Two year old abstract artist

[Cavemonster]

These Scholar stones are pretty pricey too, going for up to thousands of dollars for large samples.

If you want to talk about the value of diamonds, artificial scarcity, created by Debeers has jacked up the price considerably. They also created artificial demand by practically creating the tradition of diamond centered engagement rings.

From 1880 De Beers were able to control the supply (and price) of diamonds but how were they going to control demand during a period when sales began dropping dramatically (up to 50%) in the 20s and 30s onwards through the great depression?

Just as platinum started to become popular in diamond engagement rings, diamonds were becoming less valued. Platinum was banned for all but war use during WWII and so the platinum diamond engagement rings as we know them today almost died out.

The answer to the problem was a new marketing campaign commissioned by De Beers that began in 1947. Perhaps you've heard the slogan "A Diamond is forever"? This was to mark the beginning of a change in the history of the engagement ring.

Subsequent campaigns would convince families to hold on to their diamonds as family heirlooms... and it worked! Used diamonds were not being released back into the industry which in turn created the demand that De Beers were seeking.

Jewelers were unofficially educated by De Beers to instruct men that two to three months personal wages were an ideal price to pay for the diamond engagement ring that their prospective fiancée's would gladly accept.

In 1953 the world's two most glamorous women of the time Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell were the stars of the hit film musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

The plot involves Monroe and Russell chasing potential husbands on a cruise to France. The movie also features a very famous song sung by the blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe, Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend.

This film would have undoubtedly influenced public opinion at the time and will have advanced the popularity of diamonds for years afterwards through Hollywood glamour.

The film is now 50 years old but it's still a firm favorite of all who love Hollywood and the legend of Monroe. (Of course there are others: High Society, Breakfast At Tiffany’s, Diamonds Are Forever among them)

This is where the tradition of the diamond engagement ring really started, all from an advertising campaign that literally "rocked" the world! (Get it? "rocked".... okay I'll shut up!) So you see buying a diamond engagement ring isn't really a popular ancient tradition.

It's more a combination of "dreaming of being a princess", a clever marketing campaign and compelling Hollywood glamour that ultimately promotes diamonds as the only jewels with which to furnish your loved one as a sign of engagement.

So, yes, diamonds are prettier than granite, but it took an advertising campaign to convince us that they were prettier than birthstones. The price of diamonds, like everything else, is based on how much people are willing to pay. If no one wanted to pay thousands of dollars each, the price would plummet.

And Kevin seems to be conflating different types of value as well. The price of expensive art pieces can be based on it's relevance as an antique, a historical artifact, and an investment, and is only tangentially related to it's aesthetic beauty.

Very few living artists are making millions(they are exceeded by lottery winners), and a good portion of those that do, such as Takashi Murakami and Damien Hirst, and Dale Chihuly, make work that is quite expensive to produce, and that must be marketed and transported internationally at great cost.

I have never been in an art class that spent any serious time discussing the financial value of work (besides making sure that overhead is covered and you aren't getting minimum wage for your labor)

I have never heard a museum talk glowingly about the monetary value of their work on a tour, aside from as an autobiographical detail (Pollack only started supporting himself through his art in the last few years of his life)

I have never seen and Auction House or gallery use the word "genius" and

 

[Piggy]

Kevin -- your argument boils down to "abstract and conceptual art are easy. Anyone could do them". If that's so - where's your blockbuster show at the Tate, buddy? What's stopping you from making Tracy Emin-level millions?

Apparently, the arbitrary whims of art critics and traders. And nothing more.

It turns out that the people who drive up the price for the works of certain modern abstract and conceptual artists over others are, when put to the test, utterly incapable of distinguishing expensive from worthless art on the merits of the work alone.

Time after time, they prove themselves completely ineffective at discriminating among the works of supposed geniuses, nobodies, children, hoaxers, and even animals.

They subject canvases to fingerprint analysis because when they don't know beforehand whether the piece was produced by a "genius" or a hack, they are helpless to decide.

Suppose, for example, that a monochrome canvas by Rothko was discovered to be a fraud, painted by an opportunist. It would immediately become worthless.

On the other hand, if the works of Velazquez or El Greco were discovered to have been painted by someone other than Velazquez or El Greco, that these men had taken credit for the work of others, we would have to recognize the brilliance of a heretofore unsung genius whom we thought, incorrectly, was Velazquez or El Greco.

You walk into a gallery and see on display an enormous pile of cheap red ballpoint pens, or two basketballs floating in an aquarium, or a canvas splattered with housepaint.... what are you to make of that?

The truth is, your first reaction is the correct one -- it's junk.

If you like it, save yourself a few thou: go home and make it yourself. It will be just as good.

The high prices fetched by such slap-dash conceptual hooey are merely a sign of the decadence and degradation of the incestuous "scene" that fawns over such crap.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of outlandish stuff. I've seen tramp art and anonymous folk art that I absolutely love. But that's because there's some skill and talent evident in it.

And I'm a huge fan of R.S. Connett, for instance. I've even commissioned a painting from him.

I know folks who can't stand to be in the same room with his stuff, and I can see why. Sweetness and light it is not. But regardless of what you think about his work, there's no toddler in the world who could produce anything like it.

But an upside-down urinal? Let's face it... it's an upside-down urinal. It's a joke that some people, sadly, actually took seriously.

 

[Piggy]

Very few living artists are making millions (they are exceeded by lottery winners), and a good portion of those that do, such as Takashi Murakami and Damien Hirst, and Dale Chihuly, make work that is quite expensive to produce, and that must be marketed and transported internationally at great cost.

Chihuly's stuff is absolutely amazing.

 

[Cavemonster]

Time after time, they prove themselves completely ineffective at discriminating among the works of supposed geniuses, nobodies, children, hoaxers, and even animals.

See my post earlier on examples of this. It's mostly myth and rumor.

They subject canvases to fingerprint analysis because when they don't know beforehand whether the piece was produced by a "genius" or a hack, they are helpless to decide.

Suppose, for example, that a monochrome canvas by Rothko was discovered to be a fraud, painted by an opportunist. It would immediately become worthless.

It might, but that's largely because monetary value is more based on it's value as an antique and piece of history. A supposed Wyeth revealed would similarly be devalued.

On the other hand, if the works of Velazquez or El Greco were discovered to have been painted by someone other than Velazquez or El Greco, that these men had taken credit for the work of others, we would have to recognize the brilliance of a heretofore unsung genius whom we thought, incorrectly, was Velazquez or El Greco.

Not neccesarily, the bulk of any artist's work are not their masterworks. There are El Grecos that are valued as part of his history, and if one was revealed to be by another artist, it would be regarded as a lesser artist copying the master's style or a hoax. If it was older it may still have value as an antique, but if it were a contemporary painting, it would be judged by the market, likely harshly.

You walk into a gallery and see on display an enormous pile of cheap red ballpoint pens, or two basketballs floating in an aquarium, or a canvas splattered with housepaint.... what are you to make of that?
The truth is, your first reaction is the correct one -- it's junk.

If you like it, save yourself a few thou: go home and make it yourself. It will be just as good.

You have to ask yourself the question of whether it's interesting or not. One of my favorite installations ever was just a room full of floating plastic bags. drifting down from the ceiling. As we got crowded in, it naturally turned into a pillow fight. It cost nothing, and would be incredibly easy to replicate, but it was interesting.

People who buy the work of these kinds of artists are often acting as patrons in helping the artists to make a living creating interesting things. The value of the objects creates funding for more interesting things to happen.

But an upside-down urinal? Let's face it... it's an upside-down urinal. It's a joke that some people, sadly, actually took seriously.

The upside down urinal was a brilliant joke. But not as some here seem to think of the quality "The art world will accept anything! Ha" The meaning of his joke is exactly the opposite "The Bastards like to be precious about what can and can't be called art, I'll give em something that'll really make them blow a gasket!"

The monetary value of that particular urinal is, again, based on it's place as a historical artifact. This was the urinal that Duchamp brought into the art world that had a huge impact. Paul Revere's lantern is also worth a great deal of money, far more than similar lanterns of the time, even those of superior craftsmanship.

 

[Piggy]

A rather common 18th century desk with a lot of wear on it... let's suppose it's worth a couple thou.

But if it belonged to a young George Washington, well, then a couple hundred thou.

Understandable. GW is one of the most influential persons in world history.

A canvas splattered with paint.

Done by some random guy in Hoboken. Worth five bucks.

Done by Jackson Pollock, worth a cool million.

Why? Because Pollock is famous.

The catch? Pollock is famous for producing canvasses that are indistinguishable from those produced by guys in Hoboken whose work is worth five bucks.

See the difference?

 

[Cavemonster]

A rather common 18th century desk with a lot of wear on it... let's suppose it's worth a couple thou.

But if it belonged to a young George Washington, well, then a couple hundred thou.

Understandable. GW is one of the most influential persons in world history.

A canvas splattered with paint.

Done by some random guy in Hoboken. Worth five bucks.

