Piece of crap sells for fortune

[Kurn]

The Pollock, '#5, 1948' is gorgeous and moving.

 

[JSB_01]

The common straightforward association of "frivolous", "empty" to rococo and of "deep" and "meaningful" to vanguard art is superficial, and rather pretentious (that not so much you, as those from whom you had those views make their way into your head).

"Classical" European art, like all classical arts has a meaning, a relevance depending on a system with a complexity that goes far beyond mere academical rules and techniques, just like the semantics of non-figurative art are not conveyed at all by anything that you may red or hear say by the so-called authorities on modern art. And that meaning is not so much a "story" to be told as a logical diagram to be discerned.

On the other hand, both "classicist" and "vanguard" art have a common susbtrate of "meaningfulness" that neither old academicism nor the sophistic discourse of the current authorities on art are available to transmit.

Here’s an example:
Rococo art was associated with the reign of Louis XV and his mistress Madame de Pompadour. A common painting of this time depicted a fete galante, the outdoor amusements of the French aristocracy. Rococo was the culture of the French aristocracy and higher society.
Go forward about 150+ years to Germany after WWI. The New Objectivity movement had started, and the purpose of this movement was to present a direct and honest image of the war and its affects. Artists associated with New Objectivity all at one point served in the German army, giving them firsthand experience in the horrors of war.

Rococo art was meant to be frivolous. It was meant to depict the fetes galante of high society, with its lush gardens, sensuous atmospheres, and portrayals of the aristocracy living it up without a care in the world. And in this it was successful.
New Objectivity was meant to show the personal experiences of war, with its horror and suffering. Its art is usually (not always) dark and disturbing, and not always portraying figures proportionally or realistically (look at Max Beckmann's Night for example). It is also successful in portraying the artists intentions.

I do usually agree with authorities on modern art....since they are, well, authorities. However, that is not always the case. For example, I think Czech cubism architecture was unsuccessful (for a number a reasons, not only due to the failure of the architects), but I can see where they were trying to go. I don't know why people always disagree so readily with authorities on art (not to say that you shouldn't, though.)

I think I covered most of your points. If not let me know! (Again, some of your post I couldn’t understand, sorry! )

 

[slobone]

Oh god, this makes me sick to my stomach.

I knew there were a lot of idiots on this website, but I had no idea there were SO MANY.

Jackson Pollock is indisputably one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century and one of the top half-dozen American artists of all time -- I'd add Rauschenberg, Rothko, Gorky, de Kooning and maybe Rosenquist to the list. Warhol at his best maybe belongs in there, but he unfortunately painted a lot of junk too.

Pollock's work is exciting, dynamic, highly sophisticated and original. Worth pointing out that reproductions never do him justice -- you have to see the paintings in the original to get the full impact.

The kind of language you guys are using to put him down is an infallible marker of people who have no understanding or appreciation of art. I've heard it all my life, and oh yes, they used to say the same thing about Picasso too -- "my six year old could do that". Maybe some people still do say it.

It's your privilege to like or dislike Pollock but really -- why should I care what you think if you express yourselves so ignorantly? And of course people who talk that way about modern art always think they've said something brilliant and original.

Now whether this particular painting deserves to be sold for the highest amount ever paid, or whether in fact any painting is worth that much money, is a legitimate point for discussion.

I personally think the current insane escalation in art prices is due to the sudden emergence of a lot of semi-ignorant billionaires who just want a status symbol on their walls. They've progressed a couple of steps beyond you guys -- they at least recognize the names of the great artists and are willing to pay for those names.

Hopefully when they die the paintings will go into museums where they belong (unless of course they keep sticking their elbows through them, like Steve Wynn recently did with a Picasso).

So no, I don't think that the price means this is the greatest painting ever painted. But it IS a great painting, and the rarity of top-quality Pollocks still in private hands makes the price at least comprehensible.

Y'all do yourselves a favor and take a trip to your local art museum. Try to find a friend to go with you who can explain the difference between truly great art and the kind of crap y'all probably have on your walls -- if any.

