This one "Number 17A" sold in 2016 for $200m.
But then, on the other hand, you have a painter like Mark Rothko (1903-70) Large paintings $25m+.
Which would you prefer? Remember, art is in the eye of the beholder!
Posted on 10/22/2020 12:18:20 PM PDT by Red Badger
Carnac says, “All of them.”
I have always considered “art” to be a skill, that I can assure you I don’t posses. If it looks like something I could do (Pollack et. al.), then it doesn’t qualify as art.
Like music...I could learn to work the piano as a machine and play by rote what I had practiced, but I never had that “feel” for music. I could never improvise a riff. I always strung together riffs from other artists that I had learned and never laid down anything original or memorable. Being an artist is an intrinsic quality that few possess.
This one "Number 17A" sold in 2016 for $200m.
But then, on the other hand, you have a painter like Mark Rothko (1903-70) Large paintings $25m+.
Which would you prefer? Remember, art is in the eye of the beholder!
My garage floor looks like that. It’s detracts from the value of my home.
You’ve heard of that Picasso fellow, haven’t ya?
You hit my memory button with this comment. The 1970's TV Series M*A*S*H started as a jeremiad against the Vietnam War but in its latter years, with much more rounded characters, it was so very superior. The late David Ogden Stiers (1942-2018), playing Major Winchester, had written for him and gave a bravura performance about this very gift in this 5 minute clip. The fact was that Mr Stiers was very dedicated to classical music in his life and I think that this piece was a beautiful marriage of his passions.
One of my all-time favorite TV clips and I think you will agree!
There are some nice Pollocks. That's not one of them.
The Rothko would add a burst of colors to a room.
Paying large sums of money for either isn't about appreciating art. It's an investment for the rich.
Does anyone believe they're beautiful art? Not really.
At this level the rich pay top dollar hoping they can resell at a profit in a few years.
That's pretty much why art dealers hype artists. Supply/demand, dead artist/limited supply.
It's not art appreciation. It's gambling on a payoff.
If it looks nice and adds color to the room, that's just a minor plus.
Usually the ‘money’ angle........................
Was it a caveman and some buffalo?
It should have stayed lost.
Some of this art was allegedly pushed by our State Department during the Cold War
>>I’m just not sure what angle the artist was going for.
Make some money with limited craft skills
“Some of this art was allegedly pushed by our State Department during the Cold War”
Interesting.
Like Hillary supporting all the weird occult creepy artists when she was SoS.
https://art.state.gov/portfolio/modern-art-and-the-cold-war/
For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
