Fried Dough Ho, I want to buy your rusty cog, place it in a dirt-filled cigar box, sitting on a 3 foot tall stand. There will be a small sign with your previous post printed out, framed, and located nearby.
But let’s say both I and Duchamp come up with the same idea - a wheelbarrow filled with “hanging chad” voting slips, for example - and we both exhibit it in a gallery.
Would you agree that Duchamp’s version will sell for much more than mine (as long as people are aware that he is indeed the artist)? That would suggest the value of the artwork is clearly not intrinsic to the piece itself, but it’s totally dependent on context and marketing.
Assume the pieces of art are the same in every meaningful detail - both get sold, but it later turns out that the labels were mixed up. Has the person who paid $1m for what they thought was Duchamp’s version been ripped off? After all, the art is the same work so surely the value would remain intact?
‘Voice of Fire’ is the one piece that I recall viewing on a school trip to the National Gallery ~15 years ago.
I’m not a huge fan of modern art (or any art really), and 1.8mil seems like a lot to pay for 3 stripes; but a piece that leaves an impression that long after seeing it has to be worth something.
Okay, if I think of gluing my used Kleenex onto a canvas to spell out “POST NO BILLS”, is that art?
ISTM that saying that being in a museum makes it art kind of begs the question - why would one thing get picked out to put into a museum and something else is not? There has to be some kind of skill or merit to it apart from the fact that people will look at it differently if it is in a museum - that is true of anything.
Skill in execution is a necessary but not sufficient condition of art, and that is why people who say “My third grader could have done that” are onto something. Because if there is no skill involved, even a third grader can be taught to arbitrarily label anything as “art”. And if everything is art, then artists are wasting their time creating what is everywhere already.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m fairly sure a brand-new undiscovered pile of anything by Duchamp (d. 1968) would be far more noteworthy than a simple left-lane overhead mitten by the lake four winters ago after the pigs got through with him, right?
I mean, where’s the DADA! smiley?
If by ‘context and marketing’, you mean to say that you and Duchamp have a comparable body of work behind you, you have a basis for the comparison. Otherwise, no - art aficionados are as interested in where a work fits in the artist’s chronology as in the work itself.
You and Stephen King write exactly the same novel. Whose will get the 7 figure advance and whose will be published purely on its own merits?
Yes, the provenance of a work ‘counts’ towards its value. This was a concern in Warhol’s day, when he made a flip remark about how easy it was for him and the team to produce paintings at The Factory. Dealers then had to go through hoops reassuring people that what they had was a genuine Warhol and not a Billy Name, Candy Darling or Edie Sedgwick.
I remember seeing an exhibit of early Picasso at the Met in NY. When I say ‘early’, I mean his 19th century work. I walked out of that exhibit blown away - the main thought I had was that he had the technique to pursue any style he chose, and that everything that followed was him following through on his choices. As I exited, the stranger beside me remarked to his wife “So after that, he devoted his life to producing shocking crap to make money.” To which his wife replied “Well, I’m amazed anyone seeing that can think he ever had any talent.” Same exhibit, three different pairs of eyes, three irreconcilable viewpoints…
Missed the edit window - l’esprit de l’escalier.
This might be an interesting point to mention the play “Portrait of an Unidentified Man”, which deals with the interesting life of the forger Elmyr de Hory. From the Wiki page -
The promotional video for the play is great.
Not that you’re directly saying this, but it reminds me of Stephen Colbert’s line about how global warming must be a fact, because An Inconvenient Truth did great at the box office, so the market has spoken.
But in seriousness, I’m not sure anyone will categorize the quality of art by its material value, so you’re not using the right yardstick here. Anyone can go into the greatest museums in the world and find things that are worth millions upon millions, but they just don’t care for them. That’s fine.
So, you may both create objects that are of great significance, and make important statements, but the investment value of Duchamp’s would be greater for the same reason that Babe Ruth’s signature is more valuable than Jonas Salk’s.
Bravo recently had a reality series called Work of Art, in which a number of young people did the whole Survivor-style elimination until the best artist of the bunch won a big prize. If you get a chance, watch a few episodes. I think watching people create various things, and then have yourself sit in judgment of whether the piece is good or not, illustrates better than any written argument that there is indeed a vast difference between a boring pile of garbage and a pile of junk that is fascinating and “says” something.
