|
| Thread: Priorities: art or the people? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
posted September 24, 2015 10:59 AM |
|
|
Are you saying Balotelli isn't a work of art? 
It's funny, we have an enormous wealth of artists here in Italy, and yet people care more about soccer than them...
I empathize with Dies, we've had too many paintings taken from us (Damn Frenchies stole the Mona Lisa...), and yet we couldn't propose their return here since the cost would be high.
Art has always been overpriced, we have Shame's square in Palermo that has a gigantic marble fountain that was bought for an humongous price for the time, and yet I feel like the price of an antique work of art is more than justified, considering the time, study and effort it took to create such things.
My art teacher always said that medieval art is a branch of theology, when he explained the various works of the time he always found some particular that was justified by the time's conception, and even various symbolisms that an untrained eye cannot understand, that's why I think art has an high price, you can't discount the skill of a painter or a sculptor to create these works filled with symbols, you see that there is a meticolous study of the theological works of the time, you see the first studies on perspective, and you see how they work with colours, all of this implies the time they took.
Then there are works that immediately give you that impression, the frescos of Raffaello and Michelangelo come to mind, their sheer size is enough to summon the time they took to paint their masterpieces.
I justify the price in this type of art though, when we talk about "modern art" I'm completely against their price, how can you sell a canvas ripped apart for millions? How can you sell an empty frame to museums? How can you call art puke or feces? That is what ruined art, when edgy modernists decided to ruin the meaning of the greatest educational and emotional vessel.
Modernizing art is okay, the Impressionists and Expressionists made some really great masterpieces, but to compare a Monet, a Raffaello or a Rembrandt with the work a lazy idiot that scratched a canvas is insulting and revolting.
I believe art should have an high price and that we should throw these "modern artists" from a window.
Now, having said that it's also understandable why buying back works of art is difficult, when a state is in an economical crisis (taking Italy as an example) how can you possibly hope to buy back some works of art knowing that your people need that money for services, especially in a state where the state subsidizes a lot of things, for example we have subsidized schools and hospitals, if the money goes missing we're done for.
I've said it in the other thread, but related to the overpriced AIDS medication, in such a state you cannot spend too much money else you'll have a dysfunctional system.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:05 PM |
|
|
EnergyZ said:
Aside from the national value of the painting, would it be a better case of letting some group of artists make a new painting instead?
FriendOfGunnar said:
This makes me think, if your goal is to celebrate your artistic heritage for that 80 million you could instead build a museum with a hundred replicas so careful that nobody but the top experts would be able to tell the difference.
Ouch . Well, that is the first response I have to this. I don't think that this would work out. Sure, it is a cheaper option, and copies may look as beautiful as their originals, but it's basically cheating. It feels like some kind of old dream to have the masters back home, but without any possibility to actually bring them home. Instead it's decided to have lifelike copies or 'other, new paintings' to try to fill that void. It reminds me of a telling example that's taking place in Florence. In the church of Santa Croce we find a number of tomb monuments, one of which is dedicated to Michelangelo. Another is made for Dante Alighieri, however...he's not buried in Florence. He's buried in his home town of Ravenna (it is assumed). Funny enough, Dante was actually exiled from Florence and spent his last days away from the city. This tomb monument is a similar kind of wish to honor him as a hero, even though it's only a shell at the moment. This is again a 19th century thing, finding heroes and patriots to identify oneself with.
So building a new museum filled with copies and replicas would, to me, express that same emptiness. The masters are there, but at the same time they're not there. In our age of modern communication, internet and such, museums have taken to visualizing their collections. You can take virtual tours, exploring this and that from behind your computer. It mimicks the feeling of 'being there', even though you have never been to that particular museum. It may inspire an actual visit, but one could be reluctant to do so because one has already 'visited' it at home. A museum full of replicas would be a physical place to be, but yield the same result. You're looking at something that is supposed to be here, but that is located elsewhere on the planet. It's not the real deal you're looking at, which would attract the masses of tourists from all over the place. Because if everyone knows they're looking at a fake, what use is there in coming to the museum?
Neraus said:
I empathize with Dies, we've had too many paintings taken from us (Damn Frenchies stole the Mona Lisa...), and yet we couldn't propose their return here since the cost would be high.
Napoleon just went on a plunder wherever and whenever he wanted , that's why some of Italy's finest altarpieces (for instance) are currently located in the Louvre. This whole thing of stolen art and restitution is a topic of its own, and there is of course one major example of this: the so-called Elgin Marbles, currently in the British Museum. You should read their history, it's been going on for a long long time now. This has to do with the problem of 'buying back' art. And actually, in Athens there is a museum which is built especially to house the Marbles, but they're not there yet and England is unwilling to give them back. The same kind of empty shell again, a wish to have what cannot be done.
____________
|
|
eutow
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:12 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
I justify the price in this type of art though, when we talk about "modern art" I'm completely against their price, how can you sell a canvas ripped apart for millions? How can you sell an empty frame to museums? How can you call art puke or feces? That is what ruined art, when edgy modernists decided to ruin the meaning of the greatest educational and emotional vessel.