This whole discussion has depressed me so much I'm going to take a JUB-batical for a couple of days. Bye!

 

[JSB_01]

My point is to question the overblown hype placed on many pieces of artwork, hype which claims that the world is revolutionised, changed and society challenged. Claims which, even over time, will not be proven.

I don’t think you can say that it will never change anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell. Who knows, 100 years from now, Pollock may be seen as an insignificant expressionist. People that we consider great today may or may not be later down the line. Today, many do consider Pollock a great artist, but in the grand scheme of things, who knows? But I’d like to reiterate, as of this day, he is considered great….by some anyways!

My dictionary definition is 'lack of knowledge, uneducated, lack of learning, uninformed, unaware'. I would say that your use of the word ignorant is ignorant in itself, or at least arrogant. A better term may have been unaware. To imply that 99% of the population is lacking in knowledge, education and learning because they do not know of Pollock or his work or that if they did have some understanding, their eyes would be open is presumptuous and pretentious.

Yeah, I have to agree. In retrospect, ignorance is too harsh of a word. Just substitute unaware instead! (And I wasn’t trying to be pretentious, so please don’t interpret my ranting that way! )

I personally think the current insane escalation in art prices is due to the sudden emergence of a lot of semi-ignorant billionaires who just want a status symbol on their walls. They've progressed a couple of steps beyond you guys -- they at least recognize the names of the great artists and are willing to pay for those names.

Hopefully when they die the paintings will go into museums where they belong (unless of course they keep sticking their elbows through them, like Steve Wynn recently did with a Picasso).

So no, I don't think that the price means this is the greatest painting ever painted. But it IS a great painting, and the rarity of top-quality Pollocks still in private hands makes the price at least comprehensible.

I too think that this has a lot to do with status. I think that these millionaires should go out and support today’s artists, instead of being like, “I just bought a Pollock for a huge sum of money!” But obviously, I don’t know these people, so I couldn’t say for sure. As for Steve Wynn…..THIS is why art should be kept in museums!

 

[belamy]

Here’s an example:
Rococo art was associated with the reign of Louis XV and his mistress Madame de Pompadour. A common painting of this time depicted a fete galante, the outdoor amusements of the French aristocracy. Rococo was the culture of the French aristocracy and higher society.
Go forward about 150+ years to Germany after WWI. The New Objectivity movement had started, and the purpose of this movement was to present a direct and honest image of the war and its affects. Artists associated with New Objectivity all at one point served in the German army, giving them firsthand experience in the horrors of war.

Rococo art was meant to be frivolous. It was meant to depict the fetes galante of high society, with its lush gardens, sensuous atmospheres, and portrayals of the aristocracy living it up without a care in the world. And in this it was successful.
New Objectivity was meant to show the personal experiences of war, with its horror and suffering. Its art is usually (not always) dark and disturbing, and not always portraying figures proportionally or realistically (look at Max Beckmann's Night for example). It is also successful in portraying the artists intentions.

I do usually agree with authorities on modern art....since they are, well, authorities. However, that is not always the case. For example, I think Czech cubism architecture was unsuccessful (for a number a reasons, not only due to the failure of the architects), but I can see where they were trying to go. I don't know why people always disagree so readily with authorities on art (not to say that you shouldn't, though.)

I think I covered most of your points. If not let me know! (Again, some of your post I couldn’t understand, sorry! )

That the topic of a discussion or a work of art is "serious" doesn´t automatically make that discussion or work "serious".

 

[dpnice]

I would not lose any sleep if the sales of Ferraris, Diamonds, Penthouses and yachts stopped until such time as there were no people existing on 50 cents a day, and everyone was housed, clothed, fed, watered and educated.

I understand your reasoning but what do you intend to do with all the workers employed in these luxury industries after putting them out of work?

 

[belamy]

I understand your reasoning but what do you intend to do with all the workers employed in these luxury industries after putting them out of work?

