• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Art market
0

Started by suspense39,

68 posts in this topic

Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted
Why would a high price for Rockwell, Wyeth or parish not be pretentious? Because you like them?

 

Well, here is a perfect example of what I find pretentious about the fine art community.

 

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/02/oops-cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-mistook-trash/

 

The cleaning lady should quit her job and become an art critic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted
That's not pretentious, that's just bad art.

 

 

I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the optical suggestions of the facture makes resonant a participation in the critical dialogue of the 90s.

 

 

Well, at least that's what The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator came up with.

http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
Similarly, I look at Bacon's popes and the impressive thing to me is the dates beside the title. The context. Because nobody was painting like that in the 1940s.

 

Wow, I can't believe this is coming from the same guy who can't appreciate Roy Lichtenstein. :baiting:

 

But, you're absolutely right about Bacon. No one was painting like that in the 1940s. Seeing his 1946 work Painting at MoMA for the first time many years ago was nothing short of a visceral experience. Sorry, but you don't get that looking at a Maxfield Parrish painting. Super-rich people pay up for Pollock, Warhol and Bacon for bragging rights, yes, but also because these were three of the true giants of Western art/culture of the 20th century. If appreciating genius is pretentious, well, then, guilty as charged. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
Why would a high price for Rockwell, Wyeth or parish not be pretentious? Because you like them?

 

While I'm sure there are some nouveau riche buying Hirst spot paintings because their interior designer told them to, I doubt you'll find anyone buying Bacons for multiple 8-figures that isn't knowledgeable about and deeply appreciative, if not passionate, of the art. And I say this as someone who has actually spent time with a couple who are among the world's leading Bacon collectors - these aren't people just looking to impress their peers in the centi-millionaire and billionaire set, they know and love Bacon, Warhol and Johns as much as we know and love Miller, Byrne and Kirby. 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suspense39

suspense39

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Bacon is actually one of my favorite artists, they do however have to bee seen in person, the paint structure has a lot to do with their viewing experience. I saw a survey of his work at the de young in sf years ago...it was great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.Sid

J.Sid

Posted
Posted

But, you're absolutely right about Bacon. No one was painting like that in the 1940s. Seeing his 1946 work Painting at MoMA for the first time many years ago was nothing short of a visceral experience.

 

I just clicked on that link and there's a line that reads

 

Credit Line: Purchase

 

What does that mean? Does that mean it's yours for the taking? Step up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
Posted

Thanks to The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator, I finally understand this piece...(I think):

 

Oldenburg+-+Hamburger+-+MoMA.jpg

"As an advocate of the Big Mac Aesthetic, I feel that the disjunctive perturbation of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix brings within the realm of discourse the distinctive formal juxtapositions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mister_not_so_nice

mister_not_so_nice

Posted
Posted
glass houses. Name familiarity is a big driver of value in comic art too.

 

I am sure it is for some but not for me. I have no interest in paying for a name.

 

 

:golfclap:

 

I'm pretty sure you'd buy a picture of a potted plant if it was published in a preacher story.... :baiting: Just sayin'

 

And I'm the same way with things I like.

 

Sure, and I wouldn't care who drew it :takeit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted (edited)
Thanks to The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator, I finally understand this piece...(I think):

 

Oldenburg+-+Hamburger+-+MoMA.jpg

"As an advocate of the Big Mac Aesthetic, I feel that the disjunctive perturbation of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix brings within the realm of discourse the distinctive formal juxtapositions."

 

200.gif

Edited by Mike Jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

I guess I have a hard time appreciating works that are done at scale seemingly with no other purpose. Scale can be powerful but I need a piece to show me more than that. So when I see a giant comic strip or a giant hamburger.... it's just not doing it for me.

 

I find some of the Freuds in particular to be mesmerizing - I'd be terrifically proud to own one if the price wasnt prohibitive. In other words I find I really like some of the art of the last few decades. But other pieces, not so much.... and scale for scale's sake leaves me empty.

----

I did always enjoy the Jasper Johns references in Tim Vigil's Faust while we are slightly OT. IIRC Faust's alter ego was named John Jaspers, an obvious and intentional reference IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing