# How does minimalist art sell for so much money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331 "2012-10-10T17:28:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/101 "2012-10-19T17:33:58Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#): > > Holy fuck, I will never understand how a board “dedicating to fighting ignorance” absolutely revels in constantly disparaging and mocking modern art. It’s absurd. You don’t like art? Fine, but atleast have the balls to admit you have no idea what’s going on. > > For instance, Mondrian. People pay a shit ton of money for a Mondrian because he was a pioneer for non-representational art i.e. abstraction. Most non-representational art made these days is dreck, but that’s because most people look at past innovators and say “shit I could do that, get me some paint” meaning they only ever dwell in the surface qualities of the works, etc, whatever. > > Mondrian’s progression into non-representational art is one of the most fascinating and linear of any artist you’ll find. He started in the Dutch landscape tradition, painting tree after tree after tree. He became obsessed with the idea of there being an essential truth to painting, that some how if you removed element after element you would eventually arrive at a pure language of painting. > > [Tree](http://paintings.name/images/piet-mondrian/Mondrian-red-tree.jpg) > [Tree](http://paintings.name/images/piet-mondrian/Mondrian-grey-tree.jpg) > [Tree](http://www.oilpainting-frame.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new19/Piet%20Mondrian-546722.jpg) > [Tree](http://www.brnrd.net/images/mondrian_trees-in-blossom.jpg) > [Tree](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1227_ph_web.jpg) > > For anyone that’s ever painted before, this is an extraordinary progression. If you haven’t painted, there’s a million decisions that go into every stroke (line weight, line shape, hue, color intensity, light quality, light temperature, whether it’s structural or superficial, etc) and being able to reduce these elements - _honestly_ - is a monumental task, especially if you have no frame of reference. He was painting what had never been painted before. > > So then when he came across the de Stijl movement in the Netherlands, his paintings progressed even more. He decided to use black, white, and primary colors with only vertical, horizontal, or sometimes 45 degree lines, and push that as far as possible. And he stayed with that same language for the rest of his life. > > [1913](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1228_ph_web.jpg) > [1916](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1229_ph_web.jpg) > [1918](http://triviumproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mondrian-Piet-Composition-with-Color-Planes-and-Gray-Lines-1-1918-Oil-on-canvas-49-x-60.5-cm-19-14-x-23-78-in-Private-collection-.jpg) > [1921](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/ryb.jpg) > [Late 1930s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/comp-3.jpg) > [Early 1940s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/comp-10.jpg) > [Early 1940s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/broadway.jpg) > [Mid 40s](http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/M_N/Piet_Mondrian/piet_mondrian_4_victory_boogie_woogie.jpg) > > And none of this gets into a lot of the emotion and philosophy behind these paintings - like the idea of the hustle and bustle of city life being abstract in and of itself which was so very modern at the time - which gives them all an interesting historical sentimentality. Like people who like existentialist novels, or Edward Hopper paintings, or Giacometti sculptures - they’re all windows into the culture of a world engulfed into a war that fascinates people to this day (WWII movies are still being made, etc). > > So if money was no object and you wanted to own a piece of history which is also a significant piece of artistic history - not to mention owning a piece of one of the most fascinating artistic progressions of all time - how much would you be willing to pay? Fantastic post. I highly encourage people to click on each link in turn. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/102 "2012-10-19T17:44:14Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#): > > Holy fuck, I will never understand how a board “dedicating to fighting ignorance” absolutely revels in constantly disparaging and mocking modern art. It’s absurd. You don’t like art? Fine, but atleast have the balls to admit you have no idea what’s going on. > > For instance, Mondrian. People pay a shit ton of money for a Mondrian because he was a pioneer for non-representational art i.e. abstraction. Most non-representational art made these days is dreck, but that’s because most people look at past innovators and say “shit I could do that, get me some paint” meaning they only ever dwell in the surface qualities of the works, etc, whatever. > > Mondrian’s progression into non-representational art is one of the most fascinating and linear of any artist you’ll find. He started in the Dutch landscape tradition, painting tree after tree after tree. He became obsessed with the idea of there being an essential truth to painting, that some how if you removed element after element you would eventually arrive at a pure language of painting. > > [Tree](http://paintings.name/images/piet-mondrian/Mondrian-red-tree.jpg) > [Tree](http://paintings.name/images/piet-mondrian/Mondrian-grey-tree.jpg) > [Tree](http://www.oilpainting-frame.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new19/Piet%20Mondrian-546722.jpg) > [Tree](http://www.brnrd.net/images/mondrian_trees-in-blossom.jpg) > [Tree](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1227_ph_web.jpg) > > For anyone that’s ever painted before, this is an extraordinary progression. If you haven’t painted, there’s a million decisions that go into every stroke (line weight, line shape, hue, color intensity, light quality, light temperature, whether it’s structural or superficial, etc) and being able to reduce these elements - _honestly_ - is a monumental task, especially if you have no frame of reference. He was painting what had never been painted before. > > So then when he came across the de Stijl movement in the Netherlands, his paintings progressed even more. He decided to use black, white, and primary colors with only vertical, horizontal, or sometimes 45 degree lines, and push that as far as possible. And he stayed with that same language for the rest of his