The Australian National Art Gallery just paid 4.5 million for these 3 pieces of "art". I'm thinking that if they were done in red, it would look like a murder scene. How do they call this art? If you think it is, what makes you think it is?
This artist has mastered the art of getting rich by convincing a few well-placed ignorant people to hand over vast sums of money for an incredibly small investment in time and labor.
I am not going to state an opinion on those pieces...they are most possibly crap like you guys believe but you can't really tell what they do and how they work from those photos...on the photos those paintings look like a huge swindle has occured but I would have to see them...
However Ogmin my dear friend the small investment in time is no criter in which to judge a paintin...some of the most beautiful eastern calligraphic paintinga was done in seconds and one of my own best 5ft 7inch high paintings was done in two hours with spray cans and brush....
If it is a huge swindle I wouldn't hold the artist responsible for being a bad artist...he/she probably thinks his work is pretty good and now he/she may be more convinced of it then ever, if he/she needed convincing... I would instead hold the gallery and the museum curator responsible....and investigate if there was any rake off which is more common than you think...
Here is another painting by this guy. His name is Cy Twombly (artistic in iteslf) and when I looked at the pic linked above, I almost lost my cookies. YUCK!
I contrasted shapes in the piece with a photoshop cs-levels...noticed how the shapes progress the piece although one on first appearance would say it is aprogressional...
Actually I like that Twombly...I didn't recognise his work above...there are scribbles and there are sribbles and flash of light is a nice element of surprise...not everything that is fun or interesting has to be a recognizeable picture to be called a work of art....a painting of blades of grass is like green scribbles...
What make this all seem terrible are the prices and that is a shame....Twombly was one of the art "superstars" of the 60's so his painting recieve record prices at auction which is all decadent bull-crop....and there were a lot betters than him that never could get to hang in a gallery at that time...
It's very immoral-- when whole villages of starving, sick people can be given a health interstructure and food for years with 4 million-- to sell paintings for such corrupt prices; and for public institutions to pay those prices for them...Plus it makes art into a commodity...the virtuous artist sells his work to be able to paint more, support himself and his family,
and have the means to do more artwork--he doesn't paint to sell...
I have to admit, because it was a twombly I checked out the top one again...it's kind of funny progessing from three elements across the tryptych to one element...and if it was given to me--for that reason--if I had some space I might hang it.. but even if I was fat with cash I doubt whether I would buy it even for fifty bucks...but again I haven't stood in front of it...
41264
Ogmin