I thought Trans-Am Apocalypse was far more memorable, myself.
I think this illustrates the basis of difference between “art lovers” and those who are disgusted by this crap. To us, this is an utterly idiotic statement: it demonstrates that it fundamentally isn’t about the art: it’s about the artist. And for us that’s utterly banal. I can look at random images or junk all day long. I don’t care about the artist, only about the work. To the extent that the work ever demands I even consider the artist, it has failed. He shoudl become invisible, and let me focus onthe work.
I think this is is why “modern” art (what I am talking about isn’t neccessarily modern art, but we don’t have a better name for it) disgusts me and many beside me. It’s egotism at its finest. It’s about showing the vistor something which may make or help them feel something, it’s about the artist showing how awesome they are. An artist can have fans of their work, but never of the artist personally. Nobody particularly followed Michelangelo: it’s his work which they cared about. If we knew nothing about him, his works would stand on their own completely.
But so much of the crap today utterly violates this. It has no meaning except if you happen to know it was produced by “some famous artist”. Who is, as it turns out, famous mostly for producing stuff that he is famous for because it was produced by him. Or something. But if you don’t know that: if it weren’t labelled brazenly, you’d never know it was art in the first place.
Seriously? I know very little about art, but can enjoy myself in a museum quite a bit, and I don’t think I can name three important living modern artists if someone put a gun to my head.
Well, I can probably name one. Peregrine… uh, something. I was in New York a few months ago and saw something at the Whitney Museum: this drawing of a half man, half beast thing that just kind of sickened me. My first thought was, this artist has some serious issues. Turns out she was on that reality show I mentioned earlier, and she was just as big a pain in the ass as I thought she was.
So, if you think that you have to know who made the art in order to experience it, you’re totally wrong.
I think you’re actually indulging in some ahistorical rationalization here.
True, the nature of society and the ways in which information circulated meant that Michelangelo didn’t have “a following” in the way we commonly use the term these days. But the artist himself was extremely well known and respected and admired during his lifetime.
This is a guy who, in a time when the printing press was still relatively young, had not one, but two biographies of him published during his own lifetime. And he was appreciated and renowned among the (much smaller) group of people who were considered the audience for art in his day.
His patrons and those who commissioned his work were, if you’ll pardon the crude historical analogy, the art dealers and museum directors and collectors of their day. These were people who made decisions about who the important artists were, and what constituted good art.
I think that you’re drawing a manufactured distinction regarding the art and the artist here. It’s true that the followers of Michelangelo cared about his work, but it’s not at all clear to me that present-day supporters of modern art are any different. Yes, particular artists achieve a level of fame or notoriety that earlier artists did not, but they achieve it because of, not despite, the art they produce.
I’m not a big fan of all modern art (a category that, as jordanr2 suggests, is so large as to be effectively meaningless without further specifics), but i don’t have to the hubris to suggest that, just because i don’t like something, it’s not art.
Seriously? I know very little about art, but can enjoy myself in a museum quite a bit[snip]
[/quote]
So can I, if the works themselves are good. I don’t need to go to a museum to see random junk, and if it needs to be explained, it’s a failure much like a joke. But those two issues are not what IU was tlaking about.
Again, not what I was saying. In fact, you somehow seem to have come out with the exact opposite.
You’re focused on whether the context of the art should matter - you argue that context should not matter and that the art should stand, objectively, outside context, as a merit-worthy work of art.
Dude - that’s not how it works. ALL ART EXISTS WITHIN ITS CONTEXT - the only question is where the world in general, and you individually are in relation to that context.
Michaelangelo’s art has been established for hundreds of years and *defined *the context for how we regard representational, high-Renaissance art (along with Leonardo, Raphael, etc.) since then. Now - back in the day - were there uproars about the introduction of new elements to the art? Hell yes - ohmigod, Raphael is doing 3/4-length oblique portraits of Pope Julius the 2nd - that’s never been done before! Will the Pope accept it? Does it make the right sort of statement and does it count as art? Or what about (insert artist’s name here)'s version of St. Sebastian - the nudie guy pierced by arrows that the artists typically used to show off their knowledge of anatomy - ohmigod, will the Church allow that nudie painting to represent their beloved saint? Is that “art” acceptable for its contextual use?
It is all a question of degrees and modern art has tried to seek out and identify those Big Questions about “what is art”?
