My reader friends here know I'm probably at least as good a Conservative as most of them are........but THIS really gets to me. Sure, people should be able to spend anything they want to on anything they want, we applaud success, but think of how many people could EAT on $69.3 MILLION dollars. Instead, somebody's got a beautiful old vase from China. Go ahead, take your swipes! I can take it :-) What do YOU think?geeeeeeeeeeeeez
64 comments:
That's just a dremel and lamp parts away from being the coolest bong evah.
I'm pretty sure the $69.3 Million will feed the previous owner well, as well as feed the people behind the products and services that chunk of change will purchase.
$69.3 Million for a flower pot? Just think how many toilet seats the Pentagon could purchase with this kind of money... at least a dozen or so. I have no issues with this. We get a work of art and national treasure of theirs in exchange for worthless paper.
duhkkky should be along anytime to tell us why it's purchase should have been subsidized by taxpayers and it filled with piss before being put on display.
While I find DaBlade's comments funny, I tend to agree with you Z.
I am in no way in favor of the current redistribution plans in DC but look at some of the money thrown around.
Little bimbo starlets jet all over the world on a whim. John Travolta owns five planes/jets. This is not the first $50+ million piece of artwork purchased.
I think these people should have the right to do what they want with their money (including buying a piece of pottery for 69.3 mil) but I also think that like all other freedoms, this freedom comes with some responsibility.
This money could have gone to some good use, instead it will sit in a vault somewhere collecting dust.
Elmer, you forgot the crucifix. The Duck will insist on it if it is meant to be artwork.
I'm happy that I can sell my hand-painted cards for $2. Maybe I need to increase the price so people will think they really have a 'treasure.'
I saw this in today's paper crazy expensive yes, but it's as beautiful as heck.
As far as the comments the others have made, the same gores for any other treasure, painting, sculpture, or collectors item. Look what some people pay for a famous baseball these days.
And look at the Idiots that are paying thousands for a pair of Bernard Madoff's old smelly shoes!
The Chinese have been vary interested in repatriating their art as both a display of their new wealth and in response to the destruction of their arts under Mao.
This is a superior example of period ceramics. The price is less surprising than the 50 million for a Lichtenstein the other day.
But this will happen when we allow the wealth transfer to get out of hand. Excess Kapital needs a place to go.
DaBlade doesn't seem to be aware that the buyer was Chinese.
The bidding fury may have been prompted by the recent works from the Forbidden City which are being viewed by the public for the first time in history. The exhibit just left the Peabody in Boston, absolutely exquisite work.
Personally, I think it's wonderful that there are pots worth $69.3 million and people who can afford to pay such a price. I only wish that there were more of them, and that I was amongst them.
Z,
I tend to believe that an object is only "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it. The vase doesn't appeal to me at all and the amount spent is beyond my comprehension, but if the buyer and seller both feel they got a good deal, I guess I don't have a say in that.
You do bring out a good point, though, concerning individual priorities and overall perspective of what is important. I'll never have $69.3 million to burn, but have definitely been guilty of mismanaging $100 or so at times. I'm not sure that the amount involved is as important as the attitude...
H
I agree with you Heather. It's like the Mondrian that sold for $9 million. Why not just buy a painting of the Partridge Family bus and save yourself $8,999,990.00.
He had a thing for squares or his compass broke, one or the other.
He had a thing for squares or his compass broke, one or the other.
LOL!
oh and duhkkky, spare me the Humanities 101 lecture on Mondrian, a fifth grader has greater imagination.
Chuck: "This money could have gone to some good use, instead it will sit in a vault somewhere collecting dust."
Indeed, it could have. And while it might make us sad that it didn't, maybe the recipients of the $69.3 million will do something altruistic with the money.
One thing we don't want, though, is some governmental entity telling them how they must spend whatever portion of it they have left after taxes.
Joe, I went to great lengths to say we should not have this controlled by government. I'm just saying the money could have been put to better use. Quite frankly it's their money, have at it as far as I'm concerned.
Duck, I am actually a huge fan of Renaissance art. My point was you have defended works like piss Christ in the past.
As far as this:
However, if contemporary work can steam off the fringe right, I have to enjoy that.
Just how far left are you to consider the people here the fringe right?
Chuck, I just deleted his 'fringe right' comment....
you're so right...just how far leftwing must one be?
well we all know the art world could never produce a Bernie Madoff
Wow, Elbro, that is AWFUL.
I had an art teacher in college who lost all his work in a fire; the Davis story is worse.....though I'd have a hard time convincing Mr. McDonald.
what I find ironic about duhkkky's remark is that it's those on the right suggesting that there are others who could benefit more from that type of money...when he's supposed to be the compassionate one.
Lichtenstein? 50 Million? was it the Superman first edition?
oh and btw way duhkkkster, two things. Modern art can only be redeemed by ridiculous amounts of money, considering much of it has not been redeemed by THE Creator.
