$31 Million... Really?
 

I understand that the world of modern fine are is extremely subjective. But seriously... $31 million for this?

I know that I sound like the average unwashed masses when I say that anyone COULD have painted that. But it still makes me think that despite my artistic abilities, I'll never be able to paint something like that and call it a serious work of art.

Photo from AP Photo

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...la1wG/x610.jpg

LOL.

Some people have more money than brains.

And it just goes to show that to be an "artist" all you have to do is get some bonehead big shot in the art circle to claim that you're a "genius". It's all a sham.

Whoever paid $31 mil for that is a giant fucking dildo.

I'd buy it for $31 dollars and prime over it. That's about what a used canvas that size should run.

And in a few years he'll be able to sell it for $40 million. Or donate it to an institution and receive a massive tax benefit.

The Honus Wagner Baseball card came free with a box of cigarettes and one of the 57 remaining recently sold for $2.35 million.

This kind of elite horse trading isn't limited to art so why does art always have to take the vitriol?

Ah, yes, the commodification of art.

Some things to keep in mind:

• If you could have done it, then why didn't you?
• Why didn't you think of it first?
• It's not just paint an a canvas.
• That it's commodity is just one aspect.
• Britney Spears has made more money than that.

Thats a Rothko, right?

In the right context, right up in front of it, I imagine its a somewhat different experience to looking at a jpeg of it.

Hit. Nail. Head.

I like a lot of art - and I like some "modern" art. However, I never really "got" Rothko.

Until a couple of years ago, when I walked into a room at Tate Modern in London that was hung with four of his canvases (one on each wall), and something about them hit me full force, both barrels. I don't understand WHAT Rothko means, but I can promise you that it has meaning that I am still trying to grok in fullness.

I'm guessing the exact same thing without the name "Rothko" attached is worth a buck at a flea market.

The point is, without Rothko attached to it, it's impossible for it to be the exact same thing.

It bothers me that we so frequently judge art without seeing it in person.
I have caught myself doing it as well.
There is something remarkably different about the experience when the artist chooses the presentation. Few artists have managed to offer such an emotional tug when viewing a mere print. Much less when viewing a miniturization and decrease in fidelity as offered by a computer monitor viewing a jpeg.


There are some works that I feel are worth far more, which appear far less interesting than the one you have featured.

How is this different than anything that one does or doesn't see value in?

I don't see value in people paying a premium for certain antiques and certain art. It doesn't detract from the art or antique because I'm not willing to part with the money being sought after. Conversely I cannot expect that just because I want to sell something for a price doesn't mean that it's the actual price. It's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and actually PAY for it, not just appraise or value it.

The same goes for houses and stocks.

Jackson Pollock
 

About 30 years ago I happened to see some of Jackson Pollocks art work, the later stuff..."drip splash". I thought to myself, actually to my wife "I could do that". Well, it's not as easy as I thought, took a few years and I developed a type of painting kinda' sorta' Pollocky.
His are millions, mine are a few hundred
If I could figure out how I'd post a few