Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Rum]

And as I mentioned on RatSkep, until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless. We should take it as seriously as someone who says "that food tastes terrible, the chef is a fake, and it's not worth the price" - after only seeing a picture of the food on the Internet.

Of course. If you can't baffle them with wankery, bamboozle them with mystification. "There is something real yet ethereal in the original that can never be transmitted through a reproduction. Just come and have a look. You'll feel it immediately and be convinced it's true."

Newsflash: Utter crap. Every single letter of it. I've spent many hours at several art galleries in Australia and Europe. I've seen paintings "in real life". I've seen works by Rothko, that are particularly renowned for only being truly appreciated if seen "in real life". The myth is created by wankers and propagated by those who profit from it the most - art dealers, critics, publishers. My opinion is not worthless. It is based on experience and therefore it is worth as much as yours.

And your food analogy sucks big-time.

Well I like Rothco and I have seen the work up close and it 'feels' different to looking at a print in a book. Paintings can have a subtle emotional impact, not to mention aesthetic ones. A lot of bollocks may be written about them and a lot of bullshit may circulate around the monetary value issue but none the less some abstract and modern art has an impact and is pleasing to look at, at least for me it is.

[Hermit]

I've argued in greater detail over at RatSkep. I'm not going to repeat myself here.

Yeah. I can see how copy-pasting is time-consuming and can be a bit of a challenge for some. What's the point of it anyway? A copy is always inferior to the original. It must lack something real yet ethereal of the original that can never be transmitted through a reproduction.

The bogus religiosity surrounding original works of art is akin to traditional religion, and it is exploited in a similar way. I will not be sucked in by either.

[kiki5711]

Jayzis! I've a heap of these on my fridge.

When I say modern art is crap, this is what I mean. Artificial inflation of value and a completely bizarre idea of quality.

OMG, I need a xanex to relax. This is insane. I have much much better "actual" art by my kids than this slap of orange on a sheet of paper.

[orpheus]

I've argued in greater detail over at RatSkep. I'm not going to repeat myself here.

Yeah. I can see how copy-pasting is time-consuming and can be a bit of a challenge for some. What's the point of it anyway? A copy is always inferior to the original. It must lack something real yet ethereal of the original that can never be transmitted through a reproduction.

The bogus religiosity surrounding original works of art is akin to traditional religion, and it is exploited in a similar way. I will not be sucked in by either.

And I can see how going to a different website is time-consuming and can be a bit of a challenge for some.

The point of it can actually be quite important for those of us who care about these things. You're not - you won't be "sucked in" by it. That's ok. I think you're missing out on a lot, but ultimately it's fine by me.

[Animavore]

I may regret using that hyperbolic title yet

[Hermit]

I think you're missing out on a lot

Like what? I've seen originals of scores of painters whose works keep changing hands to the tune of seven digit dollar considerations. Apart from the impact of the sheer size of them I don't think I've missed out on anything.

Essentially, I'm objecting to your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless". It drips with woo.

[orpheus]

I think you're missing out on a lot

Like what? I've seen originals of scores of painters whose works keep changing hands to the tune of seven digit dollar considerations. Apart from the impact of the sheer size of them I don't think I've missed out on anything.

Essentially, I'm objecting to your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless". It drips with woo.

As I said, go to RatSkep and you can see my arguments. (I do find it annoying to cross post on these two boards since there are two similar discussions with a lot of the same in the cast of characters.)

[mistermack]

Seraph, I agree with every word. Saves me many posts.

And Orpheus, the logic of your position is that a PERFECT fake is just as good as the original.

The art buyers would disagree to the tune of $86,900,000 dollars.

[orpheus]

Seraph, I agree with every word. Saves me many posts.

And Orpheus, the logic of your position is that a PERFECT fake is just as good as the original.

The art buyers would disagree to the tune of $86,900,000 dollars.

Yes, a PERFECT fake would be just as good as the original. The buyers may be interested in authenticity of authorship. I'm not. I'm interested in my experience of the art itself.

Listen to a piece by Mozart that you've never heard before. You have a certain experience of it. You like it; you don't like it, you think various things about it, it makes you feel certain emotions. If I then tell you it's not by Mozart after all, but by another late 18th-century composer you've never heard of, does that change your experience of the work?

My mentor used to say that the first thing I should do when I study a work by Beethoven is take a heavy crayon and cross out the name "Beethoven". Just treat it like a piece of music, and see what's really in the work itself. Don't let the reputation or preconceived ideas about the great man enter into it.

[Hermit]

I think you're missing out on a lot

Like what? I've seen originals of scores of painters whose works keep changing hands to the tune of seven digit dollar considerations. Apart from the impact of the sheer size of them I don't think I've missed out on anything.

Essentially, I'm objecting to your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless". It drips with woo.

As I said, go to RatSkep and you can see my arguments. (I do find it annoying to cross post on these two boards since there are two similar discussions with a lot of the same in the cast of characters.)

Uhm, yeah, so I perused the relevant thread and paid particular attention to your contributions. In the end I came to the conclusion that this pretty much mirrors what you said here "I've spent a lot of time in front of these, so I know what I'm talking about. Whether or not you like it, whether or not you think it's nonsense or woo - you really only have a basis for making those judgments when you see it live." and it makes as much sense. As I mentioned before, I have seen "it" live, and your opinions are wooful. Got anything else?

[Hermit]

Listen to a piece by Mozart that you've never heard before. You have a certain experience of it. You like it; you don't like it, you think various things about it, it makes you feel certain emotions. If I then tell you it's not by Mozart after all, but by another late 18th-century composer you've never heard of, does that change your experience of the work?