Perhaps then you'll understand the right's view of modern art. We get it.
you're right Z. It is awful.
case in point
I've seen far worse than that, but that's a good case, for sure, Elbro.
I do happen to like some modern art but a fabulous realist painter friend of mine has drawn the case for Nihilism pretty well and it does seem like, as he says, taking God out of art (no more representing humans as they are, landscapes, etc.) does drain from the beauty of art.
I'll always like a Frankenthaler or Johns....I just do. But the sheer talent of being able to reproduce, for example, large rooms of people in oils from the 19th century, etc., is SO much more a sheer GIFT that I've turned my thinking on the subject.
STicking a cross in piss, as CHuck pointed out, is art now....leftwinger art, to be sure. they'll champion that and then insult us if we even considered putting a representation of ALlah in a glass of urine.
perhaps Duchamps could show up with half the men's room?
I like some modern art myself, the issue is not Kapitalism, the issue is that God has been removed, how beautiful can it be? or become?
it would be as if God created man without a spirit
the issue is not Kapitalism, the issue is that God has been removed, how beautiful can it be? or become?
The work of one's hands often reflects the content of the heart.
Much of what passes for "art" is most definitely an affront to God's nature as it has been revealed to us.
H
and why can't I decide what's good art duhkkky? I paid my $6.
Just ask Mr. Marcel
Zheesh. I wouldn't spend a penny more than $20 million on the thing.
tio
it would be as if God created man without a spirit
we would merely be an object
I must say, I am very disappointed in my parents who lacked the entrepreneurial spirit to become gazillionaires.
Elmer, I wouldn't think of lecturing you.
However, as me move into troubled times and our economy fails along with other institutions there will be those who retreat from reason and creativity to tribal rituals as the religious right is doing now. It has never worked out well for a culture.
Heather, I know it would be tough with five kids to deal with but pick up a copy of Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class". Conspicuous consumption and all that, a necessary product of capitalism.
Linda, you may be underpricing yourself. Is there a crafts co-operative in your area?
Oh well. It's freedom. If someone has the money to buy it and wants it, it's all good with me.
Is it a bit too much? Yes I think. But we can't be pro market and conservatives and not expect the downsides of it. That's one of them.
God has been removed from contemporary painting, Elmo?
Any comments on Barnett Newman's "Stations of the Cross" or are they something your five year old could do?
I suppose a discussion of Mangold's use of Renaissance shapes as a foild to the mortality his shapes represent should be taken up with your five yea old also?
Tribal rituals?
you mean like the rosary? or food lines like they had in Russia?
Cuz I have no idea what tribal rituals you're talking about? care to elaborate?
Reason? I don't think millions of dollars for a vase or paintings of squares is reasonable at all.
Oh, Ducky, you say "However, as me move into troubled times and our economy fails along with other institutions there will be those who retreat from reason and creativity to tribal rituals as the religious right is doing now. It has never worked out well for a culture."
Let's hear about these tribal rituals the religious right's "doing now"...I'm eager to hear.
Elbro, did you read my comment about taking God out of art? Man, are we on the same page or what? It's a concept not highly recognized or understood and appreciated, so to speak.
Ducky, you honestly can't be that naive.
Elbro, we did it again...while I was typing my comment you picked up on the silly tribal ritual thing....I'm eager to hear.
duhkkky, I'll leave the vast majority of art interpretations to those who call themselves 'experts', there's a level of tyrrany there that I'm sure you enjoy participating in as well.
I must say, I am very disappointed in my parents who lacked the entrepreneurial spirit to become gazillionaires.
Hang in there Mustang, they just injected $600 billion, join a Union, it's the only way to get rich now.
I saw Z, we are on the same page.
duhkkkky, separation of God and art? the narcississtic nature of many artists alone should make you think twice
I suppose a discussion of Mangold's use of Renaissance shapes as a foild to the mortality his shapes represent should be taken up with your five yea old also?
Got a crayon?
and a ruler?
But this will happen when we allow the wealth transfer to get out of hand. Excess Kapital needs a place to go.
Is it your money? Nope. Who are you to judge where the "excess Kapital" should go?
"We are in the process of making the world, to a certain extent, in our own image."
Barnett Newman
Original sin anyone?
Elbro, very fascinating that you bring up narcissism in artists... my mind went to the good artists I have as friends and acquaintances and I realized somehow that those who paint realism, photo-realism, impressionistic images, etc., are extremely humble and eager to please the viewer with his or her art.....
The ones I know who do art like that you linked to, or more cutting edge, geometric, 'nihilistic' art are not.....they're edgy and, I've never really put this in words, but they seem almost embarrassed as if to say "I know this isn't really ART but I put this stuff together and I'm pretty sure you edgy cool people at this gallery are going to go for it"
Odd, but true...I really have felt that.
I do like some of it, I stick by that...but, my representational artist friends have turned me a little around on that..
I think all creative artists at some point in their craft come to that bus stop at the intersection of narcissism and self-esteem.
