What price for a painting...?

Utter bllcks intended for stupid rich people with more money than sense.

My 8 year old niece produces better art than that. She does a fantastic cat.

4 Likes

The good Dr Haywood appears to be still ’ living in art’ and so no doubt hasn’t seen our opinions :rofl:

2 Likes

I think I prefer living in the real world, much less pretentious nonsense and way more chocolate. :grin:

3 Likes

I think the humble Dr is sitting on an astral plane somewhere. I also thought that the post was a probable troll, it was that condescending.
I am troubled ( not much), that a person who has attained such a position, must have moved through ranks with those who had varying exposure to art. In doing so should understand all those views and walks of life. To use that position to be dismissive of opinions in this manner, gives an arrogance that does not lend itself to give the art world a very good name.

3 Likes

It’s like this CON-cept of “modern art” has taken everything beautiful and bastardised it…it can’t even be considered as a political statement…(unlike Banksy)

I’d question any “modern art” critique of Koons too…the connections there are really disturbing…

Art… from cave paintings to Michael Angelo tell us something about our past…I shudder to think what humanity 100 years from now might think if all they have to go on is pompous windbags diatrabing and opining on complete and utter BS…

4 Likes

This is fun - generate a random art-bllcks statement and sound like you know what you’re talking about …https://artybollocks.com/

Many thanks for an intelligent question, ‘But does that not demean the art itself?’

My response is as follows (but please note the qualifications)- this isn’t simple black and whitestuff!

No, it doesn’t demean the art - unlike people, art generally isn’t tarnished by association (thought note some possible exceptions below). Equally, I wasn’t suggesting that ‘any old crap is fine’, neither was I suggesting ‘punters are being conned’ - they don’t have to buy this art, instead they want it for what might be a myriad of reasons - social status, investment potential, buying into hipness or - last but not least - simply liking it. In other words one shouldn’t conflate current market value with aesthetic merit, as neither are absolutes and both are susceptible to fluctuation.

Similarly what is ‘fine’ in your context will vary from person to person, whereas the qualities or factors that make the art great or important’ largely exist independently of who owns it. Instead they’re a product of consensus across a wide spectrum of art world professionals (although this consensus might change over time). Nevertheless, and sadly in my opinion, any art work previously owned by, for instance Hitler or Stalin (or Donald Trump?!) will have additional value which is unrelated to its merit in other respects. Philosophers call this phenomenon a Cambridge Change or Cambridge Shift - eg. a pair of Rayban Wayfarer sunglasses previously owned by Elvis Presley will be worth much more than an identical, but anonymous pair of similar vintage.

In other words, it’s important not to conflate present day economic value with historico-cultural and/or aesthetic value.

Bottom line - buy art because you like it and don’t worry about its economic value.

Lastly, apologies for the delay in responding - I had a writing deadline and hope the above clarifies the previous points.

1 Like

Not a troll! Nevertheless, it’s been an interesting experience flushing art haters out of the woodwork. Most seem to have forgotten that the thread’s original subject was about the financial value of a particular work of contemporary art.

One of my original points was that Survive France subjects such as fosses septiques attract informed and useful discussion and information, whereas whether here, or in national newspapers, art attracts the sort of uninformed prejudice that is absent from other popular subjects such as football, where comments are largely informed either by personal interest in the subject, or are a wind-up for other posters.

If you’re not interested in something and know little about that subject, why bother posting unfunny, uninformed opinion that contributes very little to the debate? I don’t know anything about rugby or life in Uzbekistan, so wouldn’t consider posting on these subjects, as I’d have nothing to offer. In other words, this isn’t about a ‘right’ to express an opinion, it’s about having the common sense to refrain from doing so if you’re largely ignorant of the subject or are unable to be witty about it.

Just because one doesn’t understand something, doesn’t mean to say it’s a con.

Lastly, look forward to the vitriol!

2 Likes