Modernizing art is okay, the Impressionists and Expressionists made some really great masterpieces, but to compare a Monet, a Raffaello or a Rembrandt with the work a lazy idiot that scratched a canvas is insulting and revolting.
I believe art should have an high price and that we should throw these "modern artists" from a window.
I know, right? [url=http://www.catalogodiseno.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Kandinsky-Composici%C3%B3n-VIII.jpg]This[/url] is just scratching a canvas. [url=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3215/3071823434_7123a68a55_z.jpg]This[/url] is menstrual blood. And look at [url=http://uploads5.wikiart.org/images/mark-tansey/action-painting-ii-1984.jpg]this empty canvas[/url]!
Please, everyone, stop using these old and boring strawmen when attacking modern art. Yes, the lazy art that you attack does exist. Yes, it is lazy and bad art. No, not all modern art is lazy and bad art.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:39 PM |
|
|
This "masterpiece" was sold for 44 millions
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:50 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 13:02, 24 Sep 2015.
|
eutow said:
Neraus said:
I justify the price in this type of art though, when we talk about "modern art" I'm completely against their price, how can you sell a canvas ripped apart for millions? How can you sell an empty frame to museums? How can you call art puke or feces? That is what ruined art, when edgy modernists decided to ruin the meaning of the greatest educational and emotional vessel.
Modernizing art is okay, the Impressionists and Expressionists made some really great masterpieces, but to compare a Monet, a Raffaello or a Rembrandt with the work a lazy idiot that scratched a canvas is insulting and revolting.
I believe art should have an high price and that we should throw these "modern artists" from a window.
I know, right? This is just scratching a canvas. This is menstrual blood. And look at this empty canvas!
Please, everyone, stop using these old and boring strawmen when attacking modern art. Yes, the lazy art that you attack does exist. Yes, it is lazy and bad art. No, not all modern art is lazy and bad art.
Where did I say modern art, I said "modern art" in quotes, the excuse of lazy artists to overprice things that needed little to no effort and that are offensive to the public.
Did I say Picasso was an idiot? That's modern art, and it's great, the examples you put are modern art, they are good.
"Modern art" I have a beef with is this kind of "art" Click since the name goes against the CoC
Unless you're calling those artists you mentioned edgy they aren't the ones I'm referring to.
Compare this:
Clicky
to this:
Clicky
Same period, who spent more time and effort?
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:53 PM |
|
|
LizardWarrior said:
This "masterpiece" was sold for 44 millions
(Image)
Then why do I get this image when I look for the auction? 
The work on your picture is currently located in the Stedelijk Museum of Amsterdam, and I've seen it several times already. It has an interesting history to it, especially the part where it was slashed by a nutjob with a utility knife. This work is called "Cathedra", and is rectangular. The 44 million dollar work that was auctioned at Sotheby's is called Onement VI, and is square (although the same colors and zips are applied).
Last sentence in that article:
"Maar… 'Onement VI' moet niet worden verward met Newman’s eerdere werk 'Cathedra' uit 1951!"
But...'Onement VI' should not be confused with Newman's previous work, 'Cathedra', from 1951!
____________
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:19 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
I justify the price in this type of art though, when we talk about "modern art" I'm completely against their price, how can you sell a canvas ripped apart for millions? How can you sell an empty frame to museums? How can you call art puke or feces? That is what ruined art, when edgy modernists decided to ruin the meaning of the greatest educational and emotional vessel.
Modernizing art is okay, the Impressionists and Expressionists made some really great masterpieces, but to compare a Monet, a Raffaello or a Rembrandt with the work a lazy idiot that scratched a canvas is insulting and revolting.
I believe art should have an high price and that we should throw these "modern artists" from a window.
I guess everything started from that Dadaism movement, which was a reaction to World War I. But the war is over and the remaining ones aren't fought on a global scale. Even if they are, such wars are more of a subtle nature.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:30 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
a soccer player who costs more than a Da Vinci isn't normal neither
Are you implying that what Cristiano Ronaldo does on the field can't be considered a work of art?
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:56 PM |
|
|
|
No. It certainly isn't dancing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 02:44 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:58, 24 Sep 2015.
|
I think there are very interesting works of conceptual art and I really don't get the "I can paint that, too" attitude. What do you expect of artists from 2015, paint Bible illustrations like Michalengelo (which were great btw, I saw them in Vatican) or dedicate themselves to continue a photographic realism? New times bring new problems and it's only natural artists explore and experiment. Time will filter out the charlatans, do you believe every Renaissance painter was a genius, no we are left with the ones who were.
The last time I saw an exhibition of interesting conceptual art was Anish Kapoor in Istanbul and it really moved me, his work is not necessarily hard to produce by physical means but extremely capturing, just google his sculptures.
