This painting just sold for $75 million at auction. Someone please explain to me why.

Bob wrote:Look, here's the bottom line on this painting.

If anyone reading and/or responding to this thread knew nothing about Rothko or "minimalism" or what people have paid for this painting, and you then were shown this painting, I say flatly that you wouldn't give it a second glance.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have seen several of his paintings in a gallery setting, and I gave them more than a second glance.

You are trying to deal in absolutes discussing something that is purely subjective.


If you attend a big formal gathering, and there are dozens upon dozens of good looking women there, but there's one naked unattractive women, I guarantee you that you will look at her.

Rothko's works are large in scale and command attention whether you like it or not. This isn't the first time you have gotten your panties into a knot over art you neither understand nor enjoy. Post after post and several threads later, you still cannot let it go.

I've said it before to you....if you think you can do the same genre' of art work, get busy and prove it. I'll even help you carry it down to Artel Gallery in my truck so you can enter it into a jury show.

Later Bob....hope you have some luck tomorrow w/ your yard sales pickin'...

W_T_M wrote:

If you attend a big formal gathering, and there are dozens upon dozens of good looking women there, but there's one naked unattractive women, I guarantee you that you will look at her.

That's very true. BUT I won't pay $75 million to take her home with me. lol

W_T_M wrote:

You are trying to deal in absolutes discussing something that is purely subjective.

Okay I'll concede that point. Yes my reaction to this or any art, be it paintings or music or architecture or industrial design or anything else of that nature, is indeed subjective. I should not expect all others to have the same subjective reaction to it as I do.
And I think you'll agree, the same thing also applies to what we perceive to be "attractiveness" in a woman. I may find that one woman in the room you spoke of to be attractive. And others may not.

Having conceded that point, let me offer one other (purely subjective) opinion.
I found several photos of "No 1 Royal Red and Blue" in a gallery setting in attempt to get a feel for that as well. Here's one...



Now granted, I realize I cannot get the same experience from viewing that photo that I would have seeing it in person. And there is no doubt that the impact of it in that setting is different.
But let me draw an analogy.
I've had occasion to listen to what I perceive to be mediocre music on my car radio.
And I've also had occasion to go to the Handlebar and listen to the same music.
And what I hear is LOUD mediocre music. lol

another Rothko for our viewing pleasure

One more thing before I go to the yard sales.
This thread is in no way a comment on all unconventional art.
You've showed me some of your unconventional art (that time at Sonnys BBQ and on other occasions) which really impresses me, Bill.
I actually have an appetite for the unconventional in all things. Just not Rothko.

Bob wrote:another Rothko for our viewing pleasure

Well Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is GREAT. See how the colours all flow like the pulse of the universe. If I die tomorrow it will be ok because at last I have had a glimpse of pure perfection. Thank you Bob.

I just bought another painting. .
York
Kasimir Malevich, 'White on White', 1918, Image from the Museum of Modern Art, New

This art stuff is great



Black Square, 1915, Oil on Canvas, The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

hallmarkgrad wrote:This art stuff is great



Black Square, 1915, Oil on Canvas, The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The Black Square was judged by professional art judges which use a precise list of criteria established by art academia which was the same standard for each group of art. Example: Black is the absence of all color, hence, no deduction under "color". COMPOSITION: It has no theme or composition so, no score deduction. etc, etc,. Result, no reduction of scoring of any of the judging criteria.

The other art piece was judged by the public and the person bidding with the most wealth established the value and desire of the art piece. Knowledge is also a determiner of value. Example: Art dealer Howard Young bought a group of paintings at a estate sale. Some months later he sold one of the art paintings for $5,000 dollars which provided him with a handsome profit. Two years later while attending an art sale in New York he saw that same piece of art sell for over $100,000. It was a Picasso.

hallmarkgrad wrote:I always enjoy the argument that the reason I don't appreciate some art is that I am just too crude and uneducated to see it. Blind to beauty and understanding because I fail to see the how a Campbell soap can captures the essence of the universe.
Yet some people praise a Turd on a Stick or a simplistic design that could have created by a 5 year old as being in the same class as Rembrandt or a Monet.

When people have to go to great lengths to describe why some crude shit is worth millions of dollars, you know it is just mental masturbation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Good grief dude. It has nothing to do with whether you are "crude and undereducated or sophisticated w/ a Phd.

When people go to great lengths to complain about why some subjective or de-constructive or conceptual art work is worth millions of dollars, you know it is just mental masturbation.

Your climax should be a memory by now.

I have always admired Picasso. I found this Picasso story.

Can this be true? Picasso went into a car dealership to buy a new car. Cost was $25,000. He wrote out a check for that amount, then turned the check over and drew a sketch on the back. Then he told the dealership that the drawing on the back was worth $25,000, but if the dealer actually cashed the check, he would lose the valuable Picasso drawing. (So, the dealer could frame the check and hang it on the wall and claim he had a Picasso worth $25,000, or he could take it to the bank.) The story I heard never explained what the dealer did.

Yella wrote:I have always admired Picasso. I found this Picasso story.

Can this be true? Picasso went into a car dealership to buy a new car. Cost was $25,000. He wrote out a check for that amount, then turned the check over and drew a sketch on the back. Then he told the dealership that the drawing on the back was worth $25,000, but if the dealer actually cashed the check, he would lose the valuable Picasso drawing. (So, the dealer could frame the check and hang it on the wall and claim he had a Picasso worth $25,000, or he could take it to the bank.) The story I heard never explained what the dealer did.

