most 20th century art demands context. Most paintings demand seeing. Paying money for a (dead) artist's work is revolting in itself, but necessary, I suppose. No-one really knows what value these works will have in, say, 100 years' time - Van Goghs works were seen as a load of old rubbish in his time (and would never have been described as "art"), and most of the celebrated artists of his time are all but forgotten.
I can understand the feeling of revulsion for paying so much money on ANY piece of art, but let me put this to you. A public gallery paying this money ensures that the public will see the works (love them or hate them). Private buyers hanging up van goghs in their board room walls mean that noone sees them apart from a few fat businessmen who will see the value of the painting but not the worth.
aumpa i nonexistantly agree with you, although i dont know wher id a hang a piece like that, the artist certanly did capture a chalkboard using his desired medium,
Oil, house paint, and crayon on canvas
13 - yeah. But Ashlyn, look at it from this perspective - they probably bought it at market value, which means it is linked to what Art Experts (whatever that means) and Art Buyers are prepared to pay for this work. Which means it is an asset. Which means the money they spent has not disappeared. They still have the potential to buy whatever art you would prefer them to buy. So all is not lost!
#11 Twombly's painting originally probably sold if it was at the beginning of his career for $800 to $2,000. That was all the money Twombly or his estate will ever receive for that piece... whereas the seller to museum probably bought that piece for 1/4 the price 10 years before and probably made at least 3 million on it...and a lot of times they just keep it in a secure warehouse in the interim period...
But here is the killer if Twombly did a piece nearing the end of his career...probably the most he would get is $50,000 to $75,000, while older pieces of his are going for millions at auction...who made the rule that the older pieces of an artist is greatly more valuable than his current works...the whole thing is jaded and corrupt...let the museums buy an established artists current works it would be a lot cheaper and the public would still get to see them...except for undiscovered artist of course like Van Gogh was....
However I might shock you....speaking as an artist...but if I had a choice of feeding the hungry people in the world and shutting down museum purchases or even shutting down museums....I would chose feeding the hungry people in the world...the world can't do withou compassion but it can do without art...because nature can do for us anything and much more than art can...art is just a memorial to nature and imagination, and imagination won't die without art hanging on the walls of an institution...
It kind of gives me a calm feeling when I look at it. It should be accompanied by birdsong and the occasional sound of an airplane up in the sky. Perhaps some light guitar music.
Seriously, though. Aum-pa made a key comment earlier. I have learned not to betoo judgemental about any art until I stand in front of it.
Lichtenstein? *shrugs* And then I saw it.
Monet? *shrugs* What's the big deal? Then I saw it.
Turner? *blurry shite* Then I saw it.
The Weather Project? Big orange sun, so what? Then I went and saw it.
It always makes a difference. Even if only to confirm that it is, in fact, shite, and the artist is having a laugh. And fair play.
stringo
188679
