3 ms·

Paying millions for a particular piece of art seems to be antithetical to the idea of "killing your darlings" (or someone else's, in this instance). I think th

Paying millions for a particular piece of art seems to be antithetical to the idea of "killing your darlings" (or someone else's, in this instance). I think that people who themselves are artists, also realise that by capturing that one moment forever, enshrining that unlikely particular configuration of brush strokes, runs the risk of completely missing any point the artist might have had at any point. On a vaguely related note, it reminds me how i chuckled at seeing a whole bunch of revolutionary punk and/or feminist works from the 70s and the 80s hanging in the MoMA, where i had paid an amount for my ticket that would've made the people who created those posters scoff. It seemed that the invariably older wealthy crowd walking around intently staring at punk art was the very polar opposite of what the creators themselves stood for. Oh well.

codingdave 11y ago
I think you misunderstand artists, and possibly the purpose of museums and many of their visitors as well. Artists tend to fall into two categories - the ones who just do it for their own creative expression vs. those who are trying to convey a message. While some of the first type find success due to excellent craftsmanship of their works, it is the second type that normally gets in museums because the messages have cultural and historical significance. Those artists would love the scenario you described of having old wealthy folks peering at their works, in an excellent museum. That would be the pinnacle of success. You were chuckling at one of the great results that come from artistic expression - expanding the ideas and experiences of people who are different from yourself, and preserving your ideas for future audiences. (As a side note, many museums will let you pay whatever you can/want. The ticket price is often just a suggestion.) EDIT: I also should point out the old people looking at work from the 70s and 80s are looking at works from their youth. It is quite possible that they understand exactly where the creators were coming from.
- toothbrush 11y ago
  > I also should point out the old people looking at work from the 70s and 80s are looking at works from their youth. It is quite possible that they understand exactly where the creators were coming from. I am sympathetic to what you are saying. But i wonder if many of the responsible artists wouldn't have preferred a "throw my poster away and go create your own revolution" message instead of being snapshotted (killed, as it were, as in The Collector) and sapped of all vitality. But yeah, perhaps i'm misunderstanding the artists' point — it's true that i agree with the statement that worthwhile art widens/challenges your perspective and held beliefs. Perhaps, therefore, being in a museum is a good thing. I suppose it's the least bad option, if you want to look at it that way.
- varjag 11y ago
  > While some of the first type find success due to excellent craftsmanship of their works, it is the second type that normally gets in museums because the messages have cultural and historical significance. This is a postmodern phenomenon, and art museums well predate it.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Only if you just count political messages. Artists have been celebrated for their social, philosophical, metaphysical, poetic etc messages for millenia. Even renaissance artists (an era that can be extremely tacky with technique) weren't celebrated for their mere technique showcase (photorealistic skills and such BS), but for their artistic qualities (expression). Even more so later years. El Greco, Goya, etc are not celebrated because of their "excellent craftsmanship" in the conventional sense, but for the sensibilities they capture.
    - varjag 11y ago
      Well I'm going to tread cautiously here, as it's too easy to end up sounding like a snob layperson not seeing beyond the brushstroke. But. Let's not confuse the message with expression. There's an appreciable difference in how the postmodern works are evaluated compared to the predecessors. While the latter could carry some context, a message if you will, they were and are largely celebrated for their visual, cognitive, artistic impact alone: save perhaps for occasional historic value. I'm not just talking about classic Dutch painters and alike. The modernists in fact had it sorted out, and commenced the shift from technique to expression. Yes, some of them did sometimes promote a message with their artwork, but let's face it we don't commemorate Picasso for his Communist views: he simply was that good. Now Postmodern is entirely another story. When you walk into a room at Guggenheim full of empty Kodak Carousel projectors clicking at the walls, it's quite different from the classic curated museum work of old. There's zero technique, very marginal expression, and the message which you either make up for yourself or read in the artistic statement.

codingdave 11y ago

I think you misunderstand artists, and possibly the purpose of museums and many of their visitors as well. Artists tend to fall into two categories - the ones who just do it for their own creative expression vs. those who are trying to convey a message. While some of the first type find success due to excellent craftsmanship of their works, it is the second type that normally gets in museums because the messages have cultural and historical significance. Those artists would love the scenario you described of having old wealthy folks peering at their works, in an excellent museum. That would be the pinnacle of success. You were chuckling at one of the great results that come from artistic expression - expanding the ideas and experiences of people who are different from yourself, and preserving your ideas for future audiences. (As a side note, many museums will let you pay whatever you can/want. The ticket price is often just a suggestion.) EDIT: I also should point out the old people looking at work from the 70s and 80s are looking at works from their youth. It is quite possible that they understand exactly where the creators were coming from.

toothbrush 11y ago
> I also should point out the old people looking at work from the 70s and 80s are looking at works from their youth. It is quite possible that they understand exactly where the creators were coming from. I am sympathetic to what you are saying. But i wonder if many of the responsible artists wouldn't have preferred a "throw my poster away and go create your own revolution" message instead of being snapshotted (killed, as it were, as in The Collector) and sapped of all vitality. But yeah, perhaps i'm misunderstanding the artists' point — it's true that i agree with the statement that worthwhile art widens/challenges your perspective and held beliefs. Perhaps, therefore, being in a museum is a good thing. I suppose it's the least bad option, if you want to look at it that way.
varjag 11y ago
> While some of the first type find success due to excellent craftsmanship of their works, it is the second type that normally gets in museums because the messages have cultural and historical significance. This is a postmodern phenomenon, and art museums well predate it.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Only if you just count political messages. Artists have been celebrated for their social, philosophical, metaphysical, poetic etc messages for millenia. Even renaissance artists (an era that can be extremely tacky with technique) weren't celebrated for their mere technique showcase (photorealistic skills and such BS), but for their artistic qualities (expression). Even more so later years. El Greco, Goya, etc are not celebrated because of their "excellent craftsmanship" in the conventional sense, but for the sensibilities they capture.
  - varjag 11y ago
    Well I'm going to tread cautiously here, as it's too easy to end up sounding like a snob layperson not seeing beyond the brushstroke. But. Let's not confuse the message with expression. There's an appreciable difference in how the postmodern works are evaluated compared to the predecessors. While the latter could carry some context, a message if you will, they were and are largely celebrated for their visual, cognitive, artistic impact alone: save perhaps for occasional historic value. I'm not just talking about classic Dutch painters and alike. The modernists in fact had it sorted out, and commenced the shift from technique to expression. Yes, some of them did sometimes promote a message with their artwork, but let's face it we don't commemorate Picasso for his Communist views: he simply was that good. Now Postmodern is entirely another story. When you walk into a room at Guggenheim full of empty Kodak Carousel projectors clicking at the walls, it's quite different from the classic curated museum work of old. There's zero technique, very marginal expression, and the message which you either make up for yourself or read in the artistic statement.