Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Hermit]

(I notice that nobody took up my challenge to answer about postcards of a city, etc.)

Oh, I meant to comment on that. Sorry for the delay.

When I was a child I saw a lot of very picturesque postcards sent to us by my father, who travelled a lot throughout Europe for business reasons, and from relatives who lived all over the place. This was in the 1960s. The depictions looked literally unreal to me. Too good to be true. The first time I went to Switzerland I realised they were true. What you see of Lucerne, the Pilatus or whatever on the postcards is what you get when you go there. Nothing more, though.

On other occasions you actually get less. The 12th century Rathaus on a cold and dank winter afternoon looks nothing like the postcard you remember, and the silhouette of Cologne is so smoggy that its cathedral is barely visible. Strassbourg's is hidden by scaffolding because it is being renovated. Again. Its rose looks better on a slide than from where you can view it because the photographer shot it from a temporary tower inside the church. The sun is not glistening off the shell of Sydney's opera house like it does on tourist brochures.

Please stop banging about the added dimension of "being there" that is supposed to mystically add something to seeing the original that a copy just can not. It's crap, and if it is not entirely crap, it certainly does not justify the price difference between a quality print and what the original just fetched at auction.

[orpheus]

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

Agreed.

surrounded by other "masterpieces". 

I'm not sure this has anything to do with it, except insofar as layout, distance, scale, juxtaposition, and other normal curatorial factors always play a part.

Orpheus seems to claim that only the "magic" that makes a picture "special" is missing from a repro. 

First, only if "magic" is understood to be a metaphor for aesthetic experience. Second, I'm not claiming what you say I am to the same degree with everything. I've stated a number of times that different media and genres translate translate with different degrees of "loss".

I see no reason why that should be. I don't believe it. The magic should come across as well, if it exists.

Why?

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? First, only if "magic" is understood to be a metaphor for aesthetic experience. Second, I'm not claiming what you say I am to the same degree with everything. I've stated a number of times that different media and genres translate translate with different degrees of "loss".

Very, very few - if any. Provenance is incredibly important in the world of art dealing.

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'm not sure you're right that there are so few of us. But to the extent that you're right about "most people", I think they're missing a lot. But it has always been like this. And if they're happy, all well and good. I will protest, however, if they make sweeping objective pronouncements about something they've not seen. I also take offense at insulting generalizations about the motivations of artists, the supposed trivial ease of making art, and the suposed easy money we get.

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.

In large measure you're right. In large measure you're wrong. I'm not certain how right or wrong you are, and I'm in the art world (not just as a composer; there are artists and collectors I know cutie well.). What makes you so certain?

[hackenslash]

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.

One man's rubbish is another man's primal scream...

[orpheus]

Sorry; quotes in my last post a bit screwed up. (mobile typing; all thumbs.) And for some reason I'm not allowed to edit it now. So here is the correction:

In the block of mistermack's text it should read:

"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?"

The rest of that quote block consists of my words; accidentally pasted it in. ('First, only if "magic" is understood to be a metaphor for aesthetic experience. Second, I'm not claiming what you say I am to the same degree with everything. I've stated a number of times that different media and genres translate translate with different degrees of "loss".')

Also, at the end: I know some of these people "quite" well, not "cutie" well. (Although some of them are cute. Not many, though.) Damn autoincorrect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not a problem. I reject completely the socialist ideology that an individual's time, property, or concerns should be the subject of group approval. Don't hurt anyone else, and we're cool.

Socialist? You know that being subject to group approval is a lot older than socialism in the marxist sense don't you? Group pressure, be it from peers or from the powers that be, has been a means of individual control since... well, at least since the middle ages... though if you count how some victimless behaviors have been criminalized, that goes back straight to the bronze age, if not before. Heck, in French "what will the people say" has become a common noun, and used to serve as a standard for things one should not do.

Yeah, I was specifically answering my interlocutor, and not going on a general romp through history.

I reject the idea that a man has no right to individual property, which is the essence of the argument. That way lies slavery.

[mistermack]

Orpheus seems to claim that only the "magic" that makes a picture "special" is missing from a repro. 

First, only if "magic" is understood to be a metaphor for aesthetic experience. Second, I'm not claiming what you say I am to the same degree with everything. I've stated a number of times that different media and genres translate translate with different degrees of "loss".

Yes of course that's what I meant by magic. Well, or, you could say "genius" in place of magic, given the respect and price bracket.

But the point I'm making is that you are indicating a selective loss. That the appearance will come through, but the "genius" is somehow lost. Because if the same proportion of "magic" or "genius" shines through on the screen as actual appearance, then there's not reason not to be able to judge the picture from the reproduction. You can just allow for 10% or 20% better in real life.
You are clearly saying that that's not so.

] I see no reason why that should be. I don't believe it. The magic should come across as well, if it exists.

Why?

As I said above, I see no reason that a camera lens should be selective. How can an ordinary lens filter out the genius of an artist? And leave an accurate image? Your eyes work in the same way as the camera lens.

They produce an image of what's in front of them.