Run, David, run, Mme Guillotine is waiting for you!

 

[doorslammer]

Grandma would have said "that's somebody with more money than brains'

 

[JSB_01]

That the topic of a discussion or a work of art is "serious" doesn´t automatically make that discussion or work "serious".

Are you saying:

Just because a discussion/work of art is "serious" doesn't automatically make that discussion/work of art "serious"?

I'm sorry again, I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[Kurn]

Sr. Martinez, the multi-millionaire who purchased the Pollock is undoubtedly aware that such pieces are relatively rare.
You really don't know what a Pollock is like unless you stand in front of it for awhile.
Jackson Pollock paintings will always be prized.
It doesn't matter what critics say, just stand in front of one undisturbed without a lot of thoughts buzzing in your head.

 

[JSB_01]

You really don't know what a Pollock is like unless you stand in front of it for awhile.
Jackson Pollock paintings will always be prized.
It doesn't matter what critics say, just stand in front of one undisturbed without a lot of thoughts buzzing in your head.

I agree completely. Until one experiences a piece of art personally, I think it's hard to make an accurate judgement. Pictures don't do art justice.

 

[belamy]

Are you saying:

Just because a discussion/work of art is "serious" doesn't automatically make that discussion/work of art "serious"?

I'm sorry again, I'm not sure what you're saying.

Rococo is not frivolous shit only because the social environment that fostered it was so, and taking your work very seriously doesn´t mean you can´t produce more ridiculous than serious work.

If you are skillful with a developed language, be it "vanguard-like" or classicist, your work, no matter what was the "spirit", the feelings, the opinion of their original social environment or even of the artist who produced it , still carries a meaningfulness that goes beyond all of that. But if you are all wrapped up in a particular set of beliefs, and set yourself apart from the present reality embodied by a piece of art or discourse, you will be judging not that work of art, or that argument given, but you will be "moralising", you will be judging not according to what the work "has to tell", but according to what you believe that work can tell, has to tell, must tell according to your prejudices. It is as hurtful having strong, unshakable prejudices instead of a previous opinion susceptible of being developed and changed, as just standing in front of a painting without being able to make any judegement.

Thus, people making summary judgements on Mozart, accusing him of being "from another era" can´t, WON´T judge on the orchestral textures and the consonance of the accords and movement of a page he wrote, they will pick up a trill from all that wealth of information and conclude his work was shallow.
Conversely, people won´t perceive that same wealth of textures and consonance in composition in the work of a Kandisnky and determine that, since there is no recognizable shape, the work is only crap.

Like I said before, art may not be independent of its "circumstances", but art goes beyond that, just like having a drink at a bar is more than just having a drink.

 

[belamy]

Rococo is not frivolous shit only because the social environment that fostered it was so, and taking your work very seriously doesn´t mean you can´t produce more ridiculous than serious work.

If you are skillful with a developed language, be it "vanguard-like" or classicist, your work, no matter what was the "spirit", the feelings, the opinion of their original social environment or even of the artist who produced it , still carries a meaningfulness that goes beyond all of that. But if you are all wrapped up in a particular set of beliefs, and set yourself apart from the present reality embodied by a piece of art or discourse, you will be judging not that work of art, or that argument given, but you will be "moralising", you will be judging not according to what the work "has to tell", but according to what you believe that work can tell, has to tell, must tell according to your prejudices. It is as hurtful having strong, unshakable prejudices instead of a previous opinion susceptible of being developed and changed, as just standing in front of a painting without being able to make any judegement.

Thus, people making summary judgements on Mozart, accusing him of being "from another era" can´t, WON´T judge on the orchestral textures and the consonance of the accords and movement of a page he wrote, they will pick up a trill from all that wealth of information and conclude his work was shallow.
Conversely, people won´t perceive that same wealth of textures and consonance in composition in the work of a Kandisnky and determine that, since there is no recognizable shape, the work is only crap.

