He could have at least tapered the white line towards the top to make people imagine a horizon but the painter must have thought, “Oh no you you don’t.”
Zombie art criticism. Does that increase the value?
tapu
April 28, 2014, 1:39pm
403
Musing, about this thread and about comments I’ve read lately about Rothko’s paintings: When did ignorance of the fine arts become a source of pride in America?
I think it’s been part of American anti-intellectualism for a long, long time.
Tom Wolfe published a book in 1975 expressing many sentiments similar to those presented in this thread
Wolfe provides his own history of what he sees as the devolution to modern art. He summarized that history: “In the beginning we got rid of nineteenth-century storybook realism. Then we got rid of representational objects. Then we got rid of the third dimension altogether and got really flat (Abstract Expressionism). Then we got rid of airiness, brushstrokes, most of the paint, and the last viruses of drawing and complicated designs”. After providing examples of other techniques and the schools that abandoned them, Wolfe concluded with conceptual art: “…there, at last, it was! No more realism, no more representation objects, no more lines, colors, forms, and contours, no more pigments, no more brushstrokes. …Art made its final flight, climbed higher and higher in an ever-decreasing tighter-turning spiral until… it disappeared up its own fundamental aperture… and came out the other side as Art Theory!… Art Theory pure and simple, words on a page, literature undefiled by vision… late twentieth-century Modern Art was about to fulfill its destiny, which was: to become nothing less than Literature pure and simple”
tapu
April 29, 2014, 3:01pm
406
You and I may interpret Wolfe differently.
Which sentiments are you referring to?
Sitnam
April 29, 2014, 3:23pm
408
panache45:
These days, lots of art sells for millions of dollars. I often hear people say things like “My kid could have done that.” Well, the fact is, your kid DIDN’T do it. If that’s all it takes, why isn’t your kid doing it and raking in the bucks? You’re likely to discover that your kid couldn’t do it after all, that it takes talent and education and hard work just to make something that your kid could do just as well . . . if he only had the talent, education and hard work.
I am an artist, and nobody says that about my work. The art that I create takes an average of 6-8 weeks to do, and demands a great deal of creativity, precision and exhausting work. And it shows. But I also have to be supportive of art that’s not so obviously hard to do, and maybe your kid could do it after all. Except that the artist did it, and your kid didn’t. Nobody gets paid for art they could have done, but didn’t.
Please. Watch the value of a ‘certified’ Jackson Pollock plummet when it’s revealed it was actually done by a 7 year old who’s inspiration was The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Plenty of art has the value of tulip bulbs, it’s worth lots of money now because someday people will pay even more to sell it for a profit down the road. It’s also conspicuous consumption, everyone in the world knows that painting cost $44 million so it’s a sign on a wall that shows off wealth.
Contemptuous of modern art?