Done by Jackson Pollock, worth a cool million.

Why? Because Pollock is famous.

The catch? Pollock is famous for producing canvasses that are indistinguishable from those produced by guys in Hoboken whose work is worth five bucks.

See the difference?

Nope.
Baseball signed by Joe Dimaggio and Marilyn Monroe- about $200,000
Baseball from the same year where someone else has signed their names? 5 bucks.

You can say that some canvasses are indistinguishable from another artist, but, like a minor El Greco or mediocre Wyeth sketch, monetary value comes from it's place as an antique, piece of history and investment.

The Pollocks that I love, his best works, I assure you would not be confused by the experts or myself for those done by any random guy. Just like every other artist, he made pieces that aren't so great, but have value because they are a part of the process that created the masterworks.


The supposed Pollock Doesn't seem likely to be real. If it is, it isn't a very good example of the man's work (haven't seen it up close though)

Just like the Disumbrationist school and other human interest art hoax stories, people latch on to the headline and forget the details, that she hasn't sold this painting. And that if it is a Pollock, it was unsigned, classifying it as one of his rejects.

A good Pollock can be judged, just like any other piece. There is line, there is form, the eye moves through the pieces a certain way, the colors work or they don't.

 

[Cavemonster]

Oh, and a worn 18th century desk in the same thrift store where the painting was bought? A couple hundred bucks, max.

A Navajo Blanket on Antiques Roadshow was later sold for $500,000 how much do you think it would have been selling for at the same thrift store where the fake "Pollock" was found?

 

[volatile]

Definitely cross-purposes; since "inspired" is misused in this context. A more appropriate term is "motivation". The commissions were the motivation, not the "inspiration" for the work.

To be honest, I really don't like the term "inspired" very much in this context. It's too nebulous.

I agree. Which is why I butted in in the first place. The word "inspired" is all I was quibbling with...

And very few artists worked exclusively on commission. Most worked commissions as a means of support; and created a substantial amount of work for themselves.

Really? Aside from the occasional, very rare formal self-portraits, can you name an important Renaissance work that was not commissioned? I'm sure there must be a few, but none immediately spring to mind, such is their scarcity. Not my period, so I' not fully conversant with every work and every artist... so I'd genuinely be interested in the answer to this. I'm certainly sure that your assertion that "most" created a substantial amount of non-commissioned work is simply wrong, though.

Incidentally, most modern corporate art isn't produced this way. The corporate "patron" rarely decides the subject of the work, only the theme only vaguely, if at all. More often, they treat the art as a commodity, and the artist as a craftsman. Most simply buy whatever is already on the market that fits their idea of the sort of thing they want adorning their spaces; at least for indoor display.

I know. You're misreading what I said. I was talking about modern artistic collaboration (between two artists), in order to illustrate why the word "collaboration" might not be entirely apposite to describe the Renaissance patron/painter relationship.

Erm... this is actually what I said. I never insisted it had to communicate a specific idea; but it has to communicate something in order to be art. Indeed, the best art communicates on many different levels, some of them subtle and difficult to express through other means. But if it doesn't communicate a concept, emotion, or mood consistently to a significant majority of viewers; then how can it be said to be communicating anything at all?

It is possible for this communication to be non-straightforward. Of course Emin's bed, or Hirst's shark or Pollock's splatter paintings or Beuys' sculptures "communicate", if you want to use that term to encompass an affective dimension. I would say "communicate" is the wrong term though - because the content of the message as understood would be in the viewer, not really inherent in the work. As someone has already pointed out, there is often no direct, intentional communication in much modern work, though such work is still often successful (in artistic terms) because the viewer has some unquantifiable reaction to it. It's this that Kevin is seemingly oblivious to.

Actually, this point becomes more vivid when we think of the work of people like Walter Sickert. His paintings were representational, but their narratives were deliberately obtuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sickert_1.jpg

Now, what's going on in this painting? It has two titles - The Camden Town Murder, which it gained some time after its production, and What Shall We Do About the Rent?, it's original title. Whether the girl is a murder victim, a prostitute or the guy's wife is entirely unclear, and the viewer will decide based on their own response to the work. There is no direct communication, no "message". It's all, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

To belabour a point, think about Georges Seurat. Sunday Afternoon, perhaps his most famous painting, is hardly up to the technical skill of Titian. It lacks virtuosity defined simply as a technical ability to achieve "realism" -- though it is of course technically wonderful in its use of pointillism. But the piece is amazing not because of it's "message", but because it is so evocative - that is, it sparks the imaginations of those who gaze upon it. There is no communication; the painting is not really about anything at all (and if it is about something, it is something quite banal). But it's a wonderful painting - and not simply because it was difficult to produce. You understand this, I'm sure. I don't think some others here do.

