when I saw that he was exploring similar ideas already in the 2nd symphony. The way his approach to the material changed over the years yielded insight I couldn't have gotten any other way. And as a composer myself, I'm interested in the working techniques of other artists. That can be of help to me in my own work. But this is all subsequent to the primary experience of the art itself.  

(This may not apply just to you; its a general observation):

I am puzzled by the number of people here who are so confident that they'd get nothing more out of seeing the original of a work. Even after others have pointed out that some works lose more than others when reproduced - and that late Rothkos lose a huge amount. that attitude simply doesn't make sense to me. You may not want to see the original; that's fine. But to declare in advance that you know it would yield nothing (or very little) new is patently irrational.

BTW, I agree with you about the title of this thread.



Edit: clarity, typos

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Orpheus, how many originals do we have to see before we can draw conclusions based on direct observation?

[orpheus]

Orpheus, how many originals do we have to see before we can draw conclusions based on direct observation?

You mean drawing conclusions about originals based on direct observation of reproductions? Depends on the nature of the work; as I said (I think here; maybe on RatSkep), different media lose different amounts in translation. Etchings and lithographs lose almost nothing. Painting can lose very little or almost everything; depends on techniques used in that individual work.

Moreover, even different works by the same artist can vary quite a lot from one to another. Even if they're superficially similar. Even if they look much the same in reproduction. To be sure, you can identify trends and signature style in an artist, and you may know that you don't want to see an original Rothko, say, because you don't like his general style. But I don't think you can ever justifiably make a summary judgment of an original painting or sculpture, say, if you've only seen a reproduction.

What would you say about a bad and dismissive review of a concert if the critic didn't actually attend, and was instead basing their review solely on a crappy cassette recording of the concert?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You answered a question I didn't ask.

[Hermit]

I am puzzled by the number of people here who are so confident that they'd get nothing more out of seeing the original of a work. Even after others have pointed out that some works lose more than others when reproduced - and that late Rothkos lose a huge amount. that attitude simply doesn't make sense to me. You may not want to see the original; that's fine. But to declare in advance that you know it would yield nothing (or very little) new is patently irrational.

I have seen "late Rothkos" "live" at the New Pinakothek in Munich and the National Art Gallery in Canberra. Apart from the effect the sheer size of them had, they added nothing to my experience of seeing quality prints of them in books. Same goes for any other artist's work I've seen the original of.

The mystification of "being there" really annoys me, and this applies to other forms of art - even non-art - as well. I prefer listening to baroque music at home rather than having to put up with coughs in a concert hall, acoustic quirks that mute the cembalo unless one leans a few centimetres to the left, the overpowering perfume of the socialite three seats to the right or the eager music student who will start furiously clapping a nanosecond after the last note of The Art of the Fugue is played because he is the acolyte of the professor and wants to demonstrate his knowledge of precisely the point where Bach left off and others have tried to complete the work for him.

I've also been told that attending sports spectaculars in person adds something no television broadcast can deliver. Not to me, it doesn't. I've been to a cricket match and a number of motor car races. The experience of sitting among 50-120,000 yahoos is in no way an enhancement on watching the action provided by two dozen cameras, close-ups, slow-motion replays and generally intelligent commentary. (I must pointedly exclude Murray Walker from membership of intelligent commentators, though.)

Yes, I agree, people who have never seen originals and try to say something about their effect on them are not rational, but that does not mean that therefore what you are saying is not a load of crap either. Please stop mystifying art. I asked this question a bit earlier. You may have missed it: Can you imagine someone paying 86.9 million dollars for seven square metres worth of painted canvas if it was created by Fred Bloggs rather than Mark Rothko? I think Animavore had the price tag foremost in mind when he started the thread. Art has become a commodity and an opportunity for constructing pyramid schemes.

[orpheus]

You answered a question I didn't ask.

You asked a question that couldn't be answered without elaboration:

Orpheus, how many originals do we have to see before we can draw conclusions based on direct observation?

Conclusions about what? Direct observations of what?

If you mean conclusions about original X based on seeing works A,B,C,D W,Y,Z, and then direct observation of a reproduction of work X, and if work X is in a medium that loses a lot in translation, then I don't think one can ever justifiably draw such conclusions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You answered a question I didn't ask.

You asked a question that couldn't be answered without elaboration:

Orpheus, how many originals do we have to see before we can draw conclusions based on direct observation?

Conclusions about what? Direct observations of what?

If you mean conclusions about original X based on seeing works A,B,C,D W,Y,Z, and then direct observation of a reproduction of work X, and if work X is in a medium that loses a lot in translation, then I don't think one can ever justifiably draw such conclusions.

Just as I figured.

[orpheus]

I am puzzled by the number of people here who are so confident that they'd get nothing more out of seeing the original of a work. Even after others have pointed out that some works lose more than others when reproduced - and that late Rothkos lose a huge amount. that attitude simply doesn't make sense to me. You may not want to see the original; that's fine. But to declare in advance that you know it would yield nothing (or very little) new is patently irrational.

