Great Documentary on obscene art prices, Compelling meditation on the wealthy
#11
Knock it off I dont hate the rich...just arrogence and dispicable waste. The Vatican is replete with billions in art...hut I wouldnt want it auctioned off to feed the poor...because like the spinkard of expensive oil poured on christs head  was done to give glory to God. Did you even watch the film or are you in here trolling for marxist tendacys. If so piss off...Im only interested in an intelligent discorse on art and intrinsic value. Poor spelling dont count.
Reply
#12
(01-23-2012, 03:44 AM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Knock it off I dont hate the rich...just arrogence and dispicable waste. The Vatican is replete with billions in art...hut I wouldnt want it auctioned off to feed the poor...because like the spinkard of expensive oil poured on christs head   was done to give glory to God. Did you even watch the film or are you in here trolling for marxist tendacys. If so piss off...Im only interested in an intelligent discorse on art and intrinsic value. Poor spelling dont count.

Within the first ten seconds, I recognized it as an agitprop piece. Then I abandoned it after one minute.

You definitely harbor much resentment against the rich. It's surfaced in many of your posts. This isn't good.
Reply
#13
I hate the post-modern mindset, responsible for "modern art." Take 4′33″, by John Cage. Its basically silence, yet the postmoderns say that since the very definition of good, bad, artistic, and musical are entirely subjective on values and culture, why shouldn't this be considered art. See for yourselves:



These same post moderns say that Merzbow, a "noise" musician, is music. See here (Note:do not listen to this with headphones. You will hurt your ears.) I'm serious, take headphones OFF if you listen to this noise. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Reply
#14
(01-23-2012, 03:59 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I hate the post-modern mindset, responsible for "modern art." Take 4′33″, by John Cage. Its basically silence, yet the postmoderns say that since the very definition of good, bad, artistic, and musical are entirely subjective on values and culture, why shouldn't this be considered art. See for yourselves:

Why couldn't a cell phone go off right there! That would have been a masterpiece.
I was just laughing for 15 seconds....
I would ban works from John Cage. He must have been high on LSD when he "composed" that piece.
Reply
#15
Tapatío,

I've been wanting to write a long thread on all postmodernism, which I really didn't know about until I entered my university. This philosophy infects so many of the teachers. But I'm too tired right now, and need to get up early; first day of school is tomorrow.
Reply
#16
(01-23-2012, 03:59 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I hate the post-modern mindset, responsible for "modern art." Take 4′33″, by John Cage....

Yes, this stuff isn't musical artistry, but con-artistry.
Reply
#17
(01-23-2012, 04:26 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 03:59 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I hate the post-modern mindset, responsible for "modern art." Take 4′33″, by John Cage....

Yes, this stuff isn't musical artistry, but con-artistry.

They would disagree with you, and question you like so:

"Define good music for me. Certainly many people do not like your musical tastes, and vice versa. In the Far East, in Africa, there are wildly different notions of what "good" music is compared to the US and West."

Its postmodernism. They like people like Werner Herzog, etc. I wish I could verbally explain this too you, instead of having to type everything. But you're in SoCal, so maybe...
Reply
#18
(01-23-2012, 03:49 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 03:44 AM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Knock it off I dont hate the rich...just arrogence and dispicable waste. The Vatican is replete with billions in art...hut I wouldnt want it auctioned off to feed the poor...because like the spinkard of expensive oil poured on christs head   was done to give glory to God. Did you even watch the film or are you in here trolling for marxist tendacys. If so piss off...Im only interested in an intelligent discorse on art and intrinsic value. Poor spelling dont count.

Within the first ten seconds, I recognized it as an agitprop piece. Then I abandoned it after one minute.

You definitely harbor much resentment against the rich. It's surfaced in many of your posts. This isn't good.
And you have a mental condition. This is a doc about what is and isnt art not the rich. So will you please piss off. Take your troll garbage elsewhere. Its not whats in a persons wallet but what they do wiiith it that matters for good or evi. Just because you think yourself so wonderfull and full of insights no one else can see...just because you think that it doesnt make it true. But then maybe you will accuse Jesus next...I mean since you have a god complex. Now I want to have a nice conversation about art and what makes it valuable. Maybe I need to see if vox is interested...then she can see your trollness in all its glory.
Reply
#19
In my college art appreciation class we had to spend a whole class watching some silent "piece" of a guy running around an art museum that was somehow supposed to be symbolic of the different levels of Freemasonry.

The "Catholic" teacher even had the gall to make an announcement that anyone who missed the test he scheduled for Good Friday would not be excused because he was "Catholic" and knew it wasn't a Holy Day of Obligation....the girl who sat next to me had to get the bishop to help her out after he tried to fail her because her family went out of town for Easter, including Good Friday.
Reply
#20
(01-23-2012, 03:28 AM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Thats the point what makes them valuable. The rubens masterpieces make sense...but the dispicable picassos? A painting of a white stripe between two reddish ones? Or how about a childrens inflateable swim toy filled with firewood?(yes its in the documentary) Are the valuable because rockafeller was stupid enough to buy it? And then some other rich ass just had to have it no matter what it cost? This is the central theme of tye film.

I spent 3 years studying art at the Barnes Foundation. I've had numerouos hours and firsthand experience with art by most of the most popular painters.

The school was all about what makes a painting successful as a painting.  Line, light color as the plastic form, decorative, illustrative and the expressive characteristics to show the point of the painting.

The market makes a painting expensive.  Some of the greatest paintings, the market is incapable of touching. There simply isn't enough money. 

Picasso did some unsuccessful works but he was capable and did produce some absolutely astounding works. The Rose period and Blue period paintings really work because Picasso was not a good colorist, line was everything to his work and he had a real skill at creating 3 dimensional images, and he spent most of his career trying to flatten out his images in the tradition of iconography and spanish murels.  Many of his works are influences by Egyptian sculpture as well.   

The Rothko parintings are essentially a scam. What we used to call "Aaaaaat" instead of "Art." 

Because there are so few "heavyweight" painters capable of producting good art, there is a "art industry" that generates buzz and makes it a social event and financial endeavour. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)