I think you’d be surprised. Generally the shows I’ve gone to have prices under that because the artists still work for a living and haven’t established a name. Everybody starts at the bottom and most of them are never recognized.
Of course I do.
Sorry if that’s how it came across, but my reply, as Enginerd and miss elizabeth said, certainly was not meant to be condescending in any way.
For the record, the experimental “visual language” of the Abstract Expressionists doesn’t speak much to me either. That doesn’t mean that I’m either insulting anybody who does find it meaningful, or being deliberately kept out of any exclusive Art Appreciators’ “club”.
Nor, IMHO, does it mean that I necessarily would find it meaningful if only I had more background knowledge about it. People shouldn’t be snobs about art but they shouldn’t feel obliged to be self-abasing either.
Yes, more background knowledge tends to increase our ability to appreciate unfamiliar things, but on a question of aesthetic appeal we’re allowed to have an opinion even if we don’t have much background knowledge.
Of course not. Most of us would never have heard of it. That was conceded by consensus pretty early on but I don’t think that it’s relevant to the more interesting (to me) discussion.
ETA: If someone had started a thread about an under-appreciated but extremely influential artist and has showed that painting as an example, a similar discussion could have happened.
Thanks, I accept your apology.
There’s no hifalutin principle involved: Grumman’s disdain wasn’t addressed at me, is all.
This is all true. For me it’s the reverse. I really do not have a strong reaction to most representational art. I didn’t even know it was “representational” per se until I learned more about art in general. For awhile, I just thought that I was just missing the part of my brain that gives a crap about visual art in general. People describe their experiences looking at all sorts of things, and the best I can manage is patient acceptance with a little jealousy that I might be missing out. It’s very tempting to believe that everyone else is just deluding themselves. I discovered later that I felt quite differently about abstract art. Not all pieces of course; abstraction alone doesn’t do the trick. Anyone can make something abstract, but not anyone can make something that will produce genuine, authentic experiences in other people.
So when people ask questions like this, it’s easy to get angry because it doubts the authenticity of other peoples’ experiences.
It seems like maybe it comes down to subtleties that a lot of people don’t see then. Or maybe it takes seeing them in person?
I can see what The Hamster King is talking about in the examples he posts about Pollock, but I’m still not entirely sold on a lot of modern art. For example, I’ve never really understood why Piet Mondrian is so highly regarded either.
And once again people’s taste’s differ. I can take or leave Pollock, but I just love Mondrian.
I love Mondrian - his stuff makes me smile.
Just look at that - your eyes move all over it; it’s like a Pacman board from 1943 
Indeed, this kind of stuff is valuable because it is exactly that it is “art that’s about art itself.” It’s introspective, challenging the notions of what art should or could be.
I’m not saying that people can’t or shouldn’t get any meaning from the paintings, but that wasn’t the intent of this kind of art when it was being done. These artists may have attached some symbolic meaning to their field colors and their zigs or whatever, but I am sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that they didn’t expect anyone anywhere to see that and feel that from staring at their paintings. What they were doing was simply to challenge art preconceptions and to be different.
Now, if people do feel hypnotized, or get some sort of meaning or significance from these things, that’s great for them. I think it’s great that they were done in the first place. I don’t find them interesting inherently, but I do find the history and the motivations behind them interesting, and ultimately, that’s where the value comes from. I highly, highly doubt anyone is getting 44 million dollars worth a value from the feelings and emotions that the painting itself elicits.
There are a few ways to tackle the Mondrian question. If his art (especially his later work) does nothing for you, then its impact is obviously not a convincing reason of his importance. Perhaps more convincing is the fact that he keeps on turning up in all sorts of places, for instance, a White Stripes album devoted to his later style. You can see Mondrian on Yves Saint Laurent clothing. You know those pieces of furniture made of cubes of various sizes that you can put together? Like this? Also Mondrian. It is obviously possible to imitate stuff like this, but he was the first to conceive and execute it. These sorts of designs turn up absolutely everywhere.
