Can't see it.... just can't see it...

[Patty Hann]

This painting by Brice Marden is projected to sell for $30-$50 million.

You folks that have grandkids in kindergarten.... you may have a goldmine

https://images.barrons.com/im-10676654?width=700&height=525

[Dave Zellers]

All I can say is- for the people who have that kind of money, I'm glad to see them spending it.

[Mel Fulks]

He painted the yarn then let the cat arrange it. I don’t think it’s worth any more then $20 bucks.

[Warren Lake]

years ago there was an artist Mark Kostabi on fashion television high price paintings and if memory he had a row of students doing them.

If I buy artwork it will likely be from this artist. Still young when this painting was done.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XOl48ssdyo

[Bill Dufour]

The painter Thomas Kincade would paint a picture then have it printed on canvas in color. Then he hired artists to paint clear or slightly yellowed varnish over it to give it that hand painted look. He also sold dealerships with guaranteed exclusive zones. Then he would sell new dealerships inside the exclusive zones claiming they were not overlapping.
I read a good review of his paintings describing them as looking like a UFO had landed inside a house and was glowing through all the windows.
BillD
Bill D

[Jerry Thompson]

Good one:)

[Ron Citerone]

Not sure wat is wrong with you people, it's worth $90M if it's worth a penny!:D

[Dave Anderson NH]

The cynical paraphrasing of an Abraham Lincoln quote applies here. "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time and...….. that's usually sufficient."

[George Yetka]

Its probably just rich people tax writeoff.

[Jack Frederick]

As time goes by you become aware of things that you can’t do or see. Some art is wonderful. We see some of it here. Some not so much. As to those Patty has shown us for me it is really simple. “I can’t pay it. I just can’t pay it.”

[Stan Calow]

But he colored within the lines very well.

[Steve Demuth]

Oh come on, let's be fair - that's actually a pretty sophisticated work for Brice Marden. This is his "The Dylan Painting," in the permanent collection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/The_Dylan_Painting.jpg
In the abstract (pun intended), you have to admire someone who can convince well educated, aesthetically sophisticated folks that there is meaning and value in something as bland and banal as grey paint on canvas. It's a great con, and an opportunity for "investors" in art to simultaneously butter their egos, and buy a ticket in the "greater fool" theory of investing. Everybody wins.

[Bill Dufour]

I keep hearing adds on the radio for buying shares in artwork. A sure fire investment.
Bill D

[Frederick Skelly]

I’m with you Patty. I had a similar reaction going to a museum a couple years back. There was a lot of discussion on the topic at the time.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?299340-What-s-with-modern-art&highlight=Art%2C+museum

[Jim Koepke]

This painting by Brice Marden is projected to sell for $30-$50 million.

To paraphrase Robin Williams (may he RIP) "This is God's way of showing some people have too much money."

Or something P.T. Barnum may have never said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Then there is the story of a man during the great depression. He was standing on a corner with a box of apples. A sign on the box said, "Apples, $1,000,000 each." Another man passing by chuckled and commented, "you're not going to sell many at that price." The seller replied, "I only need to sell one."

jtk

[Patty Hann]

But he colored within the lines very well.

:D :D :D xxxxxxxxxxx

[Edward Weber]

Oh come on, let's be fair - that's actually a pretty sophisticated work for Brice Marden. This is his "The Dylan Painting," in the permanent collection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/The_Dylan_Painting.jpg
In the abstract (pun intended), you have to admire someone who can convince well educated, aesthetically sophisticated folks that there is meaning and value in something as bland and banal as grey paint on canvas. It's a great con, and an opportunity for "investors" in art to simultaneously butter their egos, and buy a ticket in the "greater fool" theory of investing. Everybody wins.

IMO, you nailed it.

[Brian Elfert]

I keep hearing adds on the radio for buying shares in artwork. A sure fire investment.

I assume you are talking about Masterworks. They also sponsor various Youtube channels. They are claiming there is a waitlist, but if you use the special promo code for that Youtube channel you can skip the waitlist. Nothing like claiming scarcity as a marketing tactic. A big part of the reason for the promo code is to see which Youtube channels are actually generating customers.

[Patty Hann]

If someone has to explain to me what I'm looking at, and/or why it's "good art", it's not (imo) either worth looking at or "good art"; it's a boondoggle.
If it's taxpayer funded (lookin' at you NEA) it's a boondoggle AND theft.

