The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:In practice, there are a shitload of 'art experts', prissy little snobs they are, that will try to influence the price, by telling others just how superb bozo the chimp's fingerprintings are... over wine and cheese, of course.

How little you know, Dalek. Fearful little people who have a set attitude towards any art that costs more than the latest Marvel comic are no judge of the far greater world of art and the power it has over people of all ages.

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Enough people love Picasso's work to push up the price. If he played noughts and crosses on a scrap of paper and signed it, it would be worth a fortune.

...proving once again it depends purely on the name and not on the art itself. When Picasso wiped his ass - assuming he did - he could have sold the used toilet paper for the price of a King's outhouse!

Or a female artist using her monthly blood in her art. Yummy.

mtmynd1 wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:In practice, there are a shitload of 'art experts', prissy little snobs they are, that will try to influence the price, by telling others just how superb bozo the chimp's fingerprintings are... over wine and cheese, of course.

How little you know, Dalek. Fearful little people who have a set attitude towards any art that costs more than the latest Marvel comic are no judge of the far greater world of art and the power it has over people of all ages.

Hey, if you're going to denigrate me, at least have the courtesy to share some of that wine and cheese first, ya snotty priss. And f*** you for denigrating comic art, you moist vagina.

Dubious wrote: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!

You make that statement and then in the same breath write this -

Dubious wrote:Is it necessary to mention it was only an example based on the momentum of increasing investment value in the art world?

Only an example... just as my own example is "only an example"... leaving us where, Dub? Are we any closer to an agreement? Nyet! Are we better informed before you came along with your comments? No!

Dubious wrote:... as far as the "art industry" is concerned which ironically has little to do with art.
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.

You seem to have a fixation on canned shit and Gerhard Richter's works in which you are using to sum up your argument that ... what? Art is a fraud..? Art is unnecessary..? Art is uninteresting to you and there you pick these two artists as "an example" of what..? Art is a business..? What isn't or cannot be considered a business..? Is there is a product of any kind and someone is willing to use money to buy such product, it is a business, is it not? If I bought what you are saying here and you accept $XX.00 what you are saying becomes a business.

But I'm not making these comments for any reason other than a dialogue about art and the two sides to every comment that we read here on the board and two sides to every goddamn thing we come into contact with from philosophical ideas, religions, sciences, arts of every type, books, etc... the world is a dualistic playground of opinions in which we all are involved in everyday of our lives. We pick a side over another and bingo! an argument ensues and the opinions fly from both sides and that is how "it" goes... The Art of Art is creating and creations can be ignored or consumed as necessary, period. Take this a me taking a piss or me having something to say that may or may not interest another. Who really gives a flying f*** what each other has to say on a board that attracts like-minded folks to the same bait, only differing opinions on their taste buds.

Dalek Prime wrote:Hey, if you're going to denigrate me, at least have the courtesy to share some of that wine and cheese first, ya snotty priss. And f*** you for denigrating comic art, you moist vagina.

Hey, if you're going to participate on an open board and voice your opinions, be ready to accept the consequences of your idiocy. If that is not possible it just might be wise for you to bail from these boards, you reckon, DP?

mtmynd1 wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:In practice, there are a shitload of 'art experts', prissy little snobs they are, that will try to influence the price, by telling others just how superb bozo the chimp's fingerprintings are... over wine and cheese, of course.

Fearful little people who have a set attitude towards any art that costs more than the latest Marvel comic are no judge of the far greater world of art and the power it has over people of all ages.

The highlighted clause is the only true part of your statement. The Pantheon itself was built on that premise and at very great expense. What you seem absolutely blind to is how the art world conducts business. I gave examples in a previous post, of which there are many more, but you still can't seem to get the message.

To repeat. The business of art has nothing to do with merit whether it be great or nonexistent. It's "value" is not determined on THAT basis but decided purely on its investment potential.