Honestly, while I like a lot of modern art, Mondrian leaves me cold, for the most part. Shrug. Like I said before, different strokes.
The painting has a monetary value of millions of dollars. It has no artistic merit. It can cover up a large area of wall space, so it has some value on a practical level. Otherwise, hell, it’s obvious bullshit, the visual equivalent of a politician saying “I did not have sex with that woman” and expecting everybody to buy it.
Here we go again.
And how exactly does one distinguish things that have artistic merit from things that don’t?
This is a fact, or at least it was a fact yesterday when the painting was officially sold for that amount. Monetary value is an extremely variable quantity in the case of things like works of art.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
It has no artistic merit.
[/quote]
This is an opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
It can cover up a large area of wall space, so it has some value on a practical level.
[/quote]
This is a fact. You’re doing pretty well so far! 
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Otherwise, hell, it’s obvious bullshit, the visual equivalent of a politician saying “I did not have sex with that woman” and expecting everybody to buy it.
[/QUOTE]
This is an accusation that AFAIK is entirely false. Whatever you may think about the merits or lack thereof of Barnett Newman’s work, it’s extremely unlikely that he or other Color Field painters deliberately tried to make paintings that they didn’t think were art but hoped to fool critics and buyers into accepting as art.
To recap some of the things said previously (and repeatedly) about Abstract Expressionism/Color Field painting, since it seems pretty clear you haven’t bothered to read the thread:
If you personally think the answer is “no”, that’s fine, you don’t like Abstract Expressionist/Color Field genres and you’re entitled to your opinion.
But that doesn’t mean that painters like Newman were deliberately “bullshitting” about what they were trying to achieve aesthetically, or that they were not genuinely attempting to produce works that were well-crafted and artistically important.
In any event, trying to bullshit critics and buyers seems staggeringly difficult to do if not utterly pointless. It’s certainly possible to bullshit some critics and buyers some of the time, but to bullshit enough of them to drive the price of your work into the stratosphere? It’s probably easier just to create great art in the first place.
The work of very few living artists ever commands prices like this. I think a Richter just sold for ~$35M, but this is highly unusual and he is not exactly young. Art tends to become great when it survives critical (and popular) scrutiny over time. There aren’t very many good ways to short-circuit this process.
More than you may realize. Mondrian’s student/disciple was Alexander Calder. Calder asked him what would happen if you made a 3-dimensional version of Mondrian’s work. Mondrian said: “Bad idea.”
Calder did it anyway: it’s the mobile. The thing hanging over your baby’s crib? Inspired by Mondrian.
Cool, I had no idea Calder was a student of Mondrian. I grew up in the suburbs of New York City, so we went to Pepsico all the time on field trips to see the sculpture garden. I could have looked at Calders my whole life and not made that connection.
As someone who worked for several years at the National Gallery of Art and spoken quite a lot to both artists and “interpreters” (the professionals are known as curators in the art museum industry), I can tell you confidently that the intent of the artist during the creation process doesn’t matter AT ALL.
I’ve told this story before, but… A grad student gave a lecture about how the so-called “bulls-eye” paintings by Jasper Johns represented the Glory Hole, an avenue for anonymous sex in the gay culture Johns was immersed in at the time. It seemed plausible to me, and after the lecture I asked the guy if he’d tried contacting Johns to find out what he really intended. The guy was dumbfounded by the question. It is just something that is NOT DONE among academic art interpreters, even when the artist is still alive and available to comment.
I was equally stunned by his response, as it seemed to me more or less the opposite of scholarship. But I quickly confirmed that this was the common reaction among the curatorial staff. What the artist meant to do was irrelevant or at most a historical footnote, it was the audience who gave art its meaning.
In fact most of the artists I talked with didn’t have strong feelings about some particular meaning or intent to their art. But they were delighted to have advocates who articulated a meaning, and they tended to agree with those meanings. Because ultimately, is is these meanings, and the response of the audience (including buyers) who made them wealthy and celebrated.