[Pat Germain]

The painter Thomas Kincade would paint a picture then have it printed on canvas in color. Then he hired artists to paint clear or slightly yellowed varnish over it to give it that hand painted look. He also sold dealerships with guaranteed exclusive zones. Then he would sell new dealerships inside the exclusive zones claiming they were not overlapping.
I read a good review of his paintings describing them as looking like a UFO had landed inside a house and was glowing through all the windows.
BillD
Bill D

I'm glad you brought up Thomas Kinkade because he perfectly illustrates the difference between "Art" and "Decoration".

Thomas Kinkade's painting were very popular. Some people simply want pretty decorations. They like the colors and the "light" in his prints. Anyone who knew anything about actual art hated Thomas Kinkade paintings and didn't hold back their criticism. My favorite was, "Why are all his houses on fire?". It didn't help that the guy was a complete sellout with the whole numbered print collections and hiring people to paint over prints and claiming they were collectors items. Yeah, just like Hummel Figurines and Longaberger Baskets are collectors items.

The painting Patty posted is modern art. While it appears to be nothing more than random lines and random colors thrown together, there is a method to the apparent madness. People who are educated about art and who dedicate their lives to art look for certain things with modern art. Since we have not studied art and we have not dedicated our lives to art, we literally can't appreciate whatever that painting represents. Making fun of it is our right, but I really don't think it's cool to criticize things we don't understand.

For millennia, people who were not educated about art and who had no experience with art were not expected to truly appreciate it. Then Post Modernism came about and that stated that any opinion is as good as the next no matter the person's education, experience or anything else. This is why it's now popular for people now criticize what they don't understand.

If we had never heard of Leonardo's "Mona Lisa", we would likely see a dingy image of a woman and think, "So what?". If we look more closely, we would see that painting has qualities which are revolutionary and, to this day, downright fascinating. Leonardo perfected the ability to make images appear to just be there and make you wonder how they came to be. He captures the woman's just barely smile perfectly. And there are many things I certainly can't appreciate because I have no art education and I don't know what I'm talking about. But since it is classic art, we can at least can see an image of a woman looking out at us. Modern art is different. It's not supposed to be familiar images.

Then again, the current world of art collecting is downright absurd. Very wealthy people buy art and stash it in warehouses to avoid taxes. Then, when they think the art has appreciated in value, they pull it out for auction where some other wealthy person will buy it and again stash it in a warehouse. Of course, the people doing this really aren't about artistic merit. They just want investments and tax avoidance. But it's no coincidence that wealthy people aren't buying Thomas Kinkade paintings and stashing them in warehouses. In the world of collectible art, there are educated people who weigh in and determine if something has artistic merit. There are many intangibles, but absolutely nobody with any true education or appreciation for actual art has any respect or any interest in Thomas Kinkade paintings. Why? Because they are not art. They are decoration.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Art, or the beauty in a piece of art, is subjective. I don't know that there is a right or wrong because it's subjective. It's a matter of personal taste or opinion. The same goes for tastes in furniture.

[George Yetka]

To paraphrase Robin Williams (may he RIP) "This is God's way of showing some people have too much money."

Or something P.T. Barnum may have never said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Then there is the story of a man during the great depression. He was standing on a corner with a box of apples. A sign on the box said, "Apples, $1,000,000 each." Another man passing by chuckled and commented, "you're not going to sell many at that price." The seller replied, "I only need to sell one."

jtk


My uncle as a kid tried selling a wooden boat models for $100 on a table in front of his house. My grandfather told him that they would sell better for $3 he replied only have to sell 1. 1970 or so. I never heard that it came from anyone.

[Jim Koepke]

Art, or the beauty in a piece of art, is subjective. I don't know that there is a right or wrong because it's subjective. It's a matter of personal taste or opinion. The same goes for tastes in furniture.

During my art classes in college, one of the instructors often said, "art is everywhere." What is or isn't art is opinion. In one absurd way of looking at it, the holes left behind by a woodpecker can be art.


My uncle as a kid tried selling a wooden boat models for $100 on a table in front of his house. My grandfather told him that they would sell better for $3 he replied only have to sell 1. 1970 or so. I never heard that it came from anyone.

Great minds think alike.


Thomas Kinkade's painting were very popular. Some people simply want pretty decorations. They like the colors and the "light" in his prints. Anyone who knew anything about actual art hated Thomas Kinkade paintings and didn't hold back their criticism.

From my artist point of view, my thoughts on Thomas Kinkade's work is that it is comforting to view.