3D is the only missing element. Is that where the "genius" is filtered out? On a flat canvas? It could be for a TINY number of paintings, but you can normally tell if a painting is THAT thickly painted, and would accept some loss there.
Not that 3d is the essence of genius anyway, otherwise oil paintings would be very different.

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? First, only if "magic" is understood to be a metaphor for aesthetic experience. Second, I'm not claiming what you say I am to the same degree with everything. I've stated a number of times that different media and genres translate translate with different degrees of "loss".

Very, very few - if any. Provenance is incredibly important in the world of art dealing.

Yes but Billionaires would hardly rely on their own eyes for provenance.
You don't need to see the painting in the flesh for provenance. It needs to be much more watertight than that.
I would bet that many millions have been spent on paintings the buyer has never seen with their own eyes. You just need the history, the paper provenance, and to know your market.

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'm not sure you're right that there are so few of us. But to the extent that you're right about "most people", I think they're missing a lot. But it has always been like this. And if they're happy, all well and good. I will protest, however, if they make sweeping objective pronouncements about something they've not seen. I also take offense at insulting generalizations about the motivations of artists, the supposed trivial ease of making art, and the suposed easy money we get.

It's clear that you're aware then, that people DO get impressed by the name, and see qualities that aren't really there. Because just as many people praise works that they've not seen. But you're sure that what you are seeing is the real thing?
I'm not so sure about anyone.


My own feeling is that you do the camera a disservice, claiming such a loss for an image, compared to the painting.
I'm not aware of any painter in the world, who can do justice to a landscape, the way a good camera can. And I can assure you that the feeling of the Grand Canyon couldn't be captured in paint, the way it can by a camera. Not for me. So to say that a camera can't capture that essence as well as paint is wrong, in my opinion.

Also, at the end: I know some of these people "quite" well, not "cutie" well. (Although some of them are cute. Not many, though.) Damn autoincorrect

That's a shame. I cutie liked that expression.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And this lost is subjective and not quantifiable, which is why I ignored it.

[hadespussercats]

(I notice that nobody took up my challenge to answer about postcards of a city, etc.)

Oh, I meant to comment on that. Sorry for the delay.

When I was a child I saw a lot of very picturesque postcards sent to us by my father, who travelled a lot throughout Europe for business reasons, and from relatives who lived all over the place. This was in the 1960s. The depictions looked literally unreal to me. Too good to be true. The first time I went to Switzerland I realised they were true. What you see of Lucerne, the Pilatus or whatever on the postcards is what you get when you go there. Nothing more, though.

On other occasions you actually get less. The 12th century Rathaus on a cold and dank winter afternoon looks nothing like the postcard you remember, and the silhouette of Cologne is so smoggy that its cathedral is barely visible. Strassbourg's is hidden by scaffolding because it is being renovated. Again. Its rose looks better on a slide than from where you can view it because the photographer shot it from a temporary tower inside the church. The sun is not glistening off the shell of Sydney's opera house like it does on tourist brochures.

Please stop banging about the added dimension of "being there" that is supposed to mystically add something to seeing the original that a copy just can not. It's crap, and if it is not entirely crap, it certainly does not justify the price difference between a quality print and what the original just fetched at auction.

Having sex with someone via Skype can be pretty good (I'm told.) I'd still rather be there in the flesh.

[Warren Dew]

Having sex with someone via Skype can be pretty good (I'm told.) I'd still rather be there in the flesh.

I treasure my memories of walking around on the acropolis as a child, and I understand now why my mother was so vehement when she told me not to take a piece of it with me.

These days, though, the rule is "look, don't touch" - which to me is not clearly superior to photographs.

Perhaps that's what's worth all the millions - the ability to run one's hands over the Rothko, instead of being permitted only to look.

[kiki5711]

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

very similar to this by Dawn Williams
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA

called: Indian Summer 1974

[Pappa]

Look at this for bullshit. In 1917 Marcel Duchamp bought a porcelain urinal and signed it "R. Mutt 1917". The work was lost some time after independent exhibitors refused to display it.

That's probably my favourite piece of art ever. Duchamp was making a point that is as relevant now as it was then.... and look, 95 years on we're still talking about what he did.

[Atheist-Lite]

Look at this for bullshit. In 1917 Marcel Duchamp bought a porcelain urinal and signed it "R. Mutt 1917". The work was lost some time after independent exhibitors refused to display it.

That's probably my favourite piece of art ever. Duchamp was making a point that is as relevant now as it was then.... and look, 95 years on we're still talking about what he did.

He was a plagerist and the guy who designed the loo never got any credit.

[Svartalf]

No plagiarisation... the original designer made a urinal, Duchamp made a piece of art... Do to chemists who formulate the paints used by artists get credit?

[Atheist-Lite]

No plagiarisation... the original designer made a urinal, Duchamp made a piece of art... Do to chemists who formulate the paints used by artists get credit?

No, but they don't deal in the curves of true artifice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No plagiarisation... the original designer made a urinal, Duchamp made a piece of art... Do to chemists who formulate the paints used by artists get credit?

This is why I call modern art bullshit. The rationalizations here are in the Papal Bull range.