Modern Art

[davieG]

I imagine it went for that much based on how iconic/famous it is, as opposed to how good the painting itself is. I suppose it had to be worth £74m to someone!

Besides, if someone wants to spend ridiculous sums on crap then who are we to stop them? In fact, I kind of admire the artists who manage to sell their works for vast amounts of money, cos if I was able to earn millions by scrawling some nonsensical shit on a canvas then I bloody well would!

Agree I've got nothing against the artists, I have a nephew who is earning himself quite reputation for producing contemporary portraits and I have nothing but admiration for him..

[21st Century Fox]

Sometimes what may look like a pretentious and innocuous piece of work can be from a significant period in an artists life that's made all the more significant when contrasted with their other work. A bit like if you were an archivist and you had a significant page torn from John Lennon's diary. That can be where a lot of the value lies.

One of my favourite pieces of contemporary art is this...

[Zingari]

That looks like a strip of Veet wax paper after the missus has given herself a Brazilian

[purpleronnie]

Modern art makes me want to rock out.

I'm a pop art whore.

me too.

[21st Century Fox]

That looks like a strip of Veet wax paper after the missus has given herself a Brazilian

I'd be concerned that it's in two big clumps like that. Is she in the Miss England semis?

[Zingari]

I'd be concerned that it's in two big clumps like that. Is she in the Miss England semis?

no , she got knocked out in the first round

[21st Century Fox]

no , she got knocked out in the first round

It's those low level beams they have on the catwalks.

[purpleronnie]

It's those low level beams they have on the catwalks.

[Zingari]

It's those low level beams they have on the catwalks.

no , she had a fight with the judges , she took 3 of them out first though !

[davieG]

no , she had a fight with the judges , she took 3 of them out first though !

Where did she take them?

[Zingari]

Where did she take them?

places you've probably never been ( and probably never wanted to )

[Guest]

Art is about personal taste. In general I agree with DavieG but that's just my preferences.

Think some people get a lot of money for absolutely nothing though and that's down to publicity. I've seen some modern Art that reminded me of my kid's nappy. If only I'd had the right publicist and pedigree.

[Jordan]

I don't mind abstraction in art, even in high levels. Good abstract art should be able to use the languages of light, color, space, form, movement etc. to elicit response from its viewer just as much as traditional art--even more so when one of those aspects is isolated in the piece.

We're also conditioned to attach names and meaning to everything in our lives. For example, when you see something with a seat, four legs and a back rest, you think, "chair." Likewise, when you read the word "chair," you most likely think of something with a seat, four legs and a back rest. It's a big challenge to see things as they "really are" without preconceptions, and good abstract art should meet that challenge.

Of course, abstraction leaves plenty that be exploited by bullshitters. But figurative artists can be pretentious, too.

[MikeyT]

I will have to make do with a fake for now. Does the price it was sold at mean that I have taste?

Cheapskate. Go and buy the original.

[FoxyPV]

Like all Art, some of it is good and some of it is shit.

Personally, I'm a fan but have seen utter dross.

One of the things I like the most about the more abstract stuff is that each person's reading of it is different. Speaking to people about abstract art gives you an insight into their personalities.

EDIT - Jordan said it much better than me.

[Smudge]

I don't believe you can judge any art from a newspaper/internet picture. The size and colors could be overwhelming when stood in front and therefore offer a different perspective.

[purpleronnie]

The artwork Orange, red, yellow by Mark Rothko has achieved the highest ever price for a piece of contemporary art at auction - fetching $86.9m (£53.8m). The 1961 painting was sold at Christie's in New York.

I just don't get it!

Colours are powerful they can affect behaviour and mood, which is a pretty amazing response, so if art can do that then surely its worthy. Plus theres also the cultural aspects. I could be moved by a piece of art for different reasons, I might be affected by the boldness of colour and be affected in a psychophysical way but could be equally moved by a 200 year old masterpiece simply because of the skill involved in creating it.

[AoWW]

Some of it is obviously massively pretentious but then some of it is incredibly cool.

I went to the Yayoi Kusama exhibition at the Tate which was great - really interesting to see the influence of her art on the culture at the time and conversley the influence of the prevailing culture on her art. One of her pieces was a room full of lights and mirrors giving the impression of an infinite space, it was brilliant.

Interesting that you enjoyed her exhibition. I've just realised it's only on for another month - I must try and get there as I'd like to see it 'in the flesh'. Considering her 'style' of work I find it amazing that she's in her 80s - and that she's voluntarily lived in a psychiatric institution for the past 25 years!

Not so keen to see the Damien Hirst show though but I suppose I should for the sake of 'art criticism'.