Jackson Pollack dripped and poured paint on a canvas under his feet because he wanted to be "in his painting." It was the closest his lack of skill with paint was ever going to come to something as meticulous as the temporary constructs of ritual sandpainting. It spiritually evoked in Pollack whatever joy slinging paint on a canvas brought out in him, and I don't doubt his sincerity in feeling that his done so is the coolest thing evah. But we're left with the paint splattered canvas and the choice to join Pollack in his delusions of meaningfulness or wondering why they're framing drop cloths next to actual art.
The question between art and artist becomes, who's the narcissist, and who has self-esteem?
No one is both.
The fact is, there's always been a leisure class or an aristocracy if you will, regardless of the political system.
There will always be the haves ahd have nots.
As for the 69 million dollar vase, I don't really care one way or the other. If some have riches, and suddenly had it taken away, mankind wouldn't gain a thing.
There are galleries, museums, opera houses, and botanic gardens all over the world mostly supported by the rich, and private donations.
They contribute to cultures and historical context, for millions to enjoy and appreciate. If not for the rich, it would be a far less interesting place.
And another thing. It takes absolutely no talent to put a crucifix into a jar of urine. That was nothing more then a statement and an ugly one at that. It has nothing to do with art IMO.
Art is a very subjective thing. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
Pris
Z,
Our pastor is creating Christian communities that focus on art and artists. He wants to redeem the art in our society. So what you say is so valid.
My opinions are only meant to generalize, I know there are many exceptions.
Pris,
if only the experts agreed with you. I took a college class once and one of the definitions of art was that the so called experts had to agree it was art. I was left wondering what the point was. Someone had already decided, why participate at all.
So duhkkky can join the ranks of the tyrrany of the experts, babble on esoterically about squares and he feels good about himself. Frankly I'll appreciate that drawing from the 5th grader on my refrigerator much more than some faux artist who can't master the toilet let alone a brush stroke.
And another thing. It takes absolutely no talent to put a crucifix into a jar of urine. That was nothing more then a statement and an ugly one at that. It has nothing to do with art IMO.
now you've gone and done it Pris...wait for the explanation from duhkkky about how ethereal the piss was
"if only the experts agreed with you. I took a college class once and one of the definitions of art was that the so called experts had to agree it was art. I was left wondering what the point was."
Elbro, kind've makes you wonder what makes them experts, doesn't it? In a way, we're all experts at what we like.
So for someone else to tell us we should accept some work as art, is like telling us, don't see it as we see it, but as how they think we should see it.
You and I know what we like, we don't need to be told.
"now you've gone and done it Pris...wait for the explanation from duhkkky about how ethereal the piss was"
I'm laughing here. If I took Ducky seriously I'd be in big trouble.
Basically, Ducky want's to fit into that crowd and sit around talking about what "genius" that is.
For me a painting splatter by a chimp is more appealing any day, and that's not saying much!
Pris
I'd hate to be the maid who has to dust it. :)
The problem with Serrano's Piss Christ photograph it that it has all the hallmarks of a hack trying too hard.
You can't tell from the photograph that the crucifix is submerged in urine (or that it's the "artist's" urine)
You're simply given a oversaturated photo of a crucifix suspended in or floating in some amber medium, accented with lighting.
What you're supposed to think about it is spoon-fed to you by the artist. He entitled it "Piss Christ" and told you that's it's a picture of a crucifix floating in his own urine.
The only stimulating thing about the piece is the reaction the cue card tells you to have. It could have been a crucifix floating in ginger ale or canola oil and photographed in similar light and got the same reaction as the cue card tells you to have in reacting to the admission that it is a photograph of urine. That's because the reaction sought from the photograph doesn't come from the photograph at all.
That's not art. That's an acutely talentless narcissist insulting you.
That's not art. That's an acutely talentless narcissist insulting you
The whole concept is disgusting to me. But, if the point was to get an exercised reaction, perhaps the best thing to do would be to ignore such efforts altogether.
H
easier said then done. I've seen one guy who the MOMA in NYC interviewed who stands on the street corner with a guitar. He doesn't know how to play, he simply makes noise on one or two strings. The MOMA couldn't wait to sing his praises with an interview and questions about his influences.
Again I'll suggest the 5th grader.
they call it performance "art".
I have to laugh.
I have to laugh.
That might work, too.
"I like the way the uniformly anchored screws in the cracked plaster of the bare naked wall represents the forceful rape of industry into the..."
"Sir, the piece was stolen last night in a museum burglary."
"Sir, the piece was stolen last night in a museum burglary."
LOL
It is rather amusing to consider one's notable lack of ability to be laudable.
How many job interviews include "list all of the skills in which you have proven to be an epic failure" because the employer is looking to pay top dollar to the most outstanding individuals?
my favorite art review of all time
Beamish, this is hilarious! Dave Barry usually is.
Hmmmm, I'd call it a work of art, wouldn't you?
Pris
I bet duhkkky has that chair on his veranda.
Must have been a heck of a vase for 69Mil.
Post a Comment