Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Hermit]

Very often modern art is about the beauty or creativity of the idea that went into the work rather than the visual beauty of a traditional piece.

Uhm. Right. So, how did Rothko, or rather his agents and later speculators get into this scam? It's a pyramid scheme, Pappa. Pass the parcel.

[mistermack]

Have you never heard the expression highbrow? Or sophisticated taste in music? I'm talking about the snob value of classical music.
People feel that having a taste for classical music is somehow "cultured".
That makes you "uncultured" if you don't like it.

It may not mean that to you, but that's how it's treated in general useage, and in the media.

And I've observed many people trying to impress others, by professing a love of classical music.

I love some rock 'n roll. I love some blues. I love some punk. I love some country. Most of all, though, I love some classical (in the sense you use it) music. Does that make me highbrow or cultured?

Ummm, no.
That's my argument, anyway.
But many others would say that it does.

[mistermack]

Most modern art is conceptual art to a greater or lesser degree. Comparing modern art to traditional art is like comparing apples and oranges because of this. Very often modern art is about the beauty or creativity of the idea that went into the work rather than the visual beauty of a traditional piece.

That's an amazing piece of logic then.
You have a beautiful and creative idea, and express it with a bland lump of shit.

I'm looking for something more. Am I just being greedy?

[Svartalf]

Problem is that most modern "art" is done by hacks who have zero clue as to how to convey the "concept", and often lack technical finesse or savoir faire as well... they still get into galleries and museums...

[Pappa]

Very often modern art is about the beauty or creativity of the idea that went into the work rather than the visual beauty of a traditional piece.

Uhm. Right. So, how did Rothko, or rather his agents and later speculators get into this scam? It's a pyramid scheme, Pappa. Pass the parcel.

That's a separate issue. All art nowadays is commodified. We live in a consumer society and art obeys the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. The consumer value of a work of art has nothing to say about the ideas, skill or creativity that went into it.

[Pappa]

Problem is that most modern "art" is done by hacks who have zero clue as to how to convey the "concept", and often lack technical finesse or savoir faire as well... they still get into galleries and museums...

Yeah.... much of the time that does seem to be the case but IMO that shouldn't take away from the thing as a whole. Modern art and conceptual art can be amazing at times, they can also be shit. Beauty (whether it be of an image or idea) is in the eye of the beholder.

[Hermit]

Very often modern art is about the beauty or creativity of the idea that went into the work rather than the visual beauty of a traditional piece.

Uhm. Right. So, how did Rothko, or rather his agents and later speculators get into this scam? It's a pyramid scheme, Pappa. Pass the parcel.

That's a separate issue. All art nowadays is commodified. We live in a consumer society and art obeys the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. The consumer value of a work of art has nothing to say about the ideas, skill or creativity that went into it.

I was trying to steer the discussion back to what the opening post was about: a Rothko being sold for $86.9m. Sorry about that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpus changed the rules a bit by claiming that I don't get it, because I'm not standing in front of it.
Bit of a low blow, because it's hard to refute without rushing round, seeing every bit of modern art.
But I don't buy it. I've seen enough art in the flesh to know what I'm missing.

That wasn't me. Don't attribute to me a view I don't hold, please.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Problem is that most modern "art" is done by hacks who have zero clue as to how to convey the "concept", and often lack technical finesse or savoir faire as well... they still get into galleries and museums...

[Pappa]

Very often modern art is about the beauty or creativity of the idea that went into the work rather than the visual beauty of a traditional piece.

Uhm. Right. So, how did Rothko, or rather his agents and later speculators get into this scam? It's a pyramid scheme, Pappa. Pass the parcel.

That's a separate issue. All art nowadays is commodified. We live in a consumer society and art obeys the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. The consumer value of a work of art has nothing to say about the ideas, skill or creativity that went into it.

I was trying to steer the discussion back to what the opening post was about: a Rothko being sold for $86.9m. Sorry about that.

I agree with what you said earlier about wasting that much money being abhorrent, but no more so than money being thrown away on other luxury items (as has been said in this thread already). At the same time, I expect the buyer sees it as a good investment too. Whether they sell it for a tidy profit or leave it to their descentents, it's still a good investment if you have that kind of money.

[Hermit]

I agree with what you said earlier about wasting that much money being abhorrent, but no more so than money being thrown away on other luxury items (as has been said in this thread already). At the same time, I expect the buyer sees it as a good investment too. Whether they sell it for a tidy profit or leave it to their descentents, it's still a good investment if you have that kind of money.

Yeah, well, I am aware that such extravagance is not confined to the arts, and actually cited an example of that ten days ago. And yes, art is a good investment if done right. I think paying $86.9m for a Rothko is a bit pass the parcelish, though. Eventually someone will shout out that the emperor has no clothes. Alternatively, real world conditions will make whoever owns the thing at the time realise just how little bread seven square metres of canvas daubed in paint will actually buy. Or worse. A lot of investment in art, like any other investment, is leveraged. Should the economy tank and the banks call their debts in, the $86.9m purchase price might turn into a multimillion dollar liability.

[Pappa]

I can't really see Rothko ever becoming unpopular enough for his work to drop in price. Fair point about the leaveraging though, I'd never really thought of that.

[mistermack]

Thumpus changed the rules a bit by claiming that I don't get it, because I'm not standing in front of it.
Bit of a low blow, because it's hard to refute without rushing round, seeing every bit of modern art.
But I don't buy it. I've seen enough art in the flesh to know what I'm missing.

That wasn't me. Don't attribute to me a view I don't hold, please.

Oh, yeh. Sorry about that. I have a cold.

[Hermit]

Economic crises in conjunction with leverage merely reveal the scam that investments are. Art investments are certainly not the only ones, but they would be among the most extreme. At the time when the value of your house overlooking Sydney Harbour with a "million dollar view" is diminished to a tenth of what you paid for it, the Rothko on your living room wall, or for that matter the Rembrandt, Picasso or da Vinci will drop even more in percentage terms. That's the sort of scenario that actually occurred in Germany during the 1920s. Now that we are comprehensively intertwined in the global economy this scenario will be on a global scale when it occurs, only worse. At least the wealthy in Germany managed to offload their treasures (at vastly discounted prices) to overseas wealthy who were not as badly off. When all the wealthy are in the same boat, those treasures won't buy them a dozen eggs.

[hadespussercats]

Have you never heard the expression highbrow? Or sophisticated taste in music? I'm talking about the snob value of classical music.
People feel that having a taste for classical music is somehow "cultured".
That makes you "uncultured" if you don't like it.

It may not mean that to you, but that's how it's treated in general useage, and in the media.

And I've observed many people trying to impress others, by professing a love of classical music.

I love some rock 'n roll. I love some blues. I love some punk. I love some country. Most of all, though, I love some classical (in the sense you use it) music. Does that make me highbrow or cultured?

Ummm, no.
That's my argument, anyway.
But many others would say that it does.

There are people who are snobby about their tastes, no matter what they are.

There are people who instantly look down on someone who enjoys opera or concert music, because that person must be full of herself.

There are people who are snobby about listening to country and western music-- both for and against.

There are people who are snobby about graphic novels-- again, both for and against.

I like what I like. Other people may agree or not, and I may find their reasoning sound or non-existent, or option whatever. If you want to write me off as a snob for enjoying Rothko, that's your perogative. But you're the one being exclusive.