If I place a couple of empty soda bottles on a windowsill and call it an installation art piece, what am I communicating (aside from, perhaps, my contempt for pretentious, self-important critics and patrons)? What is there that distinguishes art from non-art? Differentiates good art from bad art?

You may indeed be communicating the fact that you think modern art is rubbish. What's wrong with that? Congratulations, you're an artist. Not a particularly interesting or novel one, but an artist nonetheless. Anyone who sees it may feel differently - it may evoke memories of a childhood spent collecting bottle labels, for one example just off the top of my head. Others may just feel bemused - and that could be sufficient, if that bemusement is sufficiently interesting. Good art can only be differentiated from bad art in the personal affective (subjective) dimension, as Pisciovre has already been explained.

 

[volatile]

Apparently, the arbitrary whims of art critics and traders. And nothing more.

And we get accused of "woo"? You're postulating conspiracy.

If these works are so easy to make, go ahead - make one. See how you get on.

It turns out that the people who drive up the price for the works of certain modern abstract and conceptual artists over others are, when put to the test, utterly incapable of distinguishing expensive from worthless art on the merits of the work alone.

Whilst this may be true, all it proves is that the art market is utterly, utterly flawed. I agree. But that is a separate question as to whether or not the work is interesting.

 

[volatile]

There's an important rider to this, actually. We experience all art affectively.

I'm sure we've all seen really well-executed paintings of trains, or puppies, or chocolate-box Swiss villages that are well-painted enough, but just dead, empty and cold. They're nothing. I'd rather a Warhol or a Beuys over this any day:

http://madelinefalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/chin-for-web.jpg

Kevin hinted at that when he implied that there was something rather more crucial than virtuosity for art to be good art.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm sure we've all seen really well-executed paintings of trains, or puppies, or chocolate-box Swiss villages that are well-painted enough, but just dead, empty and cold. They're nothing.

Thomas Kinkade, anyone?

 

[Cavemonster]

Here's a quiz about the skill involved with creating paintings.

Do these paintings have something in common?

 

[logical muse]

Ridiculous; art requires intent it cannot be produced accidentally.

No it doesn't.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Here's a quiz about the skill involved with creating paintings.

Do these paintings have something in common?
<pictures>

Pretty ladies?

 

[lionking]

No it doesn't.

Doesn't art, by definition, require an artist?

 

[plumjam]

Here's a quiz about the skill involved with creating paintings.

Do these paintings have something in common?

Painted by a Dutch elephant?

 

[stilicho]

One of the most hilarious aspects of the homeopathic community is the occasional "fringe" homeopath who discovers that if you just write the name of the magic substance on a piece of paper and wave it at a bottle of pills, or shove one anointed pill into a bottle of blanks, it works exactly as well as "real" homeopathic medicine. Mainstream homeopaths won't condemn the super-kooks as frauds, but at the same time the mere existence of the super-kooks demonstrates that the whole homeopathic edifice is a pile of horse manure.

Elephants, two-year-olds and Pollack perform the same role for modern art. It's painfully obvious they aren't doing anything special, clever or interesting, but the mainstream art-wank community can't point this out without admitting that a lot (not all)) of prized modern art is worthless garbage.

"Fringe" homeopaths < "Mainstream" homeopaths.

Elephants, 2-yr-olds, Pollack < Real artists.

Ergo: Real artists = "Mainstream" homeopaths.

Or were you trying to say something else? I am pretty sure you were trying to say something special, clever or interesting but it didn't come off that way.

 

[quixotecoyote]

"Fringe" homeopaths < "Mainstream" homeopaths.

Elephants, 2-yr-olds, Pollack < Real artists.

Ergo: Real artists = "Mainstream" homeopaths.

Or were you trying to say something else? I am pretty sure you were trying to say something special, clever or interesting but it didn't come off that way.

It doesn't really match the way you expressed it.

'quack' homeopaths are to full procedure homeopaths as two-year olds and elephants are to whatever section of the art world is being denigrated.

 

[volatile]

Thomas Kinkade, anyone?

Yuk!

 

[Piscivore]

Doesn't art, by definition, require an artist?

Yes, but what the artist may indend for the work doesn't always really correlate to whatever artistic value the final work may have. Sometimes, the intention is irrelevant to the artistic value.

Plan 9 From Outer Space is a perfect example.