Great art can theoretically be painted on a sidewalk and washed away with the next rain or people walking over it with no comprehension of what they're doing.

mtmynd1 wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Hey, if you're going to denigrate me, at least have the courtesy to share some of that wine and cheese first, ya snotty priss. And f*** you for denigrating comic art, you moist vagina.

Hey, if you're going to participate on an open board and voice your opinions, be ready to accept the consequences of your idiocy. If that is not possible it just might be wise for you to bail from these boards, you reckon, DP?

Reckon not, princess. I'm having too much fun calling you a vagina. I think I'll stick around.

How do we all rate this one?

Or this one that sold for $2million

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How do we all rate this one?

Wouldn't want it on my wall. Maybe a barn wall.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Or this one that sold for $2million

Looks like an item for sale at Value Village. The "Blue Hat" is the least of her problems!

I wonder how long it took to paint before it was worth a fortune?

Dubious wrote:The highlighted clause is the only true part of your statement.

Again, your statement is nothing but one other opinion. Boring, Dub, boring hearing the SOS over and over never concluding with anything.

Dubious wrote:What you seem absolutely blind to is how the art world conducts business. ...but you still can't seem to get the message.

Dub, please see the original post here, "genius taking a piss" and stick with the premise. Do you make art of any type? Paint, draw, play music, write..? Anything at all other than critiquing others comments (opinions)..?

When any painter, Picasso included, picks up the brush and begins a painting, I know that there is the "call of the muse" which directs one's art (even the "masters"). Picasso in painting the so-called "piss painting" had no idea how that piece would turn out... none at all. He worked on it until he felt it was finished. He took it off his easel and put it away to allow it to dry until he was ready to show it. I guarantee Picasso had no idea what the public response was regarding this piece. I have no idea what the name is or how much he personally made off the sale, but I do know there were more than one buyer waiting in the wings to offer their own amount. Afterall, Picasso was the most prolific artist of the 20th C for some reason other than painting "piss paintings"... and that is not an opinion but a fact. His life was largely directed by his Muse(s) throughout his working years. Which brings me to your following comment -

Dubious wrote:The business of art has nothing to do with merit whether it be great or nonexistent. It's "value" is not determined on THAT basis but decided purely on its investment potential.

Your statement is your admittance that art is nothing more than how much of an investment it is... whether you would buy the piece in question and how much YOU stand to make off it. There has been no comment out of you that even hints at whether you LIKE a/the piece of art... whether you find pleasure in viewing it... whether you would enjoy living with a chosen piece of art or not. To you, Dub, it is all about "investment" and the "business of art" rather than the enjoyment of art. That in itself is a sad admission to your way of thinking, my friend, and one that I have no interest in discussing. I am an artist, including painting, and have been in all likelihood longer than you are old... not that it makes a damn bit of difference to you. You are the type that will run to your grave defending your belief regardless of a shift in consciousness you may ever have. Right?

Dubious wrote:Great art can theoretically be painted on a sidewalk and washed away with the next rain or people walking over it with no comprehension of what they're doing.

Ah, yes, the great "theoretical" is about as useful as the "hypothetical" in it's persuasiveness to alter ones decision making.

Take care and be very, very wary of your investments.

mtmynd1 wrote:To you, Dub, it is all about "investment" and the "business of art" rather than the enjoyment of art. That in itself is a sad admission to your way of thinking, my friend, and one that I have no interest in discussing. I am an artist, including painting, and have been in all likelihood longer than you are old... not that it makes a damn bit of difference to you. You are the type that will run to your grave defending your belief regardless of a shift in consciousness you may ever have. Right?

Yes, I believe you are an artist along with 100 million others who unilaterally designate themselves as such.

You make the most asinine assumptions about me and presume to know all there is to know about my relationship to art. Furthermore you respond as if you didn't understand a single sentence I wrote in any of my posts. Communicating with you is hideously useless, all assumptions, opinion and impervious to any facts presented. Time wasted! Conversation over.

Dubious wrote:
Yes, I believe you are an artist along with 100 million others who unilaterally designate themselves as such..

No one has the right to make that designation except the self. Is this a problem of any kind?