His full name was Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso.

and I found this...

He produced over 15,000 paintings in his lifetime—working on three or more canvases a day—and he also painted on surfaces other than canvas.

The story goes that while renting an apartment in Barcelona in 1900, the newly whitewashed walls were too great a temptation for him. He lavishly decorated them with paintings.

His landlord was unimpressed and told him he must pay to have them repainted. Picasso snippily remarked later, after becoming successful,
“He could have sold the whole wall for a fortune if he had only had the sense to leave it.”

Your post got me interested in Picasso, yella.

Here is his "Family of Saltimbanques"...



I learned that saltimbanques are acrobats (except specifically "tumblers" whose acts occur entirely on the ground). Picasso must have had an interest in that because here is another, titled "Acrobat with Young Harlequin".

Supposedly (I've never bothered to research it) Warhol never carried cash and wrote checks for every purchase no matter how small because he knew an official document bearing his signature would be worth more than a $10 purchase at a deli.

On that note (pun intended) I've never heard of a check signed by him being offered in an auction.

I do know the curators are still combing through his warehouse that contains his "stuff". He kept everything he touched in dated boxes. Gum wrappers, matchbooks, register receipts, etc...

What a brilliant freak...

W_T_M wrote:Supposedly (I've never bothered to research it) Warhol never carried cash and wrote checks for every purchase no matter how small because he knew an official document bearing his signature would be worth more than a $10 purchase at a deli.

On that note (pun intended) I've never heard of a check signed by him being offered in an auction.

I do know the curators are still combing through his warehouse that contains his "stuff". He kept everything he touched in dated boxes. Gum wrappers, matchbooks, register receipts, etc...

What a brilliant freak...

from wiki...

The fact that Warhol's homosexuality influenced his work and shaped his relationship to the art world is a major subject of scholarship on the artist and is an issue that Warhol himself addressed in interviews, in conversation with his contemporaries, and in his publications

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKmltzINEU

A B-17 just flew over my house.

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:Supposedly (I've never bothered to research it) Warhol never carried cash and wrote checks for every purchase no matter how small because he knew an official document bearing his signature would be worth more than a $10 purchase at a deli.

On that note (pun intended) I've never heard of a check signed by him being offered in an auction.

I do know the curators are still combing through his warehouse that contains his "stuff". He kept everything he touched in dated boxes. Gum wrappers, matchbooks, register receipts, etc...

What a brilliant freak...

from wiki...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The fact that Warhol's homosexuality influenced his work and shaped his relationship to the art world is a major subject of scholarship on the artist and is an issue that Warhol himself addressed in interviews, in conversation with his contemporaries, and in his publications

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hmmmm, OK Bob. Not sure why that's relevant to this.....it wasn't a secret.

You should see David Bowie as Warhol in the film, "I Shot Andy Warhol". He totally nails it. He was a good friend of Andy, and was known for his impersonation of the heralded Pop artist.

BTW, after the attempted assassination, his work changed in a significant way. He stepped back and allowed his studio assistants to produce much of his subsequent work.

in edit....

My new avatar is a "guerilla art work" done by a quirky dude who alters public settings and then photos them.

Bob wrote:A B-17 just flew over my house.

there has been a stake truck circling the city all morning with a load of collards on board. Are you sure it was a B-17?

check this out. this is a list of the most expensive paintings ever sold.
what's most notable about it is reading this...

Vincent van Gogh and Pablo Picasso are by far the best represented artists in the list. Whereas Picasso became a wealthy man, Van Gogh (supposedly) sold only one painting in his lifetime, The Red Vineyard, for 400 Francs (about $1600 in 2011) to the impressionist painter and heiress Anna Boch.[5] His seven paintings in the list below alone were sold for over 700 million current dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

Yella wrote:

Bob wrote:A B-17 just flew over my house.

there has been a stake truck circling the city all morning with a load of collards on board. Are you sure it was a B-17?

haha. yea I saw it in the air earlier when I was doing yard sales too. It's out at the airport giving rides for 450 clams per person.

Bob wrote:Look, here's the bottom line on this painting.

If anyone reading and/or responding to this thread knew nothing about Rothko or "minimalism" or what people have paid for this painting, and you then were shown this painting, I say flatly that you wouldn't give it a second glance.

It would be hard to miss because it's probably 9' tall. If you visited the Rothko Chapel in Houston you would understand the meditative quality of these paintings. It's surely not the same as staring at white space. (That was funny, tho, Bob!)

Floridatexan wrote:

It would be hard to miss because it's probably 9' tall. If you visited the Rothko Chapel in Houston you would understand the meditative quality of these paintings. It's surely not the same as staring at white space. (That was funny, tho, Bob!)

I dunno. What if that white space was 20 ft tall? Those old drive-in theater screens sure got my attention even when no movie was showing on em. lol

Yella wrote:I have always admired Picasso. I found this Picasso story.

Can this be true? Picasso went into a car dealership to buy a new car. Cost was $25,000. He wrote out a check for that amount, then turned the check over and drew a sketch on the back. Then he told the dealership that the drawing on the back was worth $25,000, but if the dealer actually cashed the check, he would lose the valuable Picasso drawing. (So, the dealer could frame the check and hang it on the wall and claim he had a Picasso worth $25,000, or he could take it to the bank.) The story I heard never explained what the dealer did.

The stories I heard identified Picasso as a narcissist.