The Sham of Modern Art

[Captain Canuck #12]

Love for Modern Art is the epitome of the Power of Suggestion.

[khay]

lol I'd say the couple turned that piece of artwork into masterpiece.

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

The fine art market can be kinda obscene, but it’s just a market, like any other. And honestly, $80 million for a Rothko (or $440,000 for the JonOne piece from the OP) almost makes more sense to me than things you see in other markets, like Tesla’s p/e ratio, or even the price of a crappy teardown house in Vancouver. And don’t even get me started on stuff like NFTs. 

[iinatcc]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I'm sorry, Orange Red and Yellow? 40+ million? all the way to 77 million.

There's nothing except colours and I don't see any of the three colours from the screen.

LMFAO... it's just a bunch of people bidding because someone else started to bid on it.

Maybe the bidders are huge Hulk Hogan fans? 

 

[nuckin_futz]

When I read the title of this thread I thought for sure it would be about NFT's (Non Fungible Tokens) or digital art.

 

Crypto investor who bought Beeple’s NFT for $69 million says he would have paid even more

 

The buyer of the $69 million NFT by the artist Beeple said he was prepared to bid even higher, since it will be seen by history as the starting point of a new age of digital art.

 

In his first television interview, Vignesh Sundaresan, also known as MetaKovan, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that he has no regrets paying $69 million for what many say is simply a JPEG and an hyperlink. He said the rise of nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, herald a new era where technology has allowed artists and collectors around the world to buy and sell art more easily and democratically.

 

“This NFT is a significant piece of art history,” Sundaresan said. “Sometimes these things take some time for everyone to recognize and realize. I’m OK with that. I had the opportunity to be part of this very important shift in how art has been perceived for centuries.”

 

NFTs have exploded in recent months, as NBA video highlights, memes, digital art and even a tweet sell for six or seven figures. While proponents say NFTs, which assign ownership of any digital asset on the blockchain, will not only change the art world but could be applied to physical goods like homes and property. Sales of NFTs have now topped $500 million, according to many estimates.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/vignesh-sundaresan-known-as-metakovan-on-paying-69-million-for-beeple-nft.html

 

********************

 

At least with a painting or a  sculpture there is something physical. With NFT's there is nothing physical, it just exists on the internet.

 

He paid for the art with Ethereum crpytocurrecy.

[lmm]

10 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

The fine art market can be kinda obscene, but it’s just a market, like any other. And honestly, $80 million for a Rothko (or $440,000 for the JonOne piece from the OP) almost makes more sense to me than things you see in other markets, like Tesla’s p/e ratio, or even the price of a crappy teardown house in Vancouver. And don’t even get me started on stuff like NFTs. 

don't forget athlete's saleries

[lmm]

12 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Picasso made sculptures out of garbage.  You may scoff but if you've seen it in person, you would call it genius.

 

 

that lower one is one of my favorites

I have a new bike wheel, might have to take some time away from all this art and spend time in the garage today

[canuckster19]

Just look up Milo Moiré, Europeans are insufferable when it comes to this kind of thing. They all act like they're haute couture when in reality they're one maybe two steps above a backwater Alabaman. 

[UnkNuk]

15 minutes ago, canuckster19 said:

Just look up Milo Moiré, Europeans are insufferable when it comes to this kind of thing. They all act like they're haute couture when in reality they're one maybe two steps above a backwater Alabaman. 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Moiré's PlopEgg No. 1, performed at Art Cologne 2014, was a work of action painting that involved the expelling of paint filled eggs from her vagina on to a canvas, thus creating an abstract work of art.[4] The eggs contained ink and acrylic paint.[5] A video description of the work states "At the end of this almost meditative art birth performance the stained canvas is folded up, smoothed and unfolded to a symmetrically reflected picture, astonishingly coloured and full of [strength]."[6] The folding of the resulting canvas created a work which has been compared to a Rorschach test[7] and a womb.[5] Moiré writes: "To create art, I use the original source of femininity – my vagina."[5]"

 

All righty, should we start the bidding at $45 million?

[bishopshodan]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

From Wikipedia:

 

"Moiré's PlopEgg No. 1, performed at Art Cologne 2014, was a work of action painting that involved the expelling of paint filled eggs from her vagina on to a canvas, thus creating an abstract work of art.[4] The eggs contained ink and acrylic paint.[5] A video description of the work states "At the end of this almost meditative art birth performance the stained canvas is folded up, smoothed and unfolded to a symmetrically reflected picture, astonishingly coloured and full of [strength]."[6] The folding of the resulting canvas created a work which has been compared to a Rorschach test[7] and a womb.[5] Moiré writes: "To create art, I use the original source of femininity – my vagina."[5]"

 

All righty, should we start the bidding at $45 million?

I think I've been to that strip club. 

