Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.)

I would be quite confident. I've been to lots of museums in my life, on five continents. They were my refuge from chaos more than once. I'm not a novice at this.

[hadespussercats]

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

Rothko didn't think so. He killed himself.

[orpheus]

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.)

I would be quite confident. I've been to lots of museums in my life, on five continents. They were my refuge from chaos more than once. I'm not a novice at this.

Never said you were.

But then I cannot understand how you would say what you just did. You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?

How about a smudged black & white snapshot of a painting? Where do you draw the line?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.)

I would be quite confident. I've been to lots of museums in my life, on five continents. They were my refuge from chaos more than once. I'm not a novice at this.

Never said you were.

But then I cannot understand how you would say what you just did. You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?

How about a smudged black & white snapshot of a painting? Where do you draw the line?

Strawman

[orpheus]

I hope you'll have a productive time and meet your deadline.

Thank you. I appreciate it. (Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.)

[orpheus]

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.)

I would be quite confident. I've been to lots of museums in my life, on five continents. They were my refuge from chaos more than once. I'm not a novice at this.

Never said you were.

But then I cannot understand how you would say what you just did. You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?

How about a smudged black & white snapshot of a painting? Where do you draw the line?

Strawman

Not at all. I'm only showing the spectrum to its extreme ridiculous strawman end - and asking where you draw the line.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?"

Strawman.

[orpheus]

"You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?"

Strawman.

It's a question. It may have been clearer the first time I asked it, a post or two earlier:

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.)

[mistermack]

Two points.
Firstly, if you DID give a child the same materials, and it produced a similar work to the OP, the same would apply about seeing the original versus a photo on my monitor. The child's original would doubtless be a better experience, especially hung in a well-lit gallery surrounded by other "masterpieces".

Orpheus seems to claim that only the "magic" that makes a picture "special" is missing from a repro.
I see no reason why that should be. I don't believe it. The magic should come across as well, if it exists.

Secondly, about the price. I wonder how many "masterpieces" have been bought by billionaires who have NEVER seen the original, but just as a print or computer image?

I think Orpheus, you are not typical in valuing just the visual experience of the original. You're in a tiny minority. Most people are more influenced by what it's worth, and any story about the life of the artist.

I've said this before. The trade in art is very like the trade in holy relics 500 years ago. Or even today in some places. People just want to stand and wonder at something touched by the great man. That's why reproductions are of little worth. They are not "touched by greatness" and therefore, there is no religious experience.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?"

Strawman.

It's a question. It may have been clearer the first time I asked it, a post or two earlier:

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.)

First, I would have to be motivated to want to see the original. All else follows from that. Motivation isn't cheap with me.

[maiforpeace]

Two points.
Firstly, if you DID give a child the same materials, and it produced a similar work to the OP, the same would apply about seeing the original versus a photo on my monitor. The child's original would doubtless be a better experience hung in a well-lit gallery surrounded by other "masterpieces".

Secondly, about the price. I wonder how many "masterpieces" have been bought by billionaires who have NEVER seen the original, but just as a print or computer image?

I think Orpheus, you are not typical in valuing just the visual experience of the original. You're in a tiny minority. Most people are more influenced by what it's worth, and any story about the life of the artist.

I've said this before. The trade in art is very like the trade in holy relics 500 years ago. Or even today in some places. People just want to stand and wonder at something touched by the great man. That's why reproductions are of little worth. They are not "touched by greatness" and therefore, there is no religious experience.

So Ani, I'm wondering how you would feel about an art dealer offering you a million for one of your nieces/nephews pieces hanging on your refrigerator....

[orpheus]

"You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?"

Strawman.

It's a question. It may have been clearer the first time I asked it, a post or two earlier:

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.)

First, I would have to be motivated to want to see the original. All else follows from that. Motivation isn't cheap with me.

That seems like a non-answer. Can you expand on this?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You mean for you nothing loses anything in translation to a reproduction? You can get everything - or at least everything you need out of reproductions? All those things I mentioned? Sculpture? Architecture? Landscapes (the actual places)?"

Strawman.

It's a question. It may have been clearer the first time I asked it, a post or two earlier:

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.)

First, I would have to be motivated to want to see the original. All else follows from that. Motivation isn't cheap with me.

That seems like a non-answer. Can you expand on this?

How, please? If I don't care about an item, why would I go to see it? You seem to want to put me in the attitude of someone who does or does not agree with you. That's not going to work with me.

[Animavore]

Two points.
Firstly, if you DID give a child the same materials, and it produced a similar work to the OP, the same would apply about seeing the original versus a photo on my monitor. The child's original would doubtless be a better experience hung in a well-lit gallery surrounded by other "masterpieces".

Secondly, about the price. I wonder how many "masterpieces" have been bought by billionaires who have NEVER seen the original, but just as a print or computer image?

I think Orpheus, you are not typical in valuing just the visual experience of the original. You're in a tiny minority. Most people are more influenced by what it's worth, and any story about the life of the artist.

I've said this before. The trade in art is very like the trade in holy relics 500 years ago. Or even today in some places. People just want to stand and wonder at something touched by the great man. That's why reproductions are of little worth. They are not "touched by greatness" and therefore, there is no religious experience.

So Ani, I'm wondering how you would feel about an art dealer offering you a million for one of your nieces/nephews pieces hanging on your refrigerator....

I would take it off them (for my niece of course) and secretly laugh at what an idiot they are.

[Warren Dew]

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.

I can certainly understand that. For me, Beethoven's second symphony sounds like Mozart, and the fact that it was written by Beethoven instead makes it more interesting because of what that means for the progression of Beethoven's works and of late classical and early romantic works in general.

I do question your last sentence since in the quote you say the "main" part of your like for the painting in question is because of its relationship to the rest of the artist's work.

I will also note that paying for art based on the artist's reputation may make perfect sense too: if the art takes time to appreciate, then the reputation of the artist may affect the likelihood that it will be worthwhile to spend that time.

(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.

I disagree. I've seen some late period Rothkos in person, and the image of this one is sufficiently good, seen on a good monitor, that I can tell similar techniques were used. I don't have to see this particular painting in person to incorporate the technique and texture into my appreciation for the painting, to the extent that I care about those things in Rothko's case, which is minimally.

If I didn't have such a good monitor, or if I cared about details of how the paint aged, I might feel differently, but those concerns don't apply to me.