And yes, some of the prices may seem absurd, especially if you are not very rich but that's just because the art market is expanding just like any other market, so we're facing figures that we're not very used to, it's like that joke from the Austin Power movie:
- Mr. President, Dr. Evil wants 100 million dollars to stop the bomb.
- Why dont we just pay him?
- This is the 60's sir, that kind of money doesn't exist.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:48 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:53 PM |
|
|
Finally, someone more illiterate about football than me!
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:59 PM |
|
|
The last match I watched was in 1998 (or sumting close), finale Brazil-France. And it was because all my wife's family trampled in our house because bigger plasma.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:09 PM |
|
|
I raise you. The only match I ever watched was when Galatasaray (some Turkish team) became the European champion. It was back in 2000, if I'm not mistaken. I know who Ronaldo is by name but I cant spot him in a picture.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:12 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 16:14, 24 Sep 2015.
|
You don't know?
The jews did this...
Injustiça!
Besides, in a serious note I've painted "modern art" too, when I shredded my documents, and made real modern art when I made a cubist drawing and a puntinist drawing, the difficulty comes only in finding inspiration I found, although I admit I'd need a lot of tries to pull off a Picasso.
Simply put I find modern art to be simpler, simple isn't bad though, but I can't certainly pull off any great Rinascimental works, it's easier to do the new things.
Besides, many are doing art today that isn't "modern art", some years ago I would have said go to DeviantArt, then I remembered that there are not only masterpieces but also a load of sub par mediocre artworks.
Take a look at this:
<img src=) rigin()/pre13/cbc0/th/pre/f/2007/357/a/4/___madonna_and_child____by_ninebreaker.jpg" border=0>
I found it earlier, why this piece in particular?
The theme is the most common in Medieval and Renaissance art, the Virgin Mary and Jesus, touched with a modern hand, and, I like to call it the "Madonna Anime" even though it isn't so influenced by Manga or Anime art (Don't shoot me for confusing them).
This piece isn't vulgar, it reminds of antique art and innovates, it's been done digitally and not painted, and! most especially you can see there is some original symbolism, (feel free to correct me in my deduction) As you can see in the left sleeve of the Virgin you can see there is a Meso american mythological creature, pointing out the bond between the Virgin and an Aztec deity that in many ways resembled her and her role.
You don't have to be from the Renaissance to produce these type of works.
My point? It isn't true that artists can't aspire to achieve great works, and for once you can see the work of unadvertised artists, that may be incredibly talented but get passed over by "existentialist art".
We are at a point in which we can emulate or even surpass antique art, we can also decide to move in new frontiers of space and techniques, but that's not an excuse to paint a white line on a blue canvas or scratching a canvas.
Young artists are extremely promising I found, they can go in deeps that previous painters couldn't reach, and it would sadden me if they started following the trend of mediocre art instead of reaching for the stars.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:23 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
The theme is the most common in Medieval and Renaissance art, the Virgin Mary and Jesus, touched with a modern hand, and, I like to call it the "Madonna Anime" even though it isn't so influenced by Manga or Anime art (Don't shoot me for confusing them).
You can only read manga (aka comic in black and white colors), while anime is animated series/movies.
Anyway, I'd rather appreciate art when in two things: what the author meant by making the art piece and how much work and time the author has invested in making the art piece.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:25 PM |
|
|
I meant that regarding style, as far as I understand they have a similar but different art style, and I don't know the difference between the styles.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:34 PM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:58 PM |
|
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 08:01 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Vade in retro satanas
Oh no, I don't try to cast you out completely, I just want to bring to your attention a better place to discuss Christano Ronaldo . Only when he shows up in a painting which is sold for millions and more is he allowed to be a topic of debate in this humble thread.
It's interesting to see that modern art is being brought to the fore. Fortunately, the master post covers this little expedition to a wider area of art, because I asked the question if the particular case presented might be an example of a wider 'issue', in society. Let's take that article I linked to (under Arguments To and Fro) and examine it a bit closer. There, it says that the government should be allowed to afford a purchase every 15-20 years, and true enough: it's not the first time it happens. In 1997, the state (with help of the Dutch Bank) bought the work Victory Boogie Woogie, by Mondrian.
Click
Price tag: 82 million guilders (roughly 40 million euros). This particular quote is interesting:
"De aankoop van de Victory Boogie Woogie leidde destijds tot veel deining in de samenleving. Baars verwacht dat dat nu minder het geval zal zijn. Rembrandts vallen sowieso beter in de smaak bij het grote publiek dan een abstract schilderij van Mondriaan. Een belangrijk verschil is ook de strategie die directeur Wim Pijbes heeft gevolgd."
Back then, the purchase of the Victory Boogie Woogie led to a lot of friction in society. Baars expects that it won't be as bad this time. Rembrandts definately appeal more to the general public than an abstract painting by Mondrian. An important difference is also the strategy followed by director Wim Pijbes.
The painting's value, it is said, is now "considerably higher". The point made in that article is that we should see the purchase of these works as an investment. Although it's unlikely they'll ever be sold again.
____________
|
| |
|
|