From the view point of a realist, my thought for some of them is nobody in their right mind would build a house that close to a flowing waterway. That one is hanging on my wall since one of my grandkids gave it to me as a gift.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

“He who works with his hands is a laborer.
He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.
He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.”
― Saint Francis of Assisi

IMO, one who makes something with the idea of calling it art with the main objective of extracting money from fattened wallets doesn't really have their heart in their work.

jtk

[Bill Dufour]

My understanding is Ansel Adams created art with a camera (actually a lot of it is from his darkroom). After that painting no longer had any real value above well done photography. Think Washington crossing the Delaware vs any WW2 painting. I can think of lots of ww2 photos but NO paintings.
Thee say an Ansel Adams print sells for quite a bit of money but his negatives are not that valuable.
Bill D
BilL D

[Mel Fulks]

[QUOTE=Patty Hann;3302970]If someone has to explain to me what I'm looking at, and/or why it's "good art", it's not (imo) either worth looking at or "good art"; it's a boondoggle.

Agree , but when kids draw pictures ,they want You to tell them what it is ! When I asked my parents what I had drawn they couldn’t
tell me ! I had to just come up with some explanation myself ! Somewhere I read that Michelangelo’s sculptures were looked down on by some painters because sculpting was such dusty and gritty job. NOW his “ rock carvings” are considered “good” ,by most people.
Fashions change.

[Bill Dufour]

Decades ago San Francisco passed a law that to get a building permit a big office building had to have some public art outside where people walking by could see it. Lots of welded "art" got placed. One building got a big cast bronze propellor and mounted it on a stand. it was nicely polished and prettier then lots of the other stuff ploped down, to me.
Bill D

[Mel Fulks]

That’s why in those old western movies , somebody always said “ I’m takin’ you in Kinkade”.

[Doug Garson]

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think the fact that any piece of art could sell for millions of dollars while many people are struggling to pay their rent and feed their kids is a sign of a sick society. Anyone who can afford and would consider paying that kind of money for a completely useless article has a sick sense of values.

[Pat Germain]

IMO, one who makes something with the idea of calling it art with the main objective of extracting money from fattened wallets doesn't really have their heart in their work.

jtk

Thomas Kinkade summed up nicely. His work is pretty and I understand why people like it.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think the fact that any piece of art could sell for millions of dollars while many people are struggling to pay their rent and feed their kids is a sign of a sick society. Anyone who can afford and would consider paying that kind of money for a completely useless article has a sick sense of values.

I won't call you anything. That's your opinion. It's worth as much as the opinion of the person who buys that painting. It's subjective.

[Doug Garson]

I won't call you anything. That's your opinion. It's worth as much as the opinion of the person who buys that painting. It's subjective.
I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.

[Mark Hennebury]

Once you accept that humans are incredibly intelligent, fundamentally stupid and gullible at the same time, the world makes perfect sense.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.

Again, that's your opinion, your values. And it is subjective. It's merely a matter of personal opinion. I might disagree with you and that's my opinion, my values. It is subjective, not objective.

[Mel Fulks]

That’s okay if wanna do that. It’s great when anyone helps. “Should “ is a shaming “ gimme some “cardboard sign “ . Some wealthy
people tell their children they will inherit No money, as they will be leaving it all to charity ….or for their statue , and there ain’t no
statyute agin it.

[Patty Hann]

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.
Why is $50 million spent on something useless (to you) objectionable, even obscene?
Why isn't $5 million spent on something useless (to a poverty level person in the US) objectionable?

Some folks here have homes worth several million. Do they need a home like that?
I'll bet they would be just as dry and safe and have a bed to sleep in and a table to eat on if they only had a house worth, say $500,000, or even less.
and instead of 4000 sq feet, maybe only 1200 square feet.
And maybe a poverty level person thinks people who have a whole separate building dedicated to A HOBBY (not a business), a building that could easily house a family, maybe they think that is pretty obscene too.
Maybe that hobby-est should give up his hobby and make that building available to a family that is currently living in a dump of a rat infested house.

In fact why stop at the house. What about people who have say $10 million saved for their retirement.
DO you NEED $10 million to live, to have enough to eat to pay your utilities? Probably not.
Maybe people who have $10 million saved should give up half of that to the poor.

So you see, it's rather arbitrary isn't it? Who is to say the having and spending $50 million is wrong?
HAving $5 million to spend?
Having even $500,000 to spend on say, a 4x8 CNC and the best slider or shaper or a lot of heirloom hand tools, or every anodized red aluminum tool Woodpecker ever made?

To spell out the arbitrariness: What I spend on my hobby (or hobbies) is reasonable.
That makes it OK for me to say the money that other people spend on their hobbies (using my own spending as a standard) is either right (if it's no more than I spend) or "sick" if it is more than I spend.

