How does minimalist art sell for so much money?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@MDKSquared

I don’t understand what sets this stuff apart from art anyone else makes.

+1

@Inner_Stickler

But the big thing is mainly that people are willing to pay that amount of money for it.

This answer is too simple. Kind of tautological, no? The question asks how certain pieces of simplistic-looking art actually have such a high value. I think better than “people are willing to pay that amount of money for it” is “not everybody is poor.” Some people do have quite a lot of money (if you haven’t already noticed :rolleyes:), and so the one thing that turns their crank can be worth what at first glance looks like a fortune.

@Frylock

Isn’t the answer exactly the same as the answer to the question “Why do people spend millions of dollars on stock certificates”?

Not really. Stock certificates are recognized as shares of some corporation of other. It is merely a game to talk about how they are ‘just pieces of paper’. They aren’t (always).

The value of art is something different. To own one of these pieces is to own the whole she-bang if you see what I mean. A painting is not a corporation, even if you own a whole corporation.

[dataguy]

@Cheesesteak

The point has to do with money. Why does some minimalist art sell for lots of money, why does Tiger Woods earn lots of money golfing? Tiger Woods doesn’t get paid because he can use fewer strokes to complete a golf tournament.

This is silly. Tiger Woods does, in fact, get paid because he can use fewer strokes to complete a golf tournament.

If you learn to play golf as well as Tiger Woods, you will make as much money playing golf as he does.

If you learn to paint EXACTLY like Van Gogh, you are not guaranteed to make as much money selling your paintings.

[dataguy]

@Cheesesteak

The rules of golf are completely arbitrary, and have no particular importance. There is no objective value to being skilled at hitting a ball (of a specific but arbitrary design) with a club (of a specific but arbitrary design), on a course (of a specific but arbitrary design) under rules (of a specific but arbitrary design). Why should he make any more money than a world class Curler? Is there something about the ball and club and course design that makes it inherently more important than what you find in a Curling… thingy?

The value of golf is subjective. Its value is based on how golf makes people feel, how much of their interest (and money) is spent towards golf. So too with art, some artists draw interest more than other artists, so they get more money. Some sports draw interest more than other sports, so the participants get more money.

The original comment that started this asked:

@Tapioca_Dextrin

Why does Tiger Woods get paid to hit a ball with a stick?

This suggests that the reason for this and the reason some art sells for high prices are both equally arbitrary. I disagree and that’s how we arrived here.

I maintain that Tiger Woods get paid based on his skill at golf, which can be objectively measured. There is no evidence that the value of a work of art is directly related to the skill of the artist.

We’re not talking about the value of golf, or why golfers get paid more than curlers, any more than we’re talking about why artists get paid more than jugglers. We’re talking about why some particular practitioner in a field is worth more money than others.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@The_Hamster_King

Whee! It’s time for the latest round of the SDMB’s biannual “modern art is a scam” discussion!

A lot of abstract pieces don’t work well as tiny images on a computer screen. Actually, neither do a lot of realist pieces, but with a realist painting you can at least say “oh, hey, it’s a boat”, even if you can’t appreciate the nuances of the physical paint on the canvas. So unless you’ve actually seen some of these works in person, its hard to have any sort of meaningful opinion about them.

Secondly, another hurdle people have a hard time getting over is the idea that pictures are supposed to mean things. They look at piece of abstract art and say “What’s that supposed to mean?” like the picture was a puzzle with some deep secret they’re supposed to figure out. Or they decide the meaning of the painting is something vacuous like “Look at me, I’m an artistic rebel!”

What they’re missing is that it’s possible to look at something without imposing a fixed meaning on it. Why this is such a radical idea is confusing to me, since we listen to music that way all the time. No one expects there to be some hidden message inside the structure of a Bach cantata. The structure of the notes in time isn’t about anything other than itself.

When I look at abstract art, I don’t think about what it means. I just enjoy the process of looking. Some arrangements of paint on canvas are interesting to look at in and of themselves, not because they contain some sooper-secret sophisticated message about the meaning of life. If an artist is particularly good at arranging paint in such a way that a lot of people find it interesting to look at, then his paintings sell for more.

I realize that some people have a hard time understanding that other people might honestly like things that they don’t. There’s a tendency to think that if someone likes something that’s obviously crap to us they must be doing it as a scam or a put-on: “You like Thomas Kinkade paintings? Seriously? You’re kidding, right?” But the thing is, people like what they like. And while its possible that sometimes people might pretend to like something to gain status, it’s hard to believe that abstract art could keep chugging along for decades if everyone involved was just engaged in a massive act of self-delusion. So, rather than acting like a snob and insisting that everyone must conform to your own aesthetic tastes, it’s generally better to shrug your shoulders and say “Eh … it doesn’t work for me, but clearly it does for you. Different strokes.”

