• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

No talent hack's painting goes for $140 million!!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
I agree that the appreciation of art varies for each individual. I am very reluctant to criticize something that others consider to be of great value.

So, to each his own (even though it's obviously just a pile of shit).
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;650611; said:
again, recreating the complexity of a pollock painting is phenomenally difficult. without understanding fractal complexity, i can see how it appears that anyone can recreate a pollock painting.
Click to expand...

It is extraordinarily complex, yet the creator did not intentionally convey the fractal complexity. And no one else in the world can unintentionally create brilliant fractal drippings, because only Pollock can, even though he didn't mean to. Got it.
 
Upvote 0
HabaneroBuck;650600; said:
Buckguy, there is nothing wrong with appreciating the "kinetics" of a Pollock piece or having something like it in your house (I guess). But you can drop about a thousand bucks for the materials and do it yourself OR pay a talented local artist a thousand bucks to give you a similar effect, and you will be EQUALLY satisfied with the piece (probably moreso because it is an original all for you). There. Two thousand dollars, an original piece, and all the satisfaction of a Pollock original, just without the name brand.
Click to expand...

Eh, but the name brand is what is being purchased. An identical painting (if that were possible, which it is not) by Bucky Q. Katt would not sell for $140 million. The satisfaction that is derived from owning a Pollack is more than just what comes with the painting, but also the knowledge that you own a Pollock. *cough* status symbol *cough*

This isn't the difference between a thirty dollar dress shirt at the nearest department store and a $200 designer dress shirt which is much better in quality anyway. You can get the same effect in a painting, and spend 70,000% less. Same with the van Gogh craze of the nineties. These are twentieth-century painters. One who spends that much on these paintings is a raging idiot. Of course, there's always another idiot out there who will possibly pay more for the piece down the road...
Click to expand...

Mostly the same principle, just on a much more expensive scale. The quality of an Armani suit is better than the quality of a $99 suit from Schottenstein's, but is it 18-30 times better? I'd say no. Three times better...yeah, I can see that. But you can't find one for $300. The big difference between the two situations is the supply. Restrict the number of Armani suits to the number of Pollock paintings and I bet that you won't be able to buy an Armani suit for retail value.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;650608; said:
How can he be considered brilliant for painting in fractals when he didn't even realize he was doing it?
Click to expand...
history is littered with brilliant people not knowing that they were doing something that would later be thought of as brilliant.

But the fact that I, not being an artist, could make a painting similar to Pollock's and most others not know the difference leads me to conclude that it is indeed not art. I could not, in a million years, begin to paint anything even remotely resembling the Mona Lisa.
Click to expand...
perhaps not you. sure. but i'm sure there are several non-artists who--given enough lessons, practice, and time--could recreate a painting that is indistinguishable from the mona lisa. you're probably thinking, "well, yes, but i can go out now and do something like a pollock painting, and many couldn't tell the difference." perhaps, but i think that speaks more about an inability to understand complex fractals... not art. just because a pollock painting looks messy doesn't mean that it is messy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
dogs-poker.gif


Any discussions in regards to the quality, complexity, impact, etc. of any particular style or piece starts and ends with

Dogs playing cards
 
Upvote 0
Thump;650537; said:
Pollock's art is garbage and does nothing to distinguish itself over one of my bowel movements on a canvas.

I was listening to the Howard Stern show one time and Robin Quivers is a big fan of Jackson Pollack, Howard challenged her to tell the difference between one of his paintings and one of Pollock's. When asked to pick out the Pollock, she picked out one of Stern's paintings.

Don't know how you call that crap art.

I'm a terrible artist but if I see a painting or piece of art that I feel I can personally replicate, then it's not Art, it's crap.
Click to expand...

First of all, Robin probably had her face mashed into the paintings as Howard and a midget took turns pounding her in the can . . . so I doubt she could see them very well.

Second, citing Howard Stern doesn't seems like something to put on your art critic resume.
 
Upvote 0
HabaneroBuck;650618; said:
It is extraordinarily complex, yet the creator did not intentionally convey the fractal complexity.
Click to expand...
just because pollock didn't know that he was creating fractals doesn't mean that he wasn't creating fractals.

And no one else in the world can unintentionally create brilliant fractal drippings, because only Pollock can, even though he didn't mean to. Got it.
Click to expand...
i never stated that no one but pollock can create fractal paintings. i did, however, state that it is phenomenally difficult and that virtually no one can... or should i say, has.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;650622; said:
perhaps not you. sure. but i'm sure there are several non-artists who--given enough lessons, practice, and time--could recreate a painting that is indistinguishable from the mona lisa.
Click to expand...

Enough monkeys with enough paint and enough time could eventually reproduce the Mona Lisa.

But I'd bet they would create countless paintings that closely resembled the works of Pollock and Rothko first. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
BB73;650643; said:
Enough monkeys with enough paint and enough time could eventually reproduce the Mona Lisa.

But I'd bet they would create countless paintings that closely resembled the works of Pollock and Rothko first. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Give those same monkeys typewriters and they'll create Shakespeare. But I'd bet they would create countless stories that closely resembled the works of James Joyce first. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Here's a little piece I like to call :Brutus1 #1, 2006.

I'm now taking bids. Vcash accepted.

-3-3-3---3-44--55--6-6-6-6-6-6-6-
-=-=-=-=/-=/-=-/-=-/-='9;0;9;9;=0=011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111<,,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
michigan sucks333333333333333333==================================================
 
Upvote 0
poop.artwork-thumb.jpg


I need to get an appraisal on this one:

Artist: My 2 year old Daughter (Name Withheld)
Title: A new Day is Dawning
Medium: POOP

She worked really hard on this one, and I would say that it is her best work so far. It can also be sold in a collection, as it is not her only work with this medium. She seems to have an affection for this particular style. I think it works for her.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top