4 ms·

First off, Van Gogh is not even close to old school, he painted less than 150 years ago. Second, the main reason for high valuations in modern art is because th

First off, Van Gogh is not even close to old school, he painted less than 150 years ago. Second, the main reason for high valuations in modern art is because the artists were well-connected and got to their ideas first. Modern art is about concepts, not representation of real-life. Thus, you have a blank white canvas next to the greatest "old school" Van Gogh Monet masterpieces in NYC and Paris. Consider, those blank white canvases take very little skill and creativity to produce. What they are a snapshot of a moment in art where very rich, well connected artists got to the idea of a blank white canvas as a message "first." Thus, they staked their flag in the ground and claimed that signpost in the long road of art history, and their rich, well-connected art selling friends probably convinced some gullible curators and collectors that those completely contentless abstractions are somehow valuable. I'll give Pollock and others their due, that is some very interesting technique. However, as an oil painter myself, I believe the solid color canvasses hanging in museums are a slap in the face to the craftsmanship and sheer genius of the great painters, Pollock included.

Zeebrommer 7y ago
Would you count Rothko under the solid colour canvasses? On paper they don't look like much, but the few that I've seen in real life somehow still really left an impression on me.
- cromulent 7y ago
  That brought back memories of this great podcast: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-many-deaths-of-a-painting/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-many-deaths-of-a-...
- phaus 7y ago
  They are aesthetically pleasing to me. I might even hang some prints on a wall, but it would be to add some color, not because I find them to be a superior display of artistic ability. To be fair a lot of simple looking art like this is produced by artists with a sound understanding of composition and color theory. For some of them everything they do is done with intention and thought. However, having a sound understanding of color theory and composition are just two basic skills any good artist will possess in addition to a multitude of other skills. Note that I'm not saying that artists have to adhere to standard color theory and composition. I'm saying that when people deviate from them usually the good ones do it in an intentional way with a full understanding, and the specific way they break the rules is well thought out and so it works.
pmoriarty 7y ago
"I believe the solid color canvasses hanging in museums are a slap in the face to the craftsmanship and sheer genius of the great painters, Pollock included." While I'm not a fan of solid color canvasses myself, I don't object to them on the grounds of lack of craftsmanship, as I've seen plenty of paintings with masterful craftsmanship which I find don't move me in the least and which I find utterly boring and without value (such as Chuck Close paintings or other hyper/photorealist work). Conversely, I'm a great fan of children's artwork -- art that almost by definition completely lacks any skill or craftsmanship at all. I find it a lot more refreshing and original than much art by highly educated and skilled adult artists. The same goes for some "naive" or "outsider" art, art of the mentally ill, and "primitive" art. All of these vary in skill level, of course, but even those created without much if any skill are often very powerful and show me a new and different way of looking at the world than what I get in traditional academic or popular art.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Second, the main reason for high valuations in modern art is because the artists were well-connected and got to their ideas first. I think this is what gets under my skin. I don't really have a problem with the artists, anybody who is able to fleece a few million from the super rich is doing a public service as far as I'm concerned. It's the people in the galleries, auction houses and general art world that get up my nose. The ones that tell you you are a philistine because you can't appreciate a somewhat random splattering of paint or an unmade bed. We already have empirical evidence[1] that wine snobs don't know what they are talking about, perhaps we should try and find the same for art snobs. [1] https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infam...

Zeebrommer 7y ago

Would you count Rothko under the solid colour canvasses? On paper they don't look like much, but the few that I've seen in real life somehow still really left an impression on me.

cromulent 7y ago
That brought back memories of this great podcast: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-many-deaths-of-a-painting/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-many-deaths-of-a-...
phaus 7y ago
They are aesthetically pleasing to me. I might even hang some prints on a wall, but it would be to add some color, not because I find them to be a superior display of artistic ability. To be fair a lot of simple looking art like this is produced by artists with a sound understanding of composition and color theory. For some of them everything they do is done with intention and thought. However, having a sound understanding of color theory and composition are just two basic skills any good artist will possess in addition to a multitude of other skills. Note that I'm not saying that artists have to adhere to standard color theory and composition. I'm saying that when people deviate from them usually the good ones do it in an intentional way with a full understanding, and the specific way they break the rules is well thought out and so it works.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"I believe the solid color canvasses hanging in museums are a slap in the face to the craftsmanship and sheer genius of the great painters, Pollock included." While I'm not a fan of solid color canvasses myself, I don't object to them on the grounds of lack of craftsmanship, as I've seen plenty of paintings with masterful craftsmanship which I find don't move me in the least and which I find utterly boring and without value (such as Chuck Close paintings or other hyper/photorealist work). Conversely, I'm a great fan of children's artwork -- art that almost by definition completely lacks any skill or craftsmanship at all. I find it a lot more refreshing and original than much art by highly educated and skilled adult artists. The same goes for some "naive" or "outsider" art, art of the mentally ill, and "primitive" art. All of these vary in skill level, of course, but even those created without much if any skill are often very powerful and show me a new and different way of looking at the world than what I get in traditional academic or popular art.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Second, the main reason for high valuations in modern art is because the artists were well-connected and got to their ideas first. I think this is what gets under my skin. I don't really have a problem with the artists, anybody who is able to fleece a few million from the super rich is doing a public service as far as I'm concerned. It's the people in the galleries, auction houses and general art world that get up my nose. The ones that tell you you are a philistine because you can't appreciate a somewhat random splattering of paint or an unmade bed. We already have empirical evidence[1] that wine snobs don't know what they are talking about, perhaps we should try and find the same for art snobs. [1] https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infam...