Very well said. I’ve often used the metaphor of music – or perhaps more exactly melody – too in order to describe an appreciating of abstract art: a melody represents nothing; it is not a sign of some kind, standing for something in the world (except itself). It is thus wholly abstract. Nevertheless, most people have no trouble appreciating a melody for what it is, just enjoying the subjective sense of beauty it creates within the listener.

However, it seems that, for some reason, compositions not based on a collection of sounds, but rather, a collection of shapes and colors, are not quite as readily appreciated. Which, of course, is OK: If you don’t like it, you don’t like it. But, if one appreciates music and melodies, it should not be such a great surprise to learn that colors and shapes can be appreciated in much the same, abstract, subjective way.

That said, the fact that an ‘original’ fetches millions, while you can get a reproduction that is essentially physically identical for maybe a couple of hundred bucks, is just the kind of magical thinking that basically goes into all such ‘collector’s items’, be they rare coins, stamps, or whatever else: the idea that the original bears some none-physical quality related to its unique history that is not shared by even a physically identical copy. This, you may either buy into or not (and most of us do to some degree) – I don’t really think there’s any further fact to explain it.

[Cheesesteak]

Ok, let’s drop Tiger Woods, you don’t think my argument matters, so there’s no point going there again.

These painters changed what art meant. They weren’t simply guys putting paint on a canvas, they altered the landscape (heh) of art, forever. Their paintings are history, like an original Declaration of Independence. Any idiot with a printing press can copy the D of I, the value is in the history. Any highly skilled painter can copy the works of great painters, but their paintings have no history.

Breaking away from realism is huge. First it was just less detail and more life to the picture, then they draw the subject with unnatural shapes, then they lose the subject altogether. Imagine that, a painting that draws your eye, unleashes emotion within you, and it’s not even a picture of anything!

What would contemporary art be without this? You may not particularly like it, but at least there’s something to talk about.

[Evil_Captor]

@Cheesesteak

Ok, let’s drop Tiger Woods, you don’t think my argument matters, so there’s no point going there again.

These painters changed what art meant. They weren’t simply guys putting paint on a canvas, they altered the landscape (heh) of art, forever. Their paintings are history, like an original Declaration of Independence. Any idiot with a printing press can copy the D of I, the value is in the history. Any highly skilled painter can copy the works of great painters, but their paintings have no history.

Breaking away from realism is huge. First it was just less detail and more life to the picture, then they draw the subject with unnatural shapes, then they lose the subject altogether. Imagine that, a painting that draws your eye, unleashes emotion within you, and it’s not even a picture of anything!

What would contemporary art be without this? You may not particularly like it, but at least there’s something to talk about.

In the case of the minimalists, it was not the artists who changed art, but the critics whose reviews “inspired” them to create minimalist art. That’s why Wolfe titled his book “The Painted Word.” Art in this case was guys with their eyes on the main chance creating art that they knew critics would approve of, based on what they wrote. It was all about the money, bucko. And it makes you wonder how many other art movements have been all about the money.

[dataguy]

@Cheesesteak

Ok, let’s drop Tiger Woods, you don’t think my argument matters, so there’s no point going there again.

These painters changed what art meant. They weren’t simply guys putting paint on a canvas, they altered the landscape (heh) of art, forever. Their paintings are history, like an original Declaration of Independence. Any idiot with a printing press can copy the D of I, the value is in the history. Any highly skilled painter can copy the works of great painters, but their paintings have no history.

Breaking away from realism is huge. First it was just less detail and more life to the picture, then they draw the subject with unnatural shapes, then they lose the subject altogether. Imagine that, a painting that draws your eye, unleashes emotion within you, and it’s not even a picture of anything!

What would contemporary art be without this? You may not particularly like it, but at least there’s something to talk about.

As I stated earlier, my criticism is not against any school of art in general, but questions the value of specific examples–like those linked in the OP. So you think that green thingy achieves all those things you just mentioned?

[The_Hamster_King]

@Evil_Captor

And it makes you wonder how many other art movements have been all about the money.

All of them. Yay, you’ve rediscovered Marxist critical theory!

The idea that making art shouldn’t involve pleasing your patrons was a 19th century upper class reaction to the rise of the middle class. When catering to the hoi polloi became a viable business model, then “real” art (i.e. art targeted at the upper class) became something that only high-minded amateurs did without concern for its commercial viability.

