snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Amusement Bark

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11 October 2018, 08:11 PM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Makes two of us. The original work was only a simple drawing, which most of us could do without too much trouble. How it was considered to be valuable is a mystery to me.
That’s how I have come to understand the “What is Art” definition, if it produces a subjective, non concensus response then it falls into the category of “Art”
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11 October 2018, 08:22 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
The original work was only a simple drawing, which most of us could do without too much trouble.
It's actually stencilled using spray paint, rather than a drawing.

I don't think I would be able to do it, even if I'd had the idea for that specific piece, but I've not tried graffiti or stencilling as a medium so who knows...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11 October 2018, 08:58 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,385
Default

I discovered, once I went to some museums, that some pieces had an entirely different impact when I was looking at the actual work than they did when I was only looking at a photo of the work.

Whether I would have thought this is one of them I have no idea. (And I'm certainly not going to find out now -- )
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11 October 2018, 09:29 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

I've always been a fan of Starry Night, but when I came across it unexpectedly at a museum it took my breath away. Not art does this to me, but some definitely does.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11 October 2018, 09:43 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,593
Default

At the Museum of Modern Art in New York, I take it. I saw it there a few years ago, myself, although for me the experience was a negative one. It had nothing to do with the painting itself, though, just that the room where it was located was extremely crowded because of course everyone wants to see the famous Van Gogh painting. I find crowds like that extremely stressful, so I took a quick look at it and got out of there as quickly as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11 October 2018, 10:04 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

I saw it at the Chicago Institute of Art, at a Van Gogh exhibit. I didn't know it was going to be there. I came around a corner and there I was in the same room with it. It was not crowded which probably made for a much better experience.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11 October 2018, 10:57 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Makes two of us. The original work was only a simple drawing, which most of us could do without too much trouble. How it was considered to be valuable is a mystery to me.
There's a big difference between run of the mill art and the extreme high value items by famous artists like this. At a certain point it's hardly even about the image itself. It's a rare collector's item. It's no different than any other rare collectible. But this high end market is only a miniscule fraction of the total "art" out there in the world (by total number of works, perhaps not by total value). The actual artistic merit of the work rather than its provenance are something that come into play a lot more at a much lower end of the market.

People like to be the one to have something noteworthy, that people are talking about, so that they can be the one to become part of that discussion. Some of those collectors who want to possess unique works of art are billionaires, so if 2 or more billionaires want something and only 1 exists, then the price is going to get crazy. Some of the collectors are only millionaires, but they calculate (often correctly) that if they hold on to it for a while they can sell it to another rich person for a profit, and in the meantime they can feel special.

There's no real sense of proportion or inherent value there, just raw economics. Some people get worked up about the high values being wasteful, but it's actually not that bad. It's just one rich person writing a check to another, with minimal consumption of tangible resources. The art and money still exist, just in different hands.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11 October 2018, 11:59 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,107
Default

Right. This is no different than Barry Bond's record-breaking home run ball selling for $750,000 while the ball he fouled into the stands after that is worth $7.50.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12 October 2018, 12:13 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,606
Icon106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
There's no real sense of proportion or inherent value there, just raw economics. Some people get worked up about the high values being wasteful, but it's actually not that bad. It's just one rich person writing a check to another, with minimal consumption of tangible resources. The art and money still exist, just in different hands.
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While sergeants played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance

'Cause the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

By which I mean, other artists are denied the opportunity to break out while famous artists are rewarded for stenciling spray paint onto canvas with a built-in shredder (or whatever).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12 October 2018, 02:39 AM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
By which I mean, other artists are denied the opportunity to break out while famous artists are rewarded for stenciling spray paint onto canvas with a built-in shredder (or whatever).
99.9% of buyers can't afford this type of painting anyway, so they're mostly buying stuff from non-famous artists if they have any interest in acquiring art. And if it's just about appreciating their art rather than buying it, then how much very rich people spend on famous people's art is pretty irrelevant. If rich people weren't spending millions on famous paintings, it's not like they'd go out and buy thousands of thousand dollar paintings from unknown artists instead. One person only needs so much art, no matter how rich they are. Broadening the market has to come from the masses who can't afford those famous artists anyway.