Haha. Fritz Kreisler used to have a lot of fun with that. He'd regularly come up with lost scores by major composers he happened to find while rummaging around in dusty archives of some of the thousands of minor and neglected castles and palaces of Austria, Germany, Italy and France. He performed them in concerts. Works by Mozart, Bach and whoever. Later on it transpired that he actually composed them himself in the style of... They were, in short, fakes. Lots of egg was wiped off faces.

[orpheus]

Listen to a piece by Mozart that you've never heard before. You have a certain experience of it. You like it; you don't like it, you think various things about it, it makes you feel certain emotions. If I then tell you it's not by Mozart after all, but by another late 18th-century composer you've never heard of, does that change your experience of the work?

Haha. Fritz Kreisler used to have a lot of fun with that. He'd regularly come up with lost scores by major composers he happened to find while rummaging around in dusty archives of some of the thousands of minor and neglected castles and palaces of Austria, Germany, Italy and France. He performed them in concerts. Works by Mozart, Bach and whoever. Later on it transpired that he actually composed them himself in the style of... They were, in short, fakes. Lots of egg was wiped off faces.

Not the same. We're talking about a PERFECT replica of the original. Not something convincingly in the same style.

[orpheus]

I think you're missing out on a lot

Like what? I've seen originals of scores of painters whose works keep changing hands to the tune of seven digit dollar considerations. Apart from the impact of the sheer size of them I don't think I've missed out on anything.

Essentially, I'm objecting to your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless". It drips with woo.

As I said, go to RatSkep and you can see my arguments. (I do find it annoying to cross post on these two boards since there are two similar discussions with a lot of the same in the cast of characters.)

Uhm, yeah, so I perused the relevant thread and paid particular attention to your contributions. In the end I came to the conclusion that this pretty much mirrors what you said here "I've spent a lot of time in front of these, so I know what I'm talking about. Whether or not you like it, whether or not you think it's nonsense or woo - you really only have a basis for making those judgments when you see it live." and it makes as much sense. As I mentioned before, I have seen "it" live, and your opinions are wooful. Got anything else?

Not much, no. And I'm right.

I take it if you read a play and someone says "you really have to see it onstage; otherwise you're not getting what it's like onstage" they're wooful too? Or someone saying you've got to walk through a building to know what the experience of walking through it is like - looking at architectural plans and photos doesn't do it? They're full of woo too? Or hear a band that's great live but whose recordings are not great - if someone says you can't really judge the experience of hearing them live unless you do hear them live - they're full of woo too?


edited to add last paragraph.

edited again: typos.

[Hermit]

Listen to a piece by Mozart that you've never heard before. You have a certain experience of it. You like it; you don't like it, you think various things about it, it makes you feel certain emotions. If I then tell you it's not by Mozart after all, but by another late 18th-century composer you've never heard of, does that change your experience of the work?

Haha. Fritz Kreisler used to have a lot of fun with that. He'd regularly come up with lost scores by major composers he happened to find while rummaging around in dusty archives of some of the thousands of minor and neglected castles and palaces of Austria, Germany, Italy and France. He performed them in concerts. Works by Mozart, Bach and whoever. Later on it transpired that he actually composed them himself in the style of... They were, in short, fakes. Lots of egg was wiped off faces.

Not the same. We're talking about a PERFECT replica of the original. Not something convincingly in the same style.

Whatever you think about the quality of Kreisler's fakes, he had them comprehensively sucked in. Critics waxed lyrical about the latest discovery of each work and audiences lapped all of it up. Red faces all round when those works were revealed for what they were. Textbook examples of the emperor's new clothes.

I bet you that if Rothko's 86 million dollar creation turned out to actually have been painted by Elmyr de Hory, there'd be a radical downward re-evaluation of both its monetary as well as artistic value, and admirers of Rothko's genius would view it "with different eyes".

I think you're missing out on a lot

Like what? I've seen originals of scores of painters whose works keep changing hands to the tune of seven digit dollar considerations. Apart from the impact of the sheer size of them I don't think I've missed out on anything.

Essentially, I'm objecting to your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless". It drips with woo.

As I said, go to RatSkep and you can see my arguments. (I do find it annoying to cross post on these two boards since there are two similar discussions with a lot of the same in the cast of characters.)

Uhm, yeah, so I perused the relevant thread and paid particular attention to your contributions. In the end I came to the conclusion that this pretty much mirrors what you said here "I've spent a lot of time in front of these, so I know what I'm talking about. Whether or not you like it, whether or not you think it's nonsense or woo - you really only have a basis for making those judgments when you see it live." and it makes as much sense. As I mentioned before, I have seen "it" live, and your opinions are wooful. Got anything else?

Not much, no. And I'm right.

Well, that settles it then.

I take it if you read a play and someone says "you really have to see it onstage; otherwise you're not getting what it's like onstage" they're wooful too? Or someone saying you've got to walk through a building to know what the experience of walking through it is like - looking at architectural plans and photos doesn't do it? They're full of woo too? Or hear a band that's great live but whose recordings are not great - if someone says you can't really judge the experience of hearing them live unless you do hear them live - they're full of woo too?

Looks like I need to repeat myself. I'm saying your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless" is shit, and represents a shitload of woo.

[mistermack]

I'm saying your statement that "until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless" is shit, and represents a shitload of woo.

I totally agree. And more than that, I think that people who rave about big blobs of colour are just incredibly suggestible, a hypnotist's dream.

Orpheus, you might even believe what you're writing. It's just odd that nobody raves about a particular artist's blobs, until it's been endorsed by the critics. Then the whole art world starts to get emotional about what was previously pretty ordinary.

It's like the grotto at Lourdes. Once the Pope said it was an official miracle, people started having uplifting experiences there. Before that, Bernadette was just a loony.

You are just seeing talent you have been told is there. It ain't. It's just a daub.