How does minimalist art sell for so much money?

Great Debates
81

Sure (I realized in retrospect that I probably ought to explain a little more but the edit window was closed). A lot of art, including works that are not modern (e.g. all the stilted old kouroi from ancient Greece), becomes more interesting when you’ve done a bit of work on your own to see why it’s in the museum, what makes this work and others like it objects of particular interest. Or once you’ve looked into an artist’s earlier works and gotten a sense of where they’re coming from - looking at a painting as part of a trajectory rather than an object in the present with no background. (For example, knowing that Willem de Kooning did this and Piet Mondrian did this before the more abstract works for which they’re best known - tells you there’s more to the story!)

It’s great to have interest and attention, but I feel like some works won’t necessarily reward that unless you bring a bit of prior curiosity and knowledge to the table. (Speaking of minimalism, I remember my first experience hearing Morton Feldman - I was bored senseless, but eventually after hearing some work by his contemporaries, I came back to Feldman’s stuff and found it captivating, since I realized its position in the scheme of things, what made it a departure and how it fit into the larger context of musical history.) Some might object to this idea, arguing that the only worthwhile works are those that yield all their rewards on a superficial, uninformed viewing, which is their call to make, I suppose. I believe in lifelong learning, though.

82

The Metropolitan is a huge museum. It has thousands, maybe more than a million, items on display. Not everything will appeal to everybody, even after careful contemplation. And that’s just as true in the Ancient Rome gallery as in the Modern Art gallery.

83

On one of the pieces my wife has been working on, on and off for a few months, there is an unadorned wall in the background that she’s just never happy with. She’s probably repainted the thing at least eight times now and still isn’t happy with it, so it sits there waiting for her to reach the point where she thinks she can get it “just right” again. This wall is probably 6 square inches at most.

I will therefore never assume that the amount of time spent on a piece is in any way related to the number of details that can be identified in a painting. If Kelly was anything like my wife, he might have spent years working on “Green.” Hell, he might still be unsatisfied with it.

84

Why do we value some bills more than other? I have two bills in my pocket. One of them has a $100 on it, and the other a $1. Both of them are on identical paper and have equally aesthetically pleasing artwork. Why is one a big deal, and the other isn’t?

Sometimes, we just agree something is valuable. Think about antiques. If you just want objectively old stuff, you can get Roman coins and the like for next to nothing. But it doesn’t work like that. When you watch Antiques Roadshow, sometimes you see really cool stuff that is valued for next to nothing, and random stuff valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no clear rhyme or reason- old is good, craftsmanship is good, a good story behind it is good, rarity is good, being tied to someone famous is good, a neat subject matter is good, condition is good. These things are also good in art. But like antiques, it’s impossible to have a single magic mix.

85

You can’t be serious. Look at the Franklin portrait; the attention to detail is obvious. Benjamin’s eyes appear deep, caring, thoughtful. Washington’s portrait is cartoonish in comparison.

86

I don’t think I said anything about expecting everything to appeal to everybody.

87

I agree with this. As a matter of fact, that’s how I came to appreciate Picasso. At first encounter, I thought he was just someone who couldn’t draw well and didn’t know how to put the eyes and nose in the right place. But his works were interesting enough to draw my attention to them. Later, when I learned about his history, I discovered that he was a young prodigy who could produce perfect copies of the great masters. That’s when I came back to the “weird” paintings and understood them differently.

However, the point remains that his work attracted my attention initially, and then rewarded further study. I would not have that experience with the that green Kelly painting. I would take one glance and keep walking. I probably have done that, since I have spent considerable time in museums and galleries over the years. And I would not be likely to spend a lot of time studying some artist unknown to me before encountering their art for the first time.

88

A nice way to talk about this issue is to talk about art made by children. IN those caese, the "artistic intent"and ärtistic history"of the artist becomes a moot point and all that is left is if the pictures speak to the viewer, or not. Just like **Hamster King **said.

I liked the paintings of then two-year old Aelita Andre. A lot. I even considered forking out a few hundred bucks for a good print of one of her paintings.

Andre got famous when her artist mom took her paintings to a gallery without mentioning the artist was her (then two year old) daughter. The gallery owner liked what he saw and put the works up for sale. After the truth came out, there was some initial all around embarrasment, but then Aelita’s toddlerhood became her unique selling point. Her paintings started selling for 10.000 dollars each. She’s now five.

And I still like her art, a lot. I’ve got a toddler myself and while I am his proud mom, I see clearly that there is no way in hell he can make anything that good. Nor can any other toddler I know.