[Jerry Bruette]

Once you accept that humans are incredibly intelligent, fundamentally stupid and gullible at the same time, the world makes perfect sense.

But I still get frustrated with it.

[Mel Fulks]

It’s not extracting money it’s earning money . An artist who painted a portrait of G. Washington from life replicated it many times and
referred to them as something along the line of his “money makers”. They are all treasured in museums and private collections and ….
pricey . A win for humanity and a deserved reward for the artist.

[Doug Garson]

Why is $50 million spent on something useless (to you) objectionable, even obscene?
Why isn't $5 million spent on something useless (to a poverty level person in the US) objectionable?

Some folks here have homes worth several million. Do they need a home like that?
I'll bet they would be just as dry and safe and have a bed to sleep in and a table to eat on if they only had a house worth, say $500,000, or even less.
and instead of 4000 sq feet, maybe only 1200 square feet.
And maybe a poverty level person thinks people who have a whole separate building dedicated to A HOBBY (not a business), a building that could easily house a family, maybe they think that is pretty obscene too.
Maybe that hobby-est should give up his hobby and make that building available to a family that is currently living in a dump of a rat infested house.

In fact why stop at the house. What about people who have say $10 million saved for their retirement.
DO you NEED $10 million to live, to have enough to eat to pay your utilities? Probably not.
Maybe people who have $10 million saved should give up half of that to the poor.

So you see, it's rather arbitrary isn't it? Who is to say the having and spending $50 million is wrong?
HAving $5 million to spend?
Having even $500,000 to spend on say, a 4x8 CNC and the best slider or shaper or a lot of heirloom hand tools, or every anodized red aluminum tool Woodpecker ever made?

I don't recall using the word objectionable or obscene, I said spending $50 million on a piece of art is an indication of a sick sense of values. The sick word is my opinion (so maybe close to objectionable or obscene) but I think an indication of sense of values is a factual statement. What do think spending $50 million on a piece of art says about someone's value system?
I have no objection to someone having a nice house or a nest egg for retirement or a nice hobby shop (I do) with or without a CNC (although $500k is a little over the top). I think people should enjoy the benefits of their hard work, but I also think how they spend their money is an indication of their value system and when they get to the point where they have $50 million in disposable income, well?

[Jim Koepke]

Thee say an Ansel Adams print sells for quite a bit of money but his negatives are not that valuable.

I do not recall the sizes of negatives used by Ansel Adams. If my recollection is correct he did have a camera utilizing an 11X4" format and an 8X10" format. He likely had others.

Making a print from a straight exposure from one of his negatives would not produce something that looked like a print Mr. Adams would make. He used a technique often referred to as "dodging" when making a print. This exposes some areas longer to darken them and blocking the light to other areas to make them lighter.

So the value is in the work of the person who made the photographic print.

I have a set of prints made from glass negatives from the Mathew Brady Studio. They were made in the 1970s. They are not worth as much as original prints that could be attributed to being made by Mr. Brady himself.

jtk

[Dave Zellers]

I think it should be noted that those that spend this kind of money on a silly painting are often the most philanthropic people in our society.

Denigrating them without knowing their philanthropy is taking uninformed cheap shots. Attacking highly successfully people just because they are successful is just plain dumb. More often than not, they are successful because they invented, provided, delivered, something that improved lives and moved society forward. They deserve their success and as I said, they more often than not, overwhelmingly give back.

[Rick Potter]

I think this is another "popcorn thread", just like SawStop, Festool, and electric car threads. Any opinion is correct for the author. Win-win.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I think it should be noted that those that spend this kind of money on a silly painting are often the most philanthropic people in our society.

Denigrating them without knowing their philanthropy is taking uninformed cheap shots. Attacking highly successfully people just because they are successful is just plain dumb. More often than not, they are successful because they invented, provided, delivered, something that improved lives and moved society forward. They deserve their success and as I said, they more often than not, overwhelmingly give back.

Bingo! That's a great point I was thinking too!

[Bill Howatt]

If spending $50 million to own and look at a painting is sick, is spending $50 million to own the painting as an investment sick too?

[Doug Garson]

It's not a black and white world, you can criticize someone for spending $50 million on a painting and praise them if they spend money philanthropically to help those less fortunate. Why does someone with $50 million laying around need to invest it in something that creates no jobs and helps almost no one? If they spent it on a yacht or a house at least they would provide employment for those building it.

