Re: Picasso: genius taking the piss?
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:26 am
...which is true for just about any opinion by anyone whether right or wrong! Nothing new here.mtmynd1 wrote:Dub, you're merely voicing an opinion that has as much value as a reader would like to place upon it.
Your simplicity is astounding if not laughable! Consider "Merda d'artista" by Piero Manzoni an Italian "artist" who canned his own poop as an art object!mtmynd1 wrote:The closer truth lies in the fact that paintings that command huge amounts of money will in all likelihood survive the pillage of time. Values place admiration on objects assuring future generations will be able to enjoy.
I especially like the part "The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold". Based on what's discussed that statement is priceless!A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007; in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50–70,000. It sold for £97,250. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold – $37 each in 1961 – with the price fluctuating according to the market.
Amounts like that would buy a hell of a lot of groceries. According to your philosophy, the amounts paid for poop should preserve it's artistic value in the future!
We live in a time where "masterpieces" can be created in hours or even minutes and sold for amounts that supply the needs for a few lifetimes.
If Picasso were in a restaurant happy with the service and ready to give the waiter a tip not with money but a doodle on a napkin that didn't take more than 30 seconds to sketch it would have been worth more than the waiter could have made in half a lifetime. Had some no-name done the same it would rightfully have been considered an insult. So again, the value is dependent on the brand.
I wish my "foolish question" would have that problem! Unfortunately I'm a few bucks shy of 50 million! I'll need a few more Wednesdays of cheap whoppers to make up for the difference!mtmynd1 wrote:The key phrase (highlighted) is paramount to your foolish question. For you to purchase anything for $50M would require you having a tremendous amount of money available to you to even consider a purchase of that magnitude. If you're going to play the "assumption game", begin with the reality of where your wealth comes from? If your personal "value" so great to those you serve that spending that amount of money on an artwork is merely an investment for you? How much are you willing to spend on the security of such a piece, (think vaulting, humidity factors, long term security concerns, etc. which would account for the value of the future sale).Dubious wrote:Would I buy a total piece of shit for 50 million$ that I wouldn't mount over a toilet bowl if I was reasonably certain I could resell it for 10 million more in a year or so?
Is it necessary to mention it was only an example based on the momentum of increasing investment value in the art world? Obviously mere multi millionaires cannot afford these excessive art prices but the multi billionaires can and do. Also, why would the cost of storage, etc, be of concern to someone who can make these kind of purchases and what pray does this have to do with the reality of where your wealth comes from?
Contextually your statement does not in the least apply to what I said so why would you even mention this?
There are too many definitions by too many people, even among experts to define what constitutes art. If it's based on one's "perception" then art is only that which is "perceived to be art" as stated. "Art is art" tells one nothing.mtmynd1 wrote:Ridiculous assumption, Dub, especially your last sentence. Art is art, period. Whether you as Joe Public enjoy an art piece is strictly on your own perception in what you are looking at - how does it make you feel?Dubious wrote:There's a huge number of people who don't love Picasso and his art is not what's driving the prices up. That part is due completely to it's investment value based on the brand of what is merely perceived to be art.
Unrealistic to you but absolutely real as far as the "art industry" is concerned which ironically has little to do with art. Did you miss this part of how Richter described it? From the article:mtmynd1 wrote:True one would certainly enjoy making some level of profit off an investment, but that is unrealistic.
It's all business independent of merit. If the value added endorsement of a brand name is missing it is worth virtually nothing no matter how great the skill it took to create it.No one who had bought his works in recent years, he said, had ever contacted him to show an interest in him or his work, implying that they were only interested in the work’s investment value. He confirmed that often his works were among those bought as safe, tax-free capital investments and stored in art bunkers in east Asia or Switzerland.
...and you call me ridiculous! I live in a home; I drive a car to wherever I need to go; I may or may not play a musical instrument. The first two are necessities. The 3rd is a luxury. What does that have to do with future profit? Can I live, drive or play a painting or sculpture or only look at it with the option of eventually reselling it at a huge profit based on what was paid which in turn is based on the brand?mtmynd1 wrote:Think of the investment one makes in a home or an automobile... how about a musical instrument... do you fancy the object over the "future profit"?
The actual merit of a work in the context of business has ZERO function and conclude as follows from the article next to Gerhard Richter one:
And of course, this philistine assumption that the only really interesting thing about art is its financial value is totally correct. For it is shared by the most powerful people in the art world, on a scale that makes a mockery of any belief in art as a road to revelation, an instrument of social progress or any of the other fragile ideals that dreamers attach to it.