[jordanr2]

@Evil_Captor

In the case of the minimalists, it was not the artists who changed art, but the critics whose reviews “inspired” them to create minimalist art. That’s why Wolfe titled his book “The Painted Word.” Art in this case was guys with their eyes on the main chance creating art that they knew critics would approve of, based on what they wrote. It was all about the money, bucko. And it makes you wonder how many other art movements have been all about the money.

Who cares what Wolfe thought? I liked Rothko’s work (and Dan Flavin’s, and Barnett Newman’s, etc.) before I ever read that book, and still do. Multitudes of others do as well. Don’t the genuine reactions of those who appreciate this work refute the notion that there’s nothing hanging on the wall but the dated aftermath of money-grubbing?

As for Wolfe himself, I have no doubt that he has his eye on the almighty dollar, but also has sincere observation and self- expression in mind when writing his novels (why else would he be embarrassing himself by traipsing through frat parties and such at his advanced age?). Even if artists are inspired to some extent by commercial motives, that certainly doesn’t stop them from having other things in mind.

[moejoe]

@dataguy

As I stated earlier, my criticism is not against any school of art in general, but questions the value of specific examples–like those linked in the OP. So you think that green thingy achieves all those things you just mentioned?

I think it’s probably best to leave Kelly out of discussions like this. His work is Modern but I always thought of him as kind of a follower rather than an innovator. His work moved things forward but it’s never really moved me like some other works from that era. If you want to figure out Modern or Minimalist art you really do need to make the effort to see it in person.

[Dr.Colossus]

man, as a professional artist, i sure have a lot of opinions about this thread, the topic–and kinda want to punch some of these comments in the belly.

but rather than nitpick the clearly dumbass replies, i’m going to try to feel my way around and do something else.

first, i don’t think the question is a silly or dumb one to ask, but i do think it’s tantamount to other just as ridiculous concepts–

why the hell is gold so valuable? ok, it’s rare, ok it’s hard to (or was hard) to mine. it doesn’t do anything. it’s just pretty.

i think that’s an overwhelmingly similar answer to a lot of art.

but the thing about modern art, minimalism especially, is it’s not hardly at all about how pretty it is. and this is where your previously alluded to “dumbass” replies kick in: 'hey that don’t look like nothin, it’s just green. WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS?! I FEEL LEFT OUT SO I AM GOING TO ATTACK IT."

^i think that is the kneejerk reaction you’re all having. add in the mix “someone paid hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the thing you already feel left out of, and boom, you get schisms.

one major thing to consider is that it’s not like someone just saw a random green square and was like “I WILL PAY MILLIONS FOR THIS.” the provenance, history, methodology and intellectual conception matter way, way more than the actual end piece. the value isn’t in the green square, the value is in the tedious course of history leading to that green square.

while i can defend it about that far–i think it’s fucking retarded. i just do. i hate modern art just the same as those who disparage it because it makes them feel alienated, but i can at least see it from both sides.
it’s true that nearly all abstract artists who have been successful are consummate draftsmen who can render realistically if they want. they have extensive fundamentals in all the “art you think is pretty to look at because it looks like the things it looks like,” but they go beyond it to places most people think might be crazy.

some of this stuff i really ‘get.’ i spent some time agonizing over some abstract pieces i did early on. i think the good, real abstract or minimalistic artist do the same thing…it’s just sometimes it ends up being a green square. i guess it’s easy to think they just crapped out that green square in a 4 second impulse to troll the art community, but typically there’s a lot, lot more going on that what the canvas reflects.

and in those cases, it is history, not a painting per se.

it’s not such an ethereal concept; think about art you “get.” is a copy of the mona lisa as valuable as the actual mona lisa? i can paint you a total 1:1 replica. in real paint, on real substrate by a real artist with real brushes. it will have all the tangible physical properties of the same exact other painting…yet one is incalculably valuable and the other is worth more or less materials and time.
on the other hand, there are assholes out there doing bullshit for the sake of bullshit, and winning at it. i knew a guy in college i despised because he was the biggest wannabe pseudo intellectual who couldn’t paint well (bad draftsman) but wanted to matter. so he’d get caught up stapling a piece of carpet he found to a board and painting it white.
he was like “a big deal” around there at the time, popular locally and looked up to on campus.
but i thought he was just a bullshitter.

i would watch him in the studio painting his carpet white…painting this segment of the carpet a solid white color, stepping back, looking at it, tilting his head quizzically, going back and painting more white.

we had a real artist come to campus (real meaning established/renown on the world stage) for a lecture and he popped in the studio to critique us while we worked.

