Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mattyrm, the Boro's Diplomatic Corps.

Speaking of Yakmeistetr's note, didn't someone get an award recently for basically just submitting a commode?

biccat wrote:
Some might say it's just a blue monochrome, but you would be wrong!

This, in fact, is a $4.7 million work of art...

Its both a blue monochrome, and a 4.7 million USD work of art.

Monochromatic paintings are about the way a particular pigment interacts with surface to which its applied, and the medium by which the pigment is transferred. This makes them difficult to assess in any manner that isn't in person.

Basically, if you said it was "Just blue paint on canvass." to the artist, they would become extremely irate and say something to the effect of "You aren't paying attention."

That blue painting was upside down.

Few people would notice, but there are the finer nuances, that once you can see them, you can't miss.

Maybe it was just the blue paint on the canvas that confused me.

I know your hearts in the right place dogma it just doesn't say "art" to me. I wouldn't wipe my own ass with the painting the OP is about, but luckily art is subjective to more than just my own perspective...well lucky for other people I think it's a dirty shame.

dogma wrote:Basically, if you said it was "Just blue paint on canvass." to the artist, they would become extremely irate and say something to the effect of "You aren't paying attention."

At which point I would point out that it's still simply blue paint on canvas.

While there may be artistic value in the interpretation of the piece, there is little artistic skill necessary to construct such a piece.

I actually appreciate a lot of modern art, but I am interested in works that stand alone on their aesthetics. The image mattyrm linked on the previous page is actually an interesting piece. Not $1 million interesting, but interesting.

biccat wrote:
While there may be artistic value in the interpretation of the piece, there is little artistic skill necessary to construct such a piece.

I disagree. Correctly mixing a paint, and choosing the proper surface to apply it to, are fairly demanding tasks when the goal is making particular surface X a particular shade of color Y.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
While there may be artistic value in the interpretation of the piece, there is little artistic skill necessary to construct such a piece.

I disagree. Correctly mixing a paint, and choosing the proper surface to apply it to, are fairly demanding tasks when the goal is making particular surface X a particular shade of color Y.

I disagree.

The proper mixing of the paint used to color our bathroom, which is appropriately the right color according to my wife, was achieved by some guy making minimum wage at Home Depot. Application was achieved by an inexperienced worker applying commonly available tools.

I would hesitate to call my bathroom "art." Others might disagree, however.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

biccat wrote:$30 Million? Really?

Spoiler:

Frankly, I don't see how something like this is worth that much.

edit: apparently NBC LA decided to post an unrelated picture to the story...correct one is above

Is that pic before or after the butt smearing?

Damn, none of us will ever party that hard. Except maybe Albatross, he IS a Rockstar.

I've been to a museum stoned. Never been to one drunk.





Yet.

For the most part, this "art" is just a piece of canvas with a famous "artist's" name attached to it, I don't see the value in a blue piece of paper or whatever that red-white-black-ish thing was trying to portray...

mattyrm wrote:

Well it does doesn't it?

Look at this..

It actually evokes a reaction from me, honestly! I find this to be artistic.

I think I'm one of the few people in my circles that can truly appreciate modern art. I love classical art too. I have a a pretty sizable collection of high quality, glossy page art books that I used to scan front to back when I was a kid, as well as a college level Art History text book (art through the ages. Makes a nice table-weight) that I have next to my bed. I've been an avid fan of Picasso since I was eleven.

Anyway, the woman should get what's coming to her. Who goes to a museum drunk? Going to the Hirshhorn on acid might be fun. That building is a masterpiece in itself.

Does someone see something in it or does the creator intend something to be seen in it? Then it is art.

Not liking it, not seeing the thing, not caring about it, do not make it not art. They make it not art that you like.

There is plenty of art that I think is dumb. But I'm not arrogant enough to say it's not art. If it's art to ANYONE, then it is art. I don't have to like it, but it's still art.

biccat wrote:
The proper mixing of the paint used to color our bathroom, which is appropriately the right color according to my wife, was achieved by some guy making minimum wage at Home Depot. Application was achieved by an inexperienced worker applying commonly available tools.

I would hesitate to call my bathroom "art." Others might disagree, however.

Sure, and I would hesitate to call most words written on a piece of paper art, but that's all a poem is.

A sculpture is just a lump of some substance that an artist hacked away with a tool, a drawing is just some oddly arranged lines, a movie is just series of pictures, and a picture is just the result of a dude holding a camera. It goes on, but the point is that simply because someone less skilled can accomplish a similar feat and produce an inferior result doesn't make the superior result something other than art.

Unless it's all one color, and then a robot can do it.