89

So much for paintings.but what about “art” that is real crap? Like the guy who sells cans of his own faeces-for big bucks.
Seems like a case of selling shite.

90

Agreed, my son’s stuff doesn’t look like this.

However, I think there is a fundamental difference between what this artist does, and your typical adult Abstract Impressionist.

No 2 year old is going to:
pick out the canvas and stretcher bars
knowingly select the type of paint she wants to work in,
pick the brushes that will give her the right effect
stretch the canvas
prep the canvas
select and mix the shade of paint, thinned to the correct degree
etc.

Her mom is/was doing all of that. Mom is making a lot of decisions that go into defining the work that is being created.

91

OK, then I’m not sure I understood what you meant when you said:

92

I suggest you read my post #87.

93

First, I am a big fan of contemporary art. Also, sure, there are the pictures of a solid paint color and other things easily derided out there (many of which are much more impressive in person). But I think much more common are artists like Tara Donovan, who put a ton of obvious labor in their work:

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1067&bih=512&q=tara+donovan&oq=tara+donovan&gs_l=img.3..0l9j0i24.1003.4680.0.5000.12.9.0.3.3.0.391.1125.4j4j0j1.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.KxShltNVpMo

I think what people sense, however, is something that is not particular pertinent to contemporary art but all art: that the means by which one becomes established and one’s art becomes valuable is pretty arbitrary; i.e., the art world is a shitty, unfair place. The fact that certain pieces of contemporary art seem doable by “just anybody” is icing on the cake, I would say, not the cake itself.

There are many, many talented artists out there, most of whom will never receive much if any fame or money for their efforts in their lifetime. Heck, think of Van Gogh, who sold one painting in his lifetime. Remember that he committed suicide not just kinda sorta feeling he was a failure, but knowing he was a failure. All around him were artists becoming famous and wealthy for their work, and he was getting nowhere. This was an artist now universally recognized as one of the greatest of all time.

From what I’ve heard speaking to artists who’ve really made a go at it, is that the New York gallery scene pretty much determines everything. So if you’re not out there kissing ass and promoting yourself 24/7, you get nowhere no matter how talented you are. And it’s all just total bullshit. Perhaps our professional artist here can verify some of this. I don’t pretend to know any details or even if the above is totally correct.

Regardless of the details, there is no question it’s a world in which only a few can really become famous, and the gallery owners and rich people who buy the stuff are going to play a 1 percenters’ game to decide how that all turns out. Isn’t that what we really hate about this whole thing?

94

To each his own - I’d have to see the painting in person before making a call on whether it’s worth more of my time or not. What I wouldn’t do is make remarks about “the emperor’s new clothes” (not saying you’ve done this, but it’s an unfortunate tendency of some when discussing this area of art) without making a genuine effort to understand what others see in the work.

95

We have no argument here.
I’m sure others are initially attracted to things I am not and find deeper meaning and satisfaction on further study.

I’m just saying that there is such a thing as real, genuine bullshit. Nothing interesting on the surface, no deeper meanings to be found. Like a previous poster described the guy who just painted pieces of carpeting white, and was called on it and had no defense. That stuff.

96

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
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree

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
1916
1918
1921
Late 1930s
Early 1940s
Early 1940s
Mid 40s

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?

97

Abstract art captures elements of cognition and how it interacts with perception. All visual art does this to an extent, abstract visual art isolates and refines it.

Music is also abstract art. People don’t really question why music without representation can be emotionally affecting. Visual abstract art has the potential for a similar result (and for me, it actually has more emotional resonance on average).

Added: ZebraShaSha, that post about Mondrian is amazing and well done, thank you.

98

Wow, those look terrible to me. Looking at them alongside Mondrian or Pollock makes them look like someone just took a picture of their palette after finishing a different painting.

That’s just my taste though, I wouldn’t try to argue they were worthless or objectively bad.

99

I too am overwhelmed at the 3 to 5 million ticket on a piet mondrian
as an artist i am aware that many of these painters have trekked a long path of classical training and evolved to this minimalist point
I find Mondrian to be quite beautiful, however…when one really explores the influence of color…the placement on the canvas (or paper)…experiments with color field painting…and completes these bodies of work…but the voyage away from the figurative…the humanly recognizable image oriented art…to the breakdown of form or color…attracts and develops parts of the brain that are dormant…that take us beyond what we simply see but what we feel

Its not the same if you paint a canvas with Martha Stewart sap green.

100

I really like all three of the paintings linked in the OP, and I bet they’re faaaaaaaaaaaaar more impressive/interesting in person.