View previous topic | View next topic

I don't know if it's art...

Page 7 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

1367731.  Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:13 pm Reply with quote

Wow! I rather like Klimt's work, as it goes, but shall now restrain myself from pining to own one.

1367740.  Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:49 pm Reply with quote

That's a quote from post 1228642 originally posted in March 2017.

One of his prettier creations certainly - and in that vein

Bauerngarten mit Sonnenblumen
Farm Garden with Sunflowers

There's some disagreement about both the precise title and the date but the Austrian gallery where it's held
says it's

Bauerngarten mit Sonnenblumen
Brauhausgarten in Litzlberg am Attersee



so I'll take their word for it.

1367759.  Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:08 pm Reply with quote

Image way too big

Banksy (Defaced Hirst) The Lifestyle You Ordered Is Currently Out Of Stock (2013-14)

This piece evokes feelings of ambivalence in me - I like the irreverence, contempt even, but then I see that it recently sold for $2.319M and I struggle with that; I can't help but feel someone is missing the point - I hope it's not me.

There's also

Ziegler-T - My Kid Just Ruined My Damien Hirst

There are several different versions of this by Ziegler. A couple of hundred Euros and you get the sentiments without the shock value and I don't know if that's better or worse. I feel it may be worse but because of the high auction price paid for the Banksy I'd struggle to explain exactly why.

Hirst's 'spot' paintings (there are 300+ of them) sell for something like £0.65M and £1.2M btw.

1367837.  Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:48 am Reply with quote

Yes - I would also struggle with the idea of paying that prize for that Banksy. Mind you, I also struggle with the price that would be paid for Dali's version of the Mona Lisa or Duchamp's lavatorial piece. I feel the same about the Turner prize awarded to 'Light going on. Light going off.' I am unimpressed by almost anything that is a one-trick pony of the kind where you get the idea at the first glance and there isn't skill or craftsmanship much beyond that.

1368259.  Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:25 am Reply with quote

Like Sherlock Holmes, I have the crudest ideas about art, but I know what I like. I am well aware that there are styles of art which are described as "naïve" or "primitive", but where does one draw the line between that and "not very good at painting"? Indeed, can such a line be drawn? I can't help but feel that this work, for sale in a local emporium, falls into the latter category.

1368289.  Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:19 am Reply with quote

Oh I don't know - I've seen much worse than that!

1368306.  Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:11 am Reply with quote

Me too, but that doesn't make this one "good".

1368314.  Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:15 pm Reply with quote

Is a painting necessarily "good" if someone pays $1.4 million for it?

That is the auction record for a Grandma Moses. I know sod all about art, but personally I'd place her in the "not very good at painting" category. Others clearly think differently.

1368755.  Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:44 pm Reply with quote

All art (and I use the term intending to include music, literature, sculpture and so on perhaps even including
architecture) exists to please the observer in some regard and if it does that then it is worth whatever it costs for
one person or institution to take it into their possession. In that its function is to give pleasure - even merely the
pleasure of ownership - then the merit of any piece is connected to its monetary value. As an example a Mozart
score sold for €372,500 in November 2019 - in that instance the beauty of the piece rests in its performance
and is not really adequately captured on the paper but it is possible to own the original if one wishes to and can
afford it. For a visual work the benefits of owning the piece can be more wide ranging because of copyright
ownership. The physical object itself clearly still has a caché though and it is thus imbued with value far beyond
that of any reproduction no matter how faithful and/or the image rights.

In my opinion there definitely is a distinction between desirability and quality but given the non-functional nature
of art the original intention to stimulate the senses remains and that need not be reliant on technical merit.
Ultimately it is the fulfillment of the artists own intention by which we should judge a piece rather than the
acclaim it receives or the price it attracts; sadly however artists are notoriously tight-lipped about intent. Only
when the original specific intention of the artist was to create something worth a lot of money does the price
attained directly correspond with how good the work is and only the artist can truly know when that is the case
or whether in reality there is some other criterion by which the work should be judged. Pieces which attract a great
deal of public praise often still fall short of an artist's aspirations and this is right, proper and a good part of the
reason why artists go on creating new works and/or tweaking old ones.

Last edited by Celebaelin on Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

1368786.  Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:02 am Reply with quote

Art prices are notoriously unstable though. You only have to look at old episodes of the Antiques Road Show to see that. Over here they sometimes rerun ten or fifteen year old episodes with a note about what the valuation would be today, and it's as often lower as higher.

1368824.  Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:41 pm Reply with quote

Art prices fluctuate with the economy and current trends; for pictorial art when the price exceeds the re-use value
of the canvas and frame then the excess is what is, in that market, merited by the composition. When this is a lot
of money then there is a correspondingly bigger element of risk in buying as an investment. When buying art you
should factor in that if you have to recapitalise quickly it is not guaranteed to provide a good, or indeed a positive,
return as and when you need it - even if you didn't overpay to secure the purchase initially.

I fear my meaning in the opening of my last post needs a little bit of explanation.

Celebaelin wrote: exists to please the observer in some regard and if it does that then it is worth whatever it costs
for one person or institution to take it into their possession*. In that its function is to give pleasure - even
merely the pleasure of ownership - then the merit of any piece is connected to its monetary value@.

* as a response to auction room conditions i.e. market forces
@ because those who can afford to will pay more to satisfy their desire for the piece and have that
intimate association with it

What this means to me is that I need to settle for a bunch of posters in over-priced frames to satisfy all
my artistic yearnings - that or maybe $500M to spare.

1368902.  Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:56 pm Reply with quote

A friend of mine has picked up a lot of lovely pieces at thrift shops and flea markets that have turned out to be worth a few hundred dollars more than they paid for them. Thrift stores aren't such a good source nowadays because they tend to check things on eBay before they put them in the store.

I bought a couple of lovely pieces at a GoodWill art sale a few years ago, one for $40 in a nice frame that didn't need to be changed, and one for $5 in a tatty frame that I was able to replace fairly cheaply as it was a standard size for an off-the-shelf frame. When I checked online about the artists, the first one was by a Massachusetts artist and was part of a limited edition of prints and would sell on eBay for around $200, and the $5 was a beautifully-executed pencil drawing by a known artist who normally draws sports-related stuff and whose stuff again sells for over $100. I have no intention of selling either because I just like them and I want to keep them.

I recently splashed out $450 on a beautiful black and white woodcut by a Maine artist whose work I saw in a local gallery. It was actually the cheapest thing on display but I bought it because I really liked it. I think that's the most I've spent ever for anything like that.

1376877.  Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:15 am Reply with quote

Back to Klimt. I was looking up stuff about birch trees today because I have a vague idea for a poem that's percolating through my brain, and came across this rather lovely one:

1376903.  Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:15 pm Reply with quote

I think that's a slightly cropped version of a larger work Jenny - specifically this one...

There's at least one other Klimt birch tree painting

I particularly like the flowers and the arrow-straight sapling left of centre at the front - it's as if he included the
slight kink at the top in order to emphasise that it really was that 'unnaturally' straight in life.

1376926.  Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:31 am Reply with quote

I love these pictures - they don't have the stiffness of a Seurat but they essentially use similar principles.


Page 7 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group