I have seen "late Rothkos" "live" at the New Pinakothek in Munich and the National Art Gallery in Canberra. Apart from the effect the sheer size of them had, they added nothing to my experience of seeing quality prints of them in books. Same goes for any other artist's work I've seen the original of.

The mystification of "being there" really annoys me, and this applies to other forms of art - even non-art - as well. I prefer listening to baroque music at home rather than having to put up with coughs in a concert hall, acoustic quirks that mute the cembalo unless one leans a few centimetres to the left, the overpowering perfume of the socialite three seats to the right or the eager music student who will start furiously clapping a nanosecond after the last note of The Art of the Fugue is played because he is the acolyte of the professor and wants to demonstrate his knowledge of precisely the point where Bach left off and others have tried to complete the work for him.

I've also been told that attending sports spectaculars in person adds something no television broadcast can deliver. Not to me, it doesn't. I've been to a cricket match and a number of motor car races. The experience of sitting among 50-120,000 yahoos is in no way an enhancement on watching the action provided by two dozen cameras, close-ups, slow-motion replays and generally intelligent commentary. (I must pointedly exclude Murray Walker from membership of intelligent commentators, though.)

Yes, I agree, people who have never seen originals and try to say something about their effect on them are not rational, but that does not mean that therefore what you are saying is not a load of crap either. Please stop mystifying art. I asked this question a bit earlier. You may have missed it: Can you imagine someone paying 86.9 million dollars for seven square metres worth of painted canvas if it was created by Fred Bloggs rather than Mark Rothko? I think Animavore had the price tag foremost in mind when he started the thread. Art has become a commodity and an opportunity for constructing pyramid schemes.

I'm not mystifying art. No more than you're minimizing its potential richness.

I thought I answered your question; sorry if I didn't. Yes, sure I can imagine someone paying that much for a Fred Bloggs. Not nearly as many collectors as would pay that much for a Rothko, of course. For many, reputation counts for a lot more than the work itself. But there are certainly collectors who collect works they love, and on no other criteria.

[orpheus]

You answered a question I didn't ask.

You asked a question that couldn't be answered without elaboration:

Orpheus, how many originals do we have to see before we can draw conclusions based on direct observation?

Conclusions about what? Direct observations of what?

If you mean conclusions about original X based on seeing works A,B,C,D W,Y,Z, and then direct observation of a reproduction of work X, and if work X is in a medium that loses a lot in translation, then I don't think one can ever justifiably draw such conclusions.

Just as I figured.

Let me ask you: would you feel confident in making this judgment about the Rothko in question had you never seen any of his originals? Under what circumstances would you ever feel you needed to see an original before passing judgment on it? An oil painting you didn't know? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscape? (I notice that nobody took up my challenge to answer about postcards of a city, etc.)

[orpheus]

I am puzzled by the number of people here who are so confident that they'd get nothing more out of seeing the original of a work. Even after others have pointed out that some works lose more than others when reproduced - and that late Rothkos lose a huge amount. that attitude simply doesn't make sense to me. You may not want to see the original; that's fine. But to declare in advance that you know it would yield nothing (or very little) new is patently irrational.

I have seen "late Rothkos" "live" at the New Pinakothek in Munich and the National Art Gallery in Canberra. Apart from the effect the sheer size of them had, they added nothing to my experience of seeing quality prints of them in books. Same goes for any other artist's work I've seen the original of.

The mystification of "being there" really annoys me, and this applies to other forms of art - even non-art - as well. I prefer listening to baroque music at home rather than having to put up with coughs in a concert hall, acoustic quirks that mute the cembalo unless one leans a few centimetres to the left, the overpowering perfume of the socialite three seats to the right or the eager music student who will start furiously clapping a nanosecond after the last note of The Art of the Fugue is played because he is the acolyte of the professor and wants to demonstrate his knowledge of precisely the point where Bach left off and others have tried to complete the work for him.

I've also been told that attending sports spectaculars in person adds something no television broadcast can deliver. Not to me, it doesn't. I've been to a cricket match and a number of motor car races. The experience of sitting among 50-120,000 yahoos is in no way an enhancement on watching the action provided by two dozen cameras, close-ups, slow-motion replays and generally intelligent commentary. (I must pointedly exclude Murray Walker from membership of intelligent commentators, though.)

Yes, I agree, people who have never seen originals and try to say something about their effect on them are not rational, but that does not mean that therefore what you are saying is not a load of crap either. Please stop mystifying art. I asked this question a bit earlier. You may have missed it: Can you imagine someone paying 86.9 million dollars for seven square metres worth of painted canvas if it was created by Fred Bloggs rather than Mark Rothko? I think Animavore had the price tag foremost in mind when he started the thread. Art has become a commodity and an opportunity for constructing pyramid schemes.

BTW, I agree with you about some music. I don't like going to many concerts, for precisely those reasons you mentioned. But I would never pass judgment on any particular concert without having attended. And as for the music itself? Some translates better to recording than other. "Art of Fugue" translates wonderfully. I'd go so far as to say it's a better experience for me to listen to a recording of it than a concert. But Gabrieli's antiphonal works? Ive's 4th symphony? No, those I really do think you need to hear in situ, as it were.