[luckylager]

Strikes me as the kind of painting one respects until the artist is dead.

 

I like a lot of urban art / graffiti, but not that piece. It's trash. 

[Undrafted]

I've actually studied modern art history (took a full credit university-level course back in the early 90s), so I understand *some* of the valuations attributed to classic works like paintings by Rothko, Pollock, Picasso and others.  In the case of these older abstract paintings, the value is in their place in history and knowing the historical context also helps when understanding what these artists were attempting to do. 

 

Those works were painted during the tail end of "modernism", which had an established set of values that began as far back as the mid-19th century when painters began experimenting with creating art that wasn't merely an attempt at realistic renderings (the art term being "representational").  Believe it or not, when impressionism first began, it was considered artistically-scandalous because it was the first real departure from directly representational painting; yet today, impressionist painting is viewed as mainstream, completely inoffensive and "real art" in the eyes of the general public.  For those who don't know, examples of impressionist painters include: Monet, Van Gogh, Seurat (aka, the guy who invented pointillism).

Each successive art movement that followed kept pushing the limits of the definition of what painting and art could be.  I won't get into listing all the different movements that transpired over the course of the end of modernism, but because one of the defining "values" of modern art was originality--specifically, trying an approach that had never been done before--art increasingly distanced itself from representational work because it was not even remotely an original way to paint.  Also, the quest to create something "original" also meant that each successive new approach was considered "shocking" to both the art world and the general public. 

So in the case of those classic works, the high valuation assigned to them is partly because of their historical value and IMO, that's legit.  (I should also state that I've personally viewed paintings by both Rothko and Pollock in major art gallery exhibitions and that photographs never do those paintings justice.  Sure, it's an "eye of the beholder" thing, but I personally found them to be awe-inspiring and beautiful.)

 

However, by the time the end of the 1960s rolled around, the world of painting began to reach a dead end because they'd finally exhausted all the possible things humans could do with pigment and surface.  And that's when post-modernism began and the declaration that "painting was dead".  Now, I'll spare you the theoretical details of what post-modernism is, but the most important thing about post-modernism (in the context of painting) was that it eliminated the notion that "originality" (by the definition I outlined above) being a necessity in critiquing art, mostly because "originality" was no longer even possible.

So when I hear about stuff like that Moiré's "PlopEgg" paintings, it seems like it's trying to appeal to the modernist aesthetic that expired decades ago: it's trying very hard to be original (but it's not--it's merely a weird variation of Pollock's approach over 50 years ago) and shocking (but it's not unless you're a prude about female sexual anatomy).

 

One last thing: when I took that art history course all those years ago, I was still wavering between pursuing art or music as a career (now, now: it was the 90s and I was still in my naïve early 20s).  But the one thing that drove me away from the art world permanently was when I was told that the reason why one had to learn all the history and art theory terminology was that it was more important to "justify your art" (the words used by my instructor) than your actual work itself.  Even when I asked the instructor if she meant post-modernist painting is more about selling art-speak BS about the work to art critics (basically, my translation into plain English of what she said), she said, "Yes, whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality of the art world today.  Being able to describe your work in those terms is critical to being successful."

 

And that's where you get both artists like Moiré and ridiculous valuations based on what art critics say.

[GLASSJAW]

people who think dull, boring portraits of renaissance aristocrats are better than even a mid-tier picasso need to walk around with some identifying marker stitched on their clothes

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

people who think dull, boring portraits of renaissance aristocrats are better than even a mid-tier picasso need to walk around with some identifying marker stitched on their clothes

 

You didn't get into art school either hey? 

[iinatcc]

8 hours ago, Undrafted said:

So when I hear about stuff like that Moiré's "PlopEgg" paintings, it seems like it's trying to appeal to the modernist aesthetic that expired decades ago: it's trying very hard to be original (but it's not--it's merely a weird variation of Pollock's approach over 50 years ago) and shocking (but it's not unless you're a prude about female sexual anatomy).

Kind of reminds me of this scene in The Big Lebowski 

 

Note: I am not putting down any modern artists or anything. They are still have 10,000 times more artistic talent that I do, but it still reminded me of the Big Lebowski 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by iinatcc

[canuckster19]

On 4/3/2021 at 11:52 PM, falcon45ca said:

A couple mistakenly "vandalized" a piece of modern art valued at $440,000.

 

 

Can it be called vandalism if it's undetectable from the original artwork?  Is the original piece even art work? Can the couple be actually held responsible, given that brushes and paint was literally just sitting there in front of the "art work"?