Like I said before, art may not be independent of its "circumstances", but art goes beyond that, just like having a drink at a bar is more than just having a drink.

judgment
moralizing

 

[JSB_01]

Unfortunately, I’m still having a little difficulty understanding you, but here goes!

Rococo is not frivolous shit only because the social environment that fostered it was, and taking your work very seriously doesn´t mean you can´t produce more ridiculous than serious work.

I will agree with some of this. Rococo art is not sh*t, but it is lacking in substance when compared to social issues being addressed by, say, New Objectivity.

And you say that “taking your work very seriously doesn’t mean you can’t produce more ridiculous than serious work,” but who is to say what “ridiculous” art is? What do you define it as?

If you are skillful with a developed language, be it "vanguard-like" or classicist, your work, no matter what was the "spirit", the feelings, the opinion of their original social environment, still carries a meaningfulness that goes beyond all of it.


I also agree. Like I said, even commissioned works contain a part of the artist.

But if you are wrapped in a particular set of beliefs,

Historical context is historical context; it is NOT a belief.

and set yourself apart from the present reality embodied by a piece of art or discourse, you will be judging not that work of art, or that argument given, but you will be "moralising", you will be judging not according what the work "has to tell", but according to what you believe that work can tell, has to tell.

I’m not sure what you mean by “present reality.” Present as in today? Or as in the artist’s time period?

Thus, people making summary judgements on Mozart, accusing him of being "from another era" can´t, WON´T judge on the orchestral textures and the consonance of the accords and movement of a page he wrote, they will pick up a trill from all that wealth of information and conclude his work was shallow.

I agree that Mozart is not shallow, but I’m not really sure what else you’re trying to say here.

Conversely, people won´t perceive that same wealth of textures and consonance in composition in the work of a Kandisnky and determine that, since there is no recognizable shape, the work is only crap.

Well, I think you’re saying that people don’t realize the wealth of textures and consonances that Mozart and Kandinsky have to offer. And again, I agree. Which is what I touched on earlier. Just because people can’t see the creativity in an artwork doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Like I said before, art may not be independent of its "circumstances", but art goes beyond that, just like having a drink at a bar is more than just having a drink.

Yes, art does go beyond certain issues. But people are concerned more about how they personally feel about art rather than how the artist felt about art.

 

[belamy]

I will agree with some of this. Rococo art is not sh*t, but it is lacking in substance when compared to social issues being addressed by, say, New Objectivity.

And you say that “taking your work very seriously doesn’t mean you can’t produce more ridiculous than serious work,” but who is to say what “ridiculous” art is? What do you define it as?

Now you got to my point: what decides this or that is more serious and substantial, or frivolous or ridiculous according to a certain objectivity?

 

[belamy]

Historical context is historical context; it is NOT a belief.

Ho! Ever heard of academia? It is still an article of faith to "read" art, literature and even music according to context and biography. Please, that came up in the very first postings in this thread.

 

[JSB_01]

Now you got to my point: what decides this or that is more serious and substantial, or frivolous or ridiculous according to a certain objectivity?

I base substance according to what the artist was trying to portray. Would you agree that WWI was more substantial the a fete galante? Everything is, of course, subjective, but only to a point.
Some people automatically assume pretty is better, which is something I'm trying to argue against. Which is why I used rococo and New Objectivity as examples.

 

[belamy]

(...)



I’m not sure what you mean by “present reality.” Present as in today? Or as in the artist’s time period?


(...)

Well, I think you’re saying that people don’t realize the wealth of textures and consonances that Mozart and Kandinsky have to offer. And again, I agree. Which is what I touched on earlier. Just because people can’t see the creativity in an artwork doesn’t mean it’s not there.

THAT´S PRECISELY THE "PRESENT", THE "PRESENCE" I MEANT.

Yes, art does go beyond certain issues. But people are concerned more about how they personally feel about art rather than how the artist felt about art.