he got to Kevin, the bullshitter, and called him on his bullshit. it took a child-like cycle of three or four “whys” before kevin had no answers for what he was doing. it was just for because.

that stuff goes on, and sometimes they don’t get called on their bullshit OR can bullshit so well people buy their logic.

but that happens in every other facet of humanity as well. politics (how many people bullshit their way into winning a seat?) music (how many terrible, talentless hacks luck into full careers?) movies, actors, preachers, authors, celebrities, etc. there’s tons and tons of bullshitters getting away with their bullshit. and making tons of money at it and having people both dismantle AND defend them to the death.

so i dunno. i think most old minimal art was celebrated for the concept much more than for the end result. in most cases, there really was a lot of energy and artistic suffering leading to what would appear to be a nothing end result.

but then yoko ono exists as well. and puts an apple on a table and wants you to think it means something.

[temp_user]

@Dr.Colossus

man, as a professional artist, i sure have a lot of opinions about this thread, the topic–and kinda want to punch some of these comments in the belly.

but rather than nitpick the clearly dumbass replies, i’m going to try to feel my way around and do something else.

first, i don’t think the question is a silly or dumb one to ask, but i do think it’s tantamount to other just as ridiculous concepts–

why the hell is gold so valuable? ok, it’s rare, ok it’s hard to (or was hard) to mine. it doesn’t do anything. it’s just pretty.

i think that’s an overwhelmingly similar answer to a lot of art.

but the thing about modern art, minimalism especially, is it’s not hardly at all about how pretty it is. and this is where your previously alluded to “dumbass” replies kick in: 'hey that don’t look like nothin, it’s just green. WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS?! I FEEL LEFT OUT SO I AM GOING TO ATTACK IT."

^i think that is the kneejerk reaction you’re all having. add in the mix “someone paid hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the thing you already feel left out of, and boom, you get schisms.

one major thing to consider is that it’s not like someone just saw a random green square and was like “I WILL PAY MILLIONS FOR THIS.” the provenance, history, methodology and intellectual conception matter way, way more than the actual end piece. the value isn’t in the green square, the value is in the tedious course of history leading to that green square.

while i can defend it about that far–i think it’s fucking retarded. i just do. i hate modern art just the same as those who disparage it because it makes them feel alienated, but i can at least see it from both sides.
it’s true that nearly all abstract artists who have been successful are consummate draftsmen who can render realistically if they want. they have extensive fundamentals in all the “art you think is pretty to look at because it looks like the things it looks like,” but they go beyond it to places most people think might be crazy.

some of this stuff i really ‘get.’ i spent some time agonizing over some abstract pieces i did early on. i think the good, real abstract or minimalistic artist do the same thing…it’s just sometimes it ends up being a green square. i guess it’s easy to think they just crapped out that green square in a 4 second impulse to troll the art community, but typically there’s a lot, lot more going on that what the canvas reflects.

and in those cases, it is history, not a painting per se.

it’s not such an ethereal concept; think about art you “get.” is a copy of the mona lisa as valuable as the actual mona lisa? i can paint you a total 1:1 replica. in real paint, on real substrate by a real artist with real brushes. it will have all the tangible physical properties of the same exact other painting…yet one is incalculably valuable and the other is worth more or less materials and time.
on the other hand, there are assholes out there doing bullshit for the sake of bullshit, and winning at it. i knew a guy in college i despised because he was the biggest wannabe pseudo intellectual who couldn’t paint well (bad draftsman) but wanted to matter. so he’d get caught up stapling a piece of carpet he found to a board and painting it white.
he was like “a big deal” around there at the time, popular locally and looked up to on campus.
but i thought he was just a bullshitter.

i would watch him in the studio painting his carpet white…painting this segment of the carpet a solid white color, stepping back, looking at it, tilting his head quizzically, going back and painting more white.

we had a real artist come to campus (real meaning established/renown on the world stage) for a lecture and he popped in the studio to critique us while we worked.

he got to Kevin, the bullshitter, and called him on his bullshit. it took a child-like cycle of three or four “whys” before kevin had no answers for what he was doing. it was just for because.

that stuff goes on, and sometimes they don’t get called on their bullshit OR can bullshit so well people buy their logic.

but that happens in every other facet of humanity as well. politics (how many people bullshit their way into winning a seat?) music (how many terrible, talentless hacks luck into full careers?) movies, actors, preachers, authors, celebrities, etc. there’s tons and tons of bullshitters getting away with their bullshit. and making tons of money at it and having people both dismantle AND defend them to the death.

so i dunno. i think most old minimal art was celebrated for the concept much more than for the end result. in most cases, there really was a lot of energy and artistic suffering leading to what would appear to be a nothing end result.

but then yoko ono exists as well. and puts an apple on a table and wants you to think it means something.