life. > > [1913](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1228_ph_web.jpg) > [1916](http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/full/49.1229_ph_web.jpg) > [1918](http://triviumproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mondrian-Piet-Composition-with-Color-Planes-and-Gray-Lines-1-1918-Oil-on-canvas-49-x-60.5-cm-19-14-x-23-78-in-Private-collection-.jpg) > [1921](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/ryb.jpg) > [Late 1930s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/comp-3.jpg) > [Early 1940s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/comp-10.jpg) > [Early 1940s](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/broadway.jpg) > [Mid 40s](http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/M_N/Piet_Mondrian/piet_mondrian_4_victory_boogie_woogie.jpg) > > And none of this gets into a lot of the emotion and philosophy behind these paintings - like the idea of the hustle and bustle of city life being abstract in and of itself which was so very modern at the time - which gives them all an interesting historical sentimentality. Like people who like existentialist novels, or Edward Hopper paintings, or Giacometti sculptures - they’re all windows into the culture of a world engulfed into a war that fascinates people to this day (WWII movies are still being made, etc). > > So if money was no object and you wanted to own a piece of history which is also a significant piece of artistic history - not to mention owning a piece of one of the most fascinating artistic progressions of all time - how much would you be willing to pay? This is a fabulous post, deserving to be quoted in its entirety. Thank you for taking the time to compose it. I’ve never been a big Mondrian fan, but now I understand him a bit more. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/103 "2012-10-19T21:43:41Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Fantastic post. I highly encourage people to click on each link in turn. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > This is a fabulous post, deserving to be quoted in its entirety. Thank you for taking the time to compose it. I’ve never been a big Mondrian fan, but now I understand him a bit more. Thank you. I agree with these. That tree progression is fantastic (and is a great argument for allowing inline images here). I have a new appreciation for Mondrian. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/104 "2012-10-20T06:16:42Z")
I agree. Fabulous post, **ZebraShaSha**. I enjoy any painting that can make me think, give me insight, trigger an emotion, or illustrate something I haven’t seen before. Abstract art, impressionism, or realism - it doesn’t really matter. The ‘value’ of a painting is another issue entirely, that can be separated from the criticism of modern art or any other kind of art. We just have to accept that a lot of the value of an artwork is tied up in its history, scarcity, and proven ability to appreciate in value over time. After all, many people consider expensive art to be an investment. The value has _nothing_ to do with the physical effort or time it took to create the art. A photograph takes almost no effort at all - twist a few dials and push a button. The value comes completely from the eye of the artist. Sometimes the setup for a photo can be extremely elaborate and take days or weeks, but the creation of the actual photo takes no time at all. Likewise, a Rothko or Mondrian may just look like a few lines of paint, but you didn’t see what it took to get there - and it doesn’t really matter. There is only a small correlation between the ‘quality’ of an art work and its price. Go check out the various art forums on the internet, and you will find hundreds of artists whose work is jaw-droppingly good. Likewise, a half an hour on youtube will disabuse you of the notion that the best singers and musicians make the most money. The art world is very insular. Many famous artists went to famous art schools with other famous artists. In the modern world, art councils that determine what is and isn’t great art are often made up of the very artists that were standing in front of such a council just a few years earlier. And after the stint on the council, they’ll go back and make art and present it for judgment to the people who they had supported. Often these people are closely connected with high society, the New York art world, influential people in finance and government, etc. They are where the money and power is, and it’s a closed world. This isn’t universally true, and independent artists can still break through and join the top tier. But just as in the music world or in acting, the ultimate value of what you produce is often more about who you know or whether you were lucky enough to attract the attention of someone powerful enough to give you standing, finance a show, etc. That doesn’t mean such art is worthless, or even that it’s not great. It just means that equivalently good or great art may have only a fraction of its value simply because it couldn’t find traction in a very specific and small marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![nion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@nion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nion)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/105 "2012-10-20T07:45:20Z")
I can agree whole-heartedly that minimalist artwork can be very deep and meaningful, but it’s still not worth millions of dollars. I still think a lot of it is bluster, exclusivity and chest-puffing for rich socialites. It is the sophisticated version of “I have a brand new Corvette”. This version is more like “I have a limited edition 1964 1/2 Corvette that is only one of five with radio-delete and was custom painted for sultan Ali baba etc. etc.” The exclusivity and pretentiousness just grow and feed on each other until it reaches an insane and disgusting level of ridiculousness. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be to the “toddler wars” some parents put themselves through. There comes a growing pissing contest between parents over which child is spoiled more, has the best tech, is the smartest, fastest, most popular, fashionable, etc. Meanwhile, the toddlers in question would be just as happy to sit in the sandbox shoveling sand and being toddlers. In other words, simple art (like children) can be a wonder to behold, but there’s no need to be a pretentious dick about it. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/106 "2012-10-20T11:37:59Z")
> [@nion](#): > > I can agree whole-heartedly that minimalist artwork can be very deep and meaningful, but it’s still not worth millions of dollars. Seeing this makes me wonder three things right off the bat: which particular works of minimalist art, how much are they actually worth, and who determines this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331.md?page=5)