New artists do not emerge into greater recognition through having people bid millions of dollars for their paintings out of nowhere. They work their way up, building their skills and reputation locally, then among a wider circle of people knowledgeable about art. The ultra high value end of the art market has basically nothing to do with how lesser known artists are discovered.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12 October 2018, 08:40 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
The original work was only a simple drawing, which most of us could do without too much trouble.
This is one of my pet peeves. Even if it were true (and it almost never is because it's usually someone who hasn't ever made something similar making the comment*), what does it have to do with anything? If the difficulty of making something is a major criteria then I have to wonder if you've experienced it at all. I mean, it's just a lazy and equally fallacial reversal of Ebert's fallacy: "You have no right to criticize it if you can't make it." Neither is it true, that is, that 'anyone' being able to make something is a meaningful criticism.

* Not only do I agree with Richard W but the fact that Banksy-quality stenciling is relatively rare in graffiti should be a hint that it's not that easy!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12 October 2018, 09:14 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
The name is not coming to me right now, but there is (or was) a popular artist whose works were (are?) actually produced by a stable of unknown workers following his broad directions on how to produce "his" geometric-image paintings. This was well known, and it didn't affect the value.
Yes, it is true for many ateliers. Sometimes people make a big deal about it but I don't see the point. As you say, it doesn't seem to have any affect on the price of a Koons, Faberge, Hirst, Warhol... The list is long!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12 October 2018, 09:45 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,205
Default

It was true for people like Rembrandt too - a lot of the actual painting would have been done by their studio assistants.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12 October 2018, 01:03 PM
Veruca's Avatar
Veruca Veruca is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
The name is not coming to me right now, but there is (or was) a popular artist whose works were (are?) actually produced by a stable of unknown workers following his broad directions on how to produce "his" geometric-image paintings. This was well known, and it didn't affect the value.
Like ganzfeld said, this is common. Some large scale pieces would be extremely difficult for one person to do by themselves. At the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, they have a large work (it takes up all four walls of one room) called "Odyssey" by Cai Guo-Qiang. It was made using a technique that involves sprinkling gunpowder around wood (I think it's wood?) then lighting the gunpowder.

There's a video of the process here. Honestly, I just wrote this comment to share that video. I like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I discovered, once I went to some museums, that some pieces had an entirely different impact when I was looking at the actual work than they did when I was only looking at a photo of the work.
I never understood the appeal of Jackson Pollock until I went to an exhibit of his work. It's just different in person.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 18 October 2018, 03:09 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,205
Default

Apparently the painting was supposed to be shredded completely - I'd wondered about that. Some longer videos of the event and rehearsals:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45900314
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 18 October 2018, 04:25 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,606
Throw Tomato

Perhaps the battery lost some of his "umph" after a few years of sitting on the wall. Or some corrosion/dust accumulation on the shredding device.

I suspect it won't be long before someone with too much time on their hands unmasks the button pusher, if not the artist, based off what is shown of his clothes (albeit only the sleeves), his seat, and people around him. Just got to get enough footage together...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 18 October 2018, 04:31 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,205
Default

Yes, that's the first thing I thought after watching the longer video - if Sotheby's pull up a bit of their security camera footage it's going to be quite easy for them to work out who was filming! I assume it wouldn't have been Banksy himself though.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 18 October 2018, 10:16 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,602
Default

From that article:
Quote:
Even dear old Marcel Duchamp, who as we know started all this [...]
Huh? Don't blame Duchamp; he only set up the urinal. He didn't actually pee in it. (Also, this is about as far from a ready-made one can get, no?)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flag Artwork Removed From Univ. Kansas DawnStorm Soapbox Derby 42 22 July 2018 02:03 AM
Stuart Little helps find lost Hungarian avant-garde artwork Gutter Monkey Weird News 1 02 December 2014 12:35 PM
Kroger shreds job applications snopes Business 35 26 October 2014 01:07 AM
You Made That: An abstract-expressionist tool to create and share your own artwork wanderwoman Fun House 0 02 July 2013 01:27 AM
Is there a photo of Kiss hidden in the artwork of Nirvana's Nevermind? moonlight Entertainment 3 24 September 2011 07:04 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.