With modern art, I don’t think people feel “left out”, I think they feel there is a lack of craftsmanship/draftsmanship to the piece. To many, a Norman Rockwell painting looks like it took time, talent and craftsmanship; a green square looks like someone used a paint roller. Same could be said of improvisational jazz, which on the surface seems to be just a bunch of guys noodling away on their instruments, while an Andrew Lloyd Webber appears to be crafted. I agree a huge amount has to do with being able to sell yourself and to finagle your way into the right circles. Why is Roy Lichtenstein held in higher regard than Jack Kirby?

[Shodan]

@Frylock

Isn’t the answer exactly the same as the answer to the question “Why do people spend millions of dollars on stock certificates”?

Possibly more like “why did the Dutch pay so much for tulip bulbs?”

Regards,
Shodan

[elbows]

Why do people spend so much on this art?

Because it speaks to them. Either on a personal level or as an investment. As an investment seems not a bad choice since they are worth millions. But initially before it was recognized and valued as it is today, someone still bought it - because it spoke to them in some way. That it has since, become worth so much more, is confirmation that it represents something people respond to, then and now. Even if it doesn’t speak to you.

[Knorf]

This just in: someone on the Internet is baffled and enraged that someone else likes something they don’t.

[RaftPeople]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

However, it seems that, for some reason, compositions not based on a collection of sounds, but rather, a collection of shapes and colors, are not quite as readily appreciated. Which, of course, is OK: If you don’t like it, you don’t like it. But, if one appreciates music and melodies, it should not be such a great surprise to learn that colors and shapes can be appreciated in much the same, abstract, subjective way.

That said, the fact that an ‘original’ fetches millions, while you can get a reproduction that is essentially physically identical for maybe a couple of hundred bucks, is just the kind of magical thinking that basically goes into all such ‘collector’s items’, be they rare coins, stamps, or whatever else: the idea that the original bears some none-physical quality related to its unique history that is not shared by even a physically identical copy. This, you may either buy into or not (and most of us do to some degree) – I don’t really think there’s any further fact to explain it.

I like modern/abstract art, but I think one of the points here is that piece #1 and piece #2 which are equally enjoyable by me have an extreme difference in price to those in the art field or with money.

Someone could argue that the person with money sees something more in the more expensive piece, and that is exactly the question: is there really increased value to that person based on the content alone?

If the artists of these two fictitious pieces were anonymous, I suspect their values would be much closer together.

Side note:
My friend helps buy/sell art for one of the richest people in the world - based on what this person has told me about the process, much of the activity appears to be motivated around creating a great collection rather than having a personal connection to all of the pieces (probably to some, but certainly not all).

[dataguy]

@Dr.Colossus

on the other hand, there are assholes out there doing bullshit for the sake of bullshit, and winning at it.

Thank your for this post. It expresses my attitude almost perfectly.
The portion I’ve quoted above highlights my main concern.

My issue is not with the artists, but with the gate keepers at the museums and galleries. I expect them to have better bullshit-detectors and not allow the bullshit entry into the house.

As for what you privately want to pay for whatever you choose to buy, that’s literally your business.

I expect major museums to perform an educational role to the public. If I go into the Metropolitan and see something displayed there, I expect it to be something that may reward my interest and attention.

[jordanr2]

@dataguy

I expect major museums to perform an educational role to the public. If I go into the Metropolitan and see something displayed there, I expect it to be something that may reward my interest and attention.

This is hardly a one-sided deal, though.

[dataguy]

@jordanr2

This is hardly a one-sided deal, though.

Could you expand this a little so I’m sure I understand you?

[Johnny_Bravo]

I have quite a few artist friends, and over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that many of them don’t WANT (or at least don’t particularly care if) most folks to understand or appreciate their work. The art-loving community is insular and pretty happy about it. They have a highly specialized jargon and a highly specialized framework of understanding for what they do. Their art shows are attended almost exclusively by other artists who stand around and nod appreciatively and then talk about when their next show will be.

Having said that, I own a few pieces of said art - my enjoyment of it rests entirely with the fact that the people who created it are my friends and I’m familiar with the process that was involved and the intimate decisions that were made. That, to me, makes the art more enjoyable.

I also only buy stuff that I think is neat to look at - abstract but not minimalist.

I personally feel that any art piece that comes with a 1000+ word ‘statement’ carefully explaining (in tortured English that probably left a thesaurus battered and bleeding in an alleyway somewhere) exactly why I should appreciate it is better off left in the studio where it was created.

Under a tarp.