If Duchamp, as an experienced artist with credibility, can stir up trouble by labeling a pre-made urinal as art, and by doing so has led to discussion about what art is for the many decades since, hasn’t he accomplished something - within the context of his time and how art was defined at the time.
It feels like you understand the context for regarding art created over the past few hundred years because you have acquired enough context just through standard living and eduction to appreciate them. However, you have not invested the time to stay cutting-edge current on the path that modern art has taken over the past, oh, 60 years, to understand where that context sits today. Cool - that is certainly your right - but glib dismissal seems way too easy and suggests that you don’t *want *to “get” what is happening with modern art…
I like the ‘hard con’ answer. Modern art’s got no objective value. Just because somebody was the first one to hang a bicycle wheel in a museum doesn’t make that bicycle wheel important. Or interesting.
Hell, I wonder if I can still buy the first piece of chewed gum that someone decided to stick under a museum bench. That must be worth a fortune! :rolleyes:
If you like modern art, great. If you like it enough to spend a million dollars on it… also great, but I don’t think I want to invest any of my money with you.
Of course, I think art (not just modern art) falls into two groups : hideously overpriced, and criminally underpriced, with very little middle ground, because to a great extent, it’s all subjectively valued. Modern art’s just a more egregious offender.
100 million from 2 million invested in the mid-1970’s is a more astute investment than anything I’ve ever put money into. 
Exactly. And, in fact, plenty of Australians now look at the Blue Poles purchase with a certain amount of national pride. It’s one of Pollock’s most significant works, and is the envy of modern art museums around the world.
Depends on the execution and the context. Why don’t you do it and we’ll see?
No, I knew that, all of it. What is different is that you did not have to love Michelangelo to
I fact, I love a great deal of art which is considered “modern”. I despise egart (ego+art), where its the maker and not the made which is being celebrated. If the work cannot stand on its own - it cannot stand.
Naughty assumptions there.
Among them, I note that you think I don’t like modern art. This is untrue, I like much of what is still being made and falls into the modern movement. I do, however, dislike navel-gazing, and most of the so-called “great art” being pushed today is utter crap produced by navel-gazing. It’s not a product of artists moving on or developing further. It’s a product of increasingly small groups getting stuck in a rut, where they attempt to escape by creating increasingly and absurdly elaborate theories about art and more and more outlandish… items (I wouldn’t grace it with the word “art”).
Let us, for the sake of argument, say he did stir up serious discussion: in what way is that art? Obama and Palin produce discussion about what politicians are. Does that make them art, or mean that they somehow accomplished something? Anyone can ask a question. (Duchamp did not, in any case, and even if he had he wasn’t the first. He did something fairly obnoxious and then pretended it was the new awesome. It was just stupid and childish.)
I think people here in favor of some of this crap forget that the reason people look astounded and exclaim, 'My kid could do better!" is not that they are somehow failing to see the intrinsic awesome of the piece, and it is not that they are forgetting to note that their kid didn’t do that piece. Theya re astounded and irked because of the sheer waste. Nobody particularly cares that you make something bad or banal. But we feel nothing but comtempt for publicly displaying it as if it were something special.
Take “Voice on Fire” (please!). Ain’t nothing wrong with it. But it’s no different than what I see every day on brochures. It doesn’t say anything or have any meaning. It’s purely abstract, and not only would two different people have different interpretations, they wouldn’t come up with one unless told they had to. It means nothing, can mean nothing, beyond what the artist came up with and tells you it means. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s just a graphic design piece, nothing more or less. I don’t mind people differing over how good a work is, but if they can’t even identify it as art, then something is wrong. Take it out of a museum, and it could serve as a nice logo backgorund for a company - and nothing more.
Take Blue Poles (no joke, I like it). I don’t really think of it as a great work, but I do like it. There is, to me, a meaning in thw rok but not an obvious one. It does create a specific emotional reaction, and I enjoy the clear technical expertise which went into making it. Is it a hundred-million-dollar item to me? No. But I instantly recognize that it is art, however good or bad it may be.
The most intense emotional reaction I’ve ever seen anyone have was to a Rothko. Years ago my wife and I went to the Rothko Chapel in Houston. I’d been there lots of time, but it was her first trip. As soon as we stepped inside, she immediately became agitated. “My God,” she said. “It’s all about DEATH.” She literally had to flee the building.
How much can an abstract piece communicate? A lot.