[Mel Fulks]

Why do some people buy really expensive houses and … Why do some people keep buying dogs that insist on tasting people ?
Just telling people “ Sorry ‘bout that” ain’t much. They could at least give each employee a spray bottle full of boiled down Tabasco
Sauce. Unless they just don’t have any money .

[Kent A Bathurst]

Gauguin and Van Gogh got no love in their lifetimes, but their work sells for astronomical prices today, because it is recognized for what it is.

If I had a spare $100 million laying around, I souldn't buy one if their pieces, as much as I am drawn to them. However, I've been to many international art museums, including Vienna, and if I had the scratch when a Klimt work came up for sale, I'd jump.

[Bill Dufour]

Van Gough sold two paintings in his life. I think his brother in law bought them. He painted over older works to reuse the canvas as shown by x-rays.
Bill D

[Warren Lake]

if you have an extra 48 or 70 million around at least there is art work you can drive. I think I read they were increasing in value at least at that time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGuUzY3K2ik

[mike stenson]

Van Gough sold two paintings in his life. I think his brother in law bought them. He painted over older works to reuse the canvas as shown by x-rays.
Bill D

Reusing canvases was incredibly common, going back as long as we know actually.

[mike stenson]

I do not recall the sizes of negatives used by Ansel Adams. If my recollection is correct he did have a camera utilizing an 11X4" format and an 8X10" format. He likely had others.

Making a print from a straight exposure from one of his negatives would not produce something that looked like a print Mr. Adams would make. He used a technique often referred to as "dodging" when making a print. This exposes some areas longer to darken them and blocking the light to other areas to make them lighter.

So the value is in the work of the person who made the photographic print.

I have a set of prints made from glass negatives from the Mathew Brady Studio. They were made in the 1970s. They are not worth as much as original prints that could be attributed to being made by Mr. Brady himself.

jtk

You're correct. His prints would be very difficult to duplicate. Ansel used 4x5, 8x10, medium format, as well as 35mm.

[Rich Engelhardt]

Call me a peasant - but - to me, this is a work of art..

[Dave Anderson NH]

XKE, yup Rich a work of art in design and execution as long as it was static. Marred only by an electrical system by Lucas Prince of Darkness.

[Bernie Kopfer]

I must say that I really feel sorry and sad for those who do not see the beauty and value in those Marden paintings. There are a lot of us, aren’t there?

[Curt Harms]

Oh come on, let's be fair - that's actually a pretty sophisticated work for Brice Marden. This is his "The Dylan Painting," in the permanent collection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/The_Dylan_Painting.jpg
In the abstract (pun intended), you have to admire someone who can convince well educated, aesthetically sophisticated folks that there is meaning and value in something as bland and banal as grey paint on canvas. It's a great con, and an opportunity for "investors" in art to simultaneously butter their egos, and buy a ticket in the "greater fool" theory of investing. Everybody wins.

It might also say that being well educated and aesthetically sophisticated is overrated:p

[Warren Lake]

no peasant. Enzo said that Jag was the most beautiful car ever.

[Mark Hennebury]

The cat understands.

516131

[Edward Weber]

I believe that's it's pronounced 516132

[Steve Demuth]

I must say that I really feel sorry and sad for those who do not see the beauty and value in those Marden paintings. There are a lot of us, aren’t there?

You get used to it. The most beautiful thing I've ever seen, at least as far as thought-inducing beauty (as differentiated from the raw emotional beauty found in my deeply biased views I hold about my wife and two children), is either the fundamental theory of calculus and its relatives in higher dimensions, or the standard formulation of quantum mechanics (I can't decide between the two, and never could). But North of 99 out of 100 of the people I have known and loved and respected don't see either one as particular interesting even, let alone get all blurry-eyed about their beauty.

Like I said, you get used to it.

[mike stenson]

That Marden isn't just grey.

It's in the details, just like quantum mechanics.

Then again, I enjoy things like finding the cigarette ash, paper and tobacco in Pollock's work too.

[Jim Koepke]

Marred only by an electrical system by Lucas Prince of Darkness.

Lucas vehicle lighting systems had three levels; off, dim & flicker.

Beer & ale in Briton are served warm because the refrigerators are made by Lucas.

Though they were renowned for one of their products that didn't suck… Vacuum cleaners.

jtk

[Mark Hennebury]

Briton seems to have sorted out the car electrical problem, and everything that Dyson sells sucks. You live in the dark ages Jim.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCxOvLAp3RY

516158


Lucas vehicle lighting systems had three levels; off, dim & flicker.

Beer & ale in Briton are served warm because the refrigerators are made by Lucas.

Though they were renowned for one of their products that didn't suck… Vacuum cleaners.

jtk