 

 

Couple mistakenly vandalizes $440,000 painting at exhibition (msn.com)

The one thing I particularly find amusing here is how it's made to look like that's what people are actually supposed to do, it's a painting made to look like a bunch of randos have walked up and painted some strokes on it, yet somehow someone actually doing that has ruined it. The mental gymnastics needed by the art world to make these distinctions is mind boggling and an overall indication of the mental health of people in general who think it's valuable art.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Anything can be deemed "art" nowadays, apparently. Some woman spreading period blood all over a canvas is considered art. 

[Jester13]

On 4/4/2021 at 5:45 PM, Undrafted said:

I've actually studied modern art history (took a full credit university-level course back in the early 90s), so I understand *some* of the valuations attributed to classic works like paintings by Rothko, Pollock, Picasso and others.  In the case of these older abstract paintings, the value is in their place in history and knowing the historical context also helps when understanding what these artists were attempting to do. 

 

Those works were painted during the tail end of "modernism", which had an established set of values that began as far back as the mid-19th century when painters began experimenting with creating art that wasn't merely an attempt at realistic renderings (the art term being "representational").  Believe it or not, when impressionism first began, it was considered artistically-scandalous because it was the first real departure from directly representational painting; yet today, impressionist painting is viewed as mainstream, completely inoffensive and "real art" in the eyes of the general public.  For those who don't know, examples of impressionist painters include: Monet, Van Gogh, Seurat (aka, the guy who invented pointillism).

Each successive art movement that followed kept pushing the limits of the definition of what painting and art could be.  I won't get into listing all the different movements that transpired over the course of the end of modernism, but because one of the defining "values" of modern art was originality--specifically, trying an approach that had never been done before--art increasingly distanced itself from representational work because it was not even remotely an original way to paint.  Also, the quest to create something "original" also meant that each successive new approach was considered "shocking" to both the art world and the general public. 

So in the case of those classic works, the high valuation assigned to them is partly because of their historical value and IMO, that's legit.  (I should also state that I've personally viewed paintings by both Rothko and Pollock in major art gallery exhibitions and that photographs never do those paintings justice.  Sure, it's an "eye of the beholder" thing, but I personally found them to be awe-inspiring and beautiful.)

 

However, by the time the end of the 1960s rolled around, the world of painting began to reach a dead end because they'd finally exhausted all the possible things humans could do with pigment and surface.  And that's when post-modernism began and the declaration that "painting was dead".  Now, I'll spare you the theoretical details of what post-modernism is, but the most important thing about post-modernism (in the context of painting) was that it eliminated the notion that "originality" (by the definition I outlined above) being a necessity in critiquing art, mostly because "originality" was no longer even possible.

So when I hear about stuff like that Moiré's "PlopEgg" paintings, it seems like it's trying to appeal to the modernist aesthetic that expired decades ago: it's trying very hard to be original (but it's not--it's merely a weird variation of Pollock's approach over 50 years ago) and shocking (but it's not unless you're a prude about female sexual anatomy).

 

One last thing: when I took that art history course all those years ago, I was still wavering between pursuing art or music as a career (now, now: it was the 90s and I was still in my naïve early 20s).  But the one thing that drove me away from the art world permanently was when I was told that the reason why one had to learn all the history and art theory terminology was that it was more important to "justify your art" (the words used by my instructor) than your actual work itself.  Even when I asked the instructor if she meant post-modernist painting is more about selling art-speak BS about the work to art critics (basically, my translation into plain English of what she said), she said, "Yes, whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality of the art world today.  Being able to describe your work in those terms is critical to being successful."

 

And that's where you get both artists like Moiré and ridiculous valuations based on what art critics say.

This ^ 

 

The valuation of art started to change - arguably - with the impressionists, where meaning started to drift away from skill and into the revolt of the times. Historical significance became of greater importance with each art movement, which we still see today with Beeple's NFT. I find most art to be increasingly pretentious and narcissistic with each "movement", and I still find my personal meaning within landscape art, as I enjoy looking at nature in real life and prefer quiet moments of reflection in nature rather than some pretentious and narcissistic "message" that the artist is trying to get across to me with their paint splashed on canvas. But to each their own, I guess. 

[UnkNuk]

The valuation of much art today is, I believe, another example of the Greater Fool Theory.

 

Which theory says something like:  you are a fool to pay, say, $10 million dollars for a particular painting unless you're pretty sure that, down the road, some greater fool will come along and pay even more for it.  In which case, it's a pretty good investment.

[UnkNuk]

Wasn't sure where to post this but since NFTs have been mentioned here, why not here?:

 

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

 

https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/

 

The value of this art is all hot air. 

 

A Brooklyn-based film director is simultaneously mocking and attempting to profit off the cryptocurrency craze for non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by selling a year’s worth of fart audio clips recorded in quarantine.

 

“If people are selling digital art and GIFs, why not sell farts?” Alex Ramírez-Mallis, 36, told The Post of his dank addition to the blockchain-based NFT market.

 

The top bid for the file is currently $183.