At 3/7/11 10:44 AM, LaserKarl wrote:
In my opinion is the monetary values in these cases are an insult towards everything else that money could've done to further engage the human race as a sucsessful form of life. Art is awesome, but there's a level of priority gone missing if someone thinks its better to spend that amount of money owning a repulsive image because someone else decided its important to art history.
I'm kind of split on this.
A couple of points I've pondered:
- Does the, frankly insane, amount of money spent on pieces like this elevate art as a whole or diminish it? Meaning: does it make people appreciate the true value of art in society or does it make people scoff and think that it's just money thrown away that could be used towards a better end?
- What IS art worth to society? Surely $140 million is, if it were split across all art lovers and artists as a whole, not much of a price to put on being able to express whatever one wishes in a visual way?
At 3/7/11 11:04 AM, Toast-Tony wrote:
Fully understood Kraig, but putting it simply, it's not hard to say that ,despite it's meaning to the art world, $140,000,000 is just plain ridiculous. You are very right on the point that the monetary value represents the social value of art because when it comes to looking so deeply into the mind of an art critic, those kinds of people i see whilst strolling the galleries of barcelona, stood for 10 minutes staring at 3 canvases bestowing upon them one, single, jolted line and looking on to it like it is the greatest and most intriguing thing they have ever seen really really really boggles me beyond belief. I cant bring myself to indulge in the meanings and what not of a piece of art when at the end of the day, it is a line, it is a blue canvas etc. with these being so popular that would then mean theoretically i could shit on a canvas and given enough background to it and deep feeling (in my bowels) it would become a well known popular piece of art?
Ah, yes, contemporary art, in the form of minimalism and nonobjectivism, is a sticky point in the art world and on these forums. It's hard to defend as it is usually so simple and, seemingly pointless, and when there are pieces out there that are obvious bullshit. But, imo, you have to think about the struggle and time it took to get art to this place. I would just die if art were rolled back to the time when it was religious iconography or nothing. Art has progressed far, if it's too far, that's up to the art critics and collectors, not me.
To address your question, if taking a dump on a canvas inflames some sort of meaningful movement in art or society, it, very well may, someday, go for a hundred million dollars.