Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A child can create a beautiful and emotional piece of art so certainly I agree modern or abstract artists can as well. But if it is something that anyone can create, I don't think it is as 'special' as a work of an artist who posses the ability to create something the rest of us can not. Putting extra value on art simply because it was made by a guy who 'did it first' when its something anyone could do is silly in my opinion.
I guarantee that you could put a 2 million dollar "modern art" piece by a famous artist on a busy street corner and no one would buy it for 100 bucks if they thought it was from an unknown person.
That is because average people walking down a busy street don't know much about art ... they are not art professors, art historians, art collectors, art investors, or even artists themselves.
Every great artist going back to Rembrandt was ridiculed. In more recent times when Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's Soup Can on a canvas 60 years ago Mr. and Mrs. Average was aghast. Today it's worth more than a million dollars.
That is because average people walking down a busy street don't know much about art ... they are not art professors, art historians, art collectors, art investors, or even artists themselves.
Every great artist going back to Rembrandt was ridiculed. In more recent times when Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's Soup Can on a canvas 60 years ago Mr. and Mrs. Average was aghast. Today it's worth more than a million dollars.
I was one of those people who laughed at Andy Warhol back then and I still laugh now. A lot of "art" is like the emperor who was wearing no clothes. People believe something and it catches on but that doesn't mean it's good art.
Art will usually reflect the era, the time in which it was created. The latter part of the 20th century wasn't exactly the epitome of culture and civility. It was a wild time, a time of exploration and experimentation, a time of "anything goes". And so we got a can of soup. We got soft sculpture of toilets. What else could anyone expect?
As prime examples of what the culture was like back then, they get an A+. As great art, no.
I was one of those people who laughed at Andy Warhol back then and I still laugh now. A lot of "art" is like the emperor who was wearing no clothes. People believe something and it catches on but that doesn't mean it's good art.
Art will usually reflect the era, the time in which it was created. The latter part of the 20th century wasn't exactly the epitome of culture and civility. It was a wild time, a time of exploration and experimentation, a time of "anything goes". And so we got a can of soup. We got soft sculpture of toilets. What else could anyone expect?
As prime examples of what the culture was like back then, they get an A+. As great art, no.
The procurement of culture is a "funny thing" as some would say. I do think that affectation features heavily, and the delineation of masscult/midcult and low/mid/highbrow does factor into it. This goes for all the arts, be it theatre, cinema, literature & poetry, music, or painting.
I do also believe in the popular narratives of what is great, where a canon of the "classics" eventually arises to the exclusion of other pieces. Consider Shakespeare worship, or within that, the popularity of Hamlet or Romeo & Juliet vs, say, Titus Andronicus.
I admire those who are brave enough to stand by their own decided tastes, especially when it goes against the trend at the next dinner party or cocktail soiree.
Sometimes I think it's about snobbery. What I want to know is, if one person can earn untold thousands for a 'Dirty Bed' or three white canvasses, why can't I? In Europe at least it seems to be abot who you know, not what you can do!
Sometimes I think it's about snobbery. What I want to know is, if one person can earn untold thousands for a 'Dirty Bed' or three white canvasses, why can't I? In Europe at least it seems to be abot who you know, not what you can do!
Which specific artist and work are you talking about? Do you mean this one? If that's the guy you're complaining about, then my answer to your question is, he makes the money and you don't because he's a better artist than you are, competing more successfully in the free market. Now, if you mean some other 'art', that doesn't have any obvious production values to it, I will discuss that when I know which work you're actually talking about.
I have seen paintings in galleries, that I know as a painter, do not require a lot of work to manufacture the image. They may have large multi-thousand dollar price tags on them. I see them as grossly inflated in value, and if they were my own paintings, I'd consider them unfinished, rudimentary works. But I don't have any paintings selling in galleries and I'm not a professional artist. I've asked myself whether I should become a professional artist and crank out these easy works for profit. But aside from my personal disappointment at the conceptual quality and intellectual integrity of such works, there's this little problem that a high price tag doesn't mean the painting is selling. I'd really like to get my hands on the competitive information of knowing what paintings at what galleries are actually selling. My stepmom is a professional painter in Charleston SC, and she hasn't cracked any kind of lucrative market down there, despite that I respect the quality of her work. We suspect that galleries have various scams where they try to make people believe that the art has been sold, to artificially whip up the perceived demand for the work.
For now, I will concentrate on improving my work to my own standards, and not on money. Then I will revisit the question of making money from Art.
I feel like modern art has definitely been degraded. I think art in general, to include music, has really suffered a lack of quality to appease the masses. Most beautiful art has never appealed to the masses. Compare and contrast modern music with classical music and what passes for "art" at modern museums to some of the truly great works of history.
Modern Art has a broader range than classical forms. That means some of that breadth of range is going to be "bad." But I value the breadth of range more than classical canon. Modern Art has also achieved various things that are "good" that classical art would have never achieved, due to its limited vision.
Modern or abstract art is all about marketing and having a designer name attached to it. The artist needs to pimp their self via agents, etc. Why else would someone pay 6 figures for a solid colored canvas with one splash in the center? That could easily be painted on an assembly line in China.
I guarantee that you could put a 2 million dollar "modern art" piece by a famous artist on a busy street corner and no one would buy it for 100 bucks if they thought it was from an unknown person.
On the other hand, there are thousands of very gifted artists who are as talented as great masters such as da Vinci, yet they will never even make a living on their art because they have no desire to work the system, attend social art events, pimp their work commercially and build their "name."
I don't think there are thousands of very gifted artists who are as talented as great masters such as Leonardo da Vinci. They may be very gifted artists, but putting them at Leonardo's level is too high, imo.
Actually it's hard to say because the world population is much larger than da Vinci's time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.