3 ms·

Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for. Probably everybody woul

Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for. Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just selling overhyped garbage. Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion?

6stringmerc 11y ago
Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized, uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is what fuels the hostility. And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.
- lojack 11y ago
  Curious about your opinion on Andy Warhol?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Not really a fan, but his framing of his techniques as social commentary are, to me, quite functional and a verifiable artistic endeavor; as in, he may have used and somewhat appropriated pop-culture reference points, but with genuine thought and constructive 'addition' in the nature of art.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The vegan would spend money to not have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue entirely.
  - tedks 11y ago
    Considering you felt the need to get this anti-vegan dig in when you could have used literally any other example, it seems like you might think so as well.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothk Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you've heard of Warhol and Liechtenstein (sp?). Long story short, this is free speech and clearly his buyers think his work has monetary value. The same way other works do - via market forces. The Mona Lisa's importance can't be quantified with a "cultural value" detector. >Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. You don't get to make that assessment. The art market does.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street. And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      >which he proudly admits to not care about. Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?
wavefunction 11y ago
>Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings No. >and how much they sell for. Perhaps. I guess it depends on the perspective you're approaching it from. As a use of capital resources in a world of crushing and grinding poverty, I say yes. As a potential investment: if the someone is willing to pay more in the future then it's not bullshit.
DanBC 11y ago
> Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Yes. Murial Gray (scottish broadcaster) has some amazing stuff about this. She had a TV show (Art is Dead, Long Live TV (1991, thus hard to find info about)). http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/677 http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/677 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Gray
unprepare 11y ago
>Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion? Just as easily as i can make the point that a 100 dollar bill is worth 100 dollars Because other people believe that to be its value.
chasing 11y ago
"Art" != "expensive stuff hanging in galleries." It's music, TV shows, movies, posters, novels, games, that amazing dinner you had the other night, expensive stuff hanging in galleries, that goofy widget sitting on your desk, etc. Art is awesome. The problem is shitty artists who exploit the talent of others, but otherwise don't contribute much.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized, uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is what fuels the hostility. And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.

lojack 11y ago
Curious about your opinion on Andy Warhol?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Not really a fan, but his framing of his techniques as social commentary are, to me, quite functional and a verifiable artistic endeavor; as in, he may have used and somewhat appropriated pop-culture reference points, but with genuine thought and constructive 'addition' in the nature of art.
moron4hire 11y ago
Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The vegan would spend money to not have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue entirely.
- tedks 11y ago
  Considering you felt the need to get this anti-vegan dig in when you could have used literally any other example, it seems like you might think so as well.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothk Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you've heard of Warhol and Liechtenstein (sp?). Long story short, this is free speech and clearly his buyers think his work has monetary value. The same way other works do - via market forces. The Mona Lisa's importance can't be quantified with a "cultural value" detector. >Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. You don't get to make that assessment. The art market does.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street. And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    >which he proudly admits to not care about. Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?

wavefunction 11y ago

>Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings No. >and how much they sell for. Perhaps. I guess it depends on the perspective you're approaching it from. As a use of capital resources in a world of crushing and grinding poverty, I say yes. As a potential investment: if the someone is willing to pay more in the future then it's not bullshit.

DanBC 11y ago

> Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Yes. Murial Gray (scottish broadcaster) has some amazing stuff about this. She had a TV show (Art is Dead, Long Live TV (1991, thus hard to find info about)). http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/677 http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/677 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Gray

unprepare 11y ago

>Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion? Just as easily as i can make the point that a 100 dollar bill is worth 100 dollars Because other people believe that to be its value.

chasing 11y ago

"Art" != "expensive stuff hanging in galleries." It's music, TV shows, movies, posters, novels, games, that amazing dinner you had the other night, expensive stuff hanging in galleries, that goofy widget sitting on your desk, etc. Art is awesome. The problem is shitty artists who exploit the talent of others, but otherwise don't contribute much.