[davieG]

Colours are powerful they can affect behaviour and mood, which is a pretty amazing response, so if art can do that then surely its worthy. Plus theres also the cultural aspects. I could be moved by a piece of art for different reasons, I might be affected by the boldness of colour and be affected in a psychophysical way but could be equally moved by a 200 year old masterpiece simply because of the skill involved in creating it.

Lots of things can move you or affect you, I'm sure I could put that on my wall and it would brighten up the room and maybe my mood but I could do that with lots of things but people don't get all pretentious over about them and spend £53million to have possession of it.

[purpleronnie]

Lots of things can move you or affect you, I'm sure I could put that on my wall and it would brighten up the room and maybe my mood but I could do that with lots of things but people don't get all pretentious over about them and spend £53million to have possession of it.

Different stokes for different folks, the fact they have 50+ million to spend probably mean they view things a little differently.

the fact people disagree what is good or worthy is far more intersting than everyone having the same opinion about it.

[21st Century Fox]

Lots of things can move you or affect you, I'm sure I could put that on my wall and it would brighten up the room and maybe my mood but I could do that with lots of things but people don't get all pretentious over about them and spend £53million to have possession of it.

But you wouldn't be paying £53 million for a decoration, it's the attachment that comes with it. I've got some pieces stored away that I hope will increase in value in the future, it's an interesting gamble. I'm not expecting them to increase in value for solely their aesthetic value but more because of the profile of the artists. Like I said it could be because they capture a significant snapshot of the artists career at a given time. You aren't likely to find many pieces of art changing hands for significantly large amounts for first time artists however good their work looks.

[Jay]

Interesting that you enjoyed her exhibition. I've just realised it's only on for another month - I must try and get there as I'd like to see it 'in the flesh'. Considering her 'style' of work I find it amazing that she's in her 80s - and that she's voluntarily lived in a psychiatric institution for the past 25 years!

Not so keen to see the Damien Hirst show though but I suppose I should for the sake of 'art criticism'.

I went to the Damien Hirst one the other week some of it is outstanding, all the works with the butterflies are stunning, especially in and out of love, the shark,judgement day etc are amazing works. for the love of god is something else. some of it i'm not sure I get the meaning of but it makes you stop and think at both what it represents and what it's suggesting and I guess thats the whole point of it.

For me though much of the art in the tate modern is crap, they actually have a mirror attached to canvas and a massive orange canvas with a stripe down the side of it.

As a massive fan of street art some of it is far better than many of the items in the tate modern imo. Artists like C215, El Mac, Roa, Vhils, connor harrington to name a few are producing some stunning pieces

[davieG]

But you wouldn't be paying £53 million for a decoration, it's the attachment that comes with it. I've got some pieces stored away that I hope will increase in value in the future, it's an interesting gamble. I'm not expecting them to increase in value for solely their aesthetic value but more because of the profile of the artists. Like I said it could be because they capture a significant snapshot of the artists career at a given time. You aren't likely to find many pieces of art changing hands for significantly large amounts for first time artists however good their work looks.

There in lies my problem you're not paying large sums because of the quality of the art but for the celebrity status attached to it or that may become attached to making it no more artistic than a piece of cake some 'celebrity' has left on their plate and yes I know that people do pay large sums for these things but it's not because they have any significant artistic value compared to their celebrity value.

Just to clarify I said in my original post I'm not talking about all modern art.

[21st Century Fox]

There in lies my problem you're not paying large sums because of the quality of the art but for the celebrity status attached to it or that may become attached to making it no more artistic than a piece of cake some 'celebrity' has left on their plate and yes I know that people do pay large sums for these things but it's not because they have any significant artistic value compared to their celebrity value.

Just to clarify I said in my original post I'm not talking about all modern art.

But generally the artist has to be good (Damien Hirst excluded) in the first place to even gain the notoriety or prestige. I agree with that a lot of modern art has become about celebrity now, but you could argue that that's a reflection of pretty much everything in society now. We get footballers who change hands for ridiculous sums based on their marketability rather than athletic prowess.

[davieG]

But generally the artist has to be good (Damien Hirst excluded) in the first place to even gain the notoriety or prestige. I agree with that a lot of modern art has become about celebrity now, but you could argue that that's a reflection of pretty much everything in society now. We get footballers who change hands for ridiculous sums based on their marketability rather than athletic prowess.

Just because celebrity drives other things does justify it's influence on value of art, why exclude Damien Hirst in your reasoning surely all art is subjective, I accept that I just think some of it is appreciated because someone of influence says it's good and people want to fit in, they might also benefit personally by talking up certain artist.