THAT´S THE PROBLEM: THAT MYTHOLOGY OF "FEELING" AS IF IT WAS OF A SUPERIOR KIND TO REASONING, A REVELATION OF THE SUPERNATURAL SPHERE, WHILE FEELINGS ARE MERE JUDGMENTS, ONLY OF THE IDLE KIND. WHATEVER PASSES THROUGH YOUR BRAIN ENDS UP IN A JUDGMENT, BUT BEING INSTANTANEOUS AND OBSCURE IS BELIEVED TO MADE OF IT SOMETHING SUPERIOR, MORE REVEALING WHILE, IN FACT, AS I HAVE SAID, IT IS ONLY A LAZY SORT OF JUDGMENT, LINKING YOUR JUDGMENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR PREJUDICES AND SKIPPING ALL THE WORK OF THINKING, LEARNING AND DEVELOPING "NEW FEELINGS", THAT IS, NEW JUDGMENTS, MORES SOLIDLY FOUNDED THAT INSTANT VISCERAL REACTIONS.

I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE TEACHER WHO WAS UPSET AT MY RENDITION OF A TEXT POINTING THE RHYTHM OF THE READING AS I INTENDED IT TO BE MADE, AND HIM SAYING THAT IT WAS UP TO HIM TO INTERPRET AND READ THE TEXT THE WAY HE WANTED. THAT WAS NOT CREATIVITY AND DEVELOPMENT AT WORK, THAT WAS SHEER LAZINESS AND PARASITISM. YOU CAN MADE A NEW WORK OUT OF MINE, BUT DON´T TELL ME WHAT MY WORK IS

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

LMFAO I love how you worded it "Piece of Crap Sells For Fortune." I laughed for a good 5 seconds.

 

[JSB_01]

I’m still struggling to understand your writings, no offense!

THAT´S THE PROBLEM: THAT MYTHOLOGY OF "FEELING" AS IF IT WAS OF A SUPERIOR KIND TO REASONING, A REVELATION OF THE SUPRANATURAL, WHILE FEELINGS ARE MERE JUDGMENTS, ONLY OF THE IDLE KIND. WHATEVER PASSES THROUGH YOUR BRAIN ENDS UP IN A JUDGMENT, BUT BEING INSTANTANEOUS AND OBSCURE IS BELIEVED TO MADE OF IT SOMETHING SUPERIOR, MORE REVEALING WHILE, IN FACT, AS I HAVE SAID, IT IS ONLY A LAZY SORT OF JUDGEMENT, LINKING YOUR JUDGEMENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR PREJUDICES AND SKIPPING ALL THE WORK OF THINKING, LEARNING AND DEVELOPING "NEW FEELINGS".

Feelings are not superior to reasoning, but neither is reasoning superior to feelings. An initial reaction is instantaneous, but it is not set in stone. You can study a piece and change the way you feel about. You can research a piece and change the way you feel about. If the artist is still alive, you can talk with him or her and change the way you feel about. Judgment should not be lazy, but it can be. It is up to the individual looking at the piece to rid himself of prejudices and to develop new feelings by opening his mind.

I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE TEACHER WHO WAS UPSET AT MY RENDITION OF A TEXT POINTING THE RHYTHM OF THE READING AS I INTENDED IT TO BE MADE, AND HIM SAYING THAT IT WAS UP TO HIM TO INTERPRET AND READ THE TEXT THE WAY HE WANTED. THAT WAS NOT CREATIVITY AND DEVELOPMENT AT WORK, THAT WAS SHEER LAZINESS AND PARASITISM. YOU CAN MADE A NEW WORK OUT OF MINE, BUT DON´T TELL ME WHAT MY WORK IS

EXACTLY. You were the creator, so you should have the say. Pollock would’ve been able to tell us directly what his work meant if he were still alive (although a little research would tell us anyways). Who are we to so readily dismiss his work when we know nothing of it? (I use the word we loosely.) It was wrong for your teacher to say that you were wrong, just as we are wrong to say Pollock is trash.

As a side note, you can dislike art (look back to when I referenced the difference between art history and appreciation.)