Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[mistermack]

What is art? Anything that a human assembles, that has a choice in the way it's assembled.
If I piss in the snow, that's art.

It's not "is it art"?, but "is it of any merit"?
As far as I'm concerned, art has some merit if it's
a) interesting
b) attractive
and
c) better than what I could do.

The OP picture to me only just scrapes in on the merit test, having some pretty colours. But those colours would soon be irritating.
Can't see any other merit.

[Hermit]

In these arguments people always seem to pull out examples like Duchamp's urinal or (in music) Cage's "4:33" - example that do stretch the definitions of what art is.

Please don't try to play the "philistines don't understand art" card. Art is a broad church indeed. I will not try to delimit it, but never mind whether we are talking about Duchamp, Rothko, or come to think of it, Rembrandt, can't you see the absurdity of the prices at all?

[orpheus]

What is art? Anything that a human assembles, that has a choice in the way it's assembled.
If I piss in the snow, that's art.

It's not "is it art"?, but "is it of any merit"?
As far as I'm concerned, art has some merit if it's
a) interesting
b) attractive
and
c) better than what I could do.

The OP picture to me only just scrapes in on the merit test, having some pretty colours. But those colours would soon be irritating.
Can't see any other merit.

And I repeat my main point: unless you've seen the original, your judgment can, by definition, only pertain to the reproduction. Especially with an artist like Rothko, since the reproduction conveys very partial information.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Orpheus, give us a definition of art.

[orpheus]

In these arguments people always seem to pull out examples like Duchamp's urinal or (in music) Cage's "4:33" - example that do stretch the definitions of what art is.

Please don't try to play the "philistines don't understand art" card. Art is a broad church indeed. I will not try to delimit it, but never mind whether we are talking about Duchamp, Rothko, or come to think of it, Rembrandt, can't you see the absurdity of the prices at all?

Sure. Of course I can. But I've already said I have no interest in that. I've been talking about the art itself, the artists themselves, and statements people here have made about those things. I've not disagreed with anyone about the buying and selling of art.

[Hermit]

In these arguments people always seem to pull out examples like Duchamp's urinal or (in music) Cage's "4:33" - example that do stretch the definitions of what art is.

Please don't try to play the "philistines don't understand art" card. Art is a broad church indeed. I will not try to delimit it, but never mind whether we are talking about Duchamp, Rothko, or come to think of it, Rembrandt, can't you see the absurdity of the prices at all?

Sure. Of course I can. But I've already said I have no interest in that. I've been talking about the art itself, the artists themselves, and statements people here have made about those things. I've not disagreed with anyone about the buying and selling of art.

Newsflash: The thread is about $86.9 million dollars being paid for a work of art. Look at the title, Orpheus. OK, Animavore belittles the product as a "child's painting", but so what? I'll ignore that aspersion for the purposes of the argument in order to make it easier for you to justify the price tag. Can you?

[orpheus]

Orpheus, give us a definition of art.

A quick and dirty one:

Art is something created by mankind to provide aesthetic experiences we cannot get in any other way. So: Matisse gives us one set of experiences. Picasso another. Giacometti another. Serra another. Rothko another. Cezanne another. Vermeer another. Giotto another. Cimabue another. (Two aspects of this definition I should highlight: 1) thins idea of "purpose" is often misunderstood. Other than that aesthetic use, art is purposely useless. I agree with Richard Serra on this: architecture, for example, is not art, because it serves other functions. It can overlap the purpose of art to a greater or lesser extent, but that's it. 2) Art is complex enough to reward repeated investigation. You can go back to it again and again and see substantive new things in it. That's what differentiates it from "entertainment". Again, there are overlaps. But this is why a Frederick Forsythe thriller is not art but Ulysses is. I love both on their own terms, but I don't confuse the fact that the former is entertainment while the latter is art.)

How about your definition?

[mistermack]

And I repeat my main point: unless you've seen the original, your judgment can, by definition, only pertain to the reproduction. Especially with an artist like Rothko, since the reproduction conveys very partial information.

I was allowing for that. I'm quite well used to seeing the difference between originals and photos, because my brother-in-law is quite a prolific artist, who does sell his work in galleries. ( not in this price bracket though ).
I see his originals all the time, and get the photos emailed to me when he's got an exhibition.

And anyway, you could get any old piece of crap off the hook with that argument.
The OP picture isn't going to rise in MY estimation, if I see the original. I EXPECT to see more.
An original turd has more to see than a reproduction. But it's still a turd.
I can assure you of that you from experience.

[orpheus]

In these arguments people always seem to pull out examples like Duchamp's urinal or (in music) Cage's "4:33" - example that do stretch the definitions of what art is.

Please don't try to play the "philistines don't understand art" card. Art is a broad church indeed. I will not try to delimit it, but never mind whether we are talking about Duchamp, Rothko, or come to think of it, Rembrandt, can't you see the absurdity of the prices at all?

Sure. Of course I can. But I've already said I have no interest in that. I've been talking about the art itself, the artists themselves, and statements people here have made about those things. I've not disagreed with anyone about the buying and selling of art.

Newsflash: The thread is about $86.9 million dollars being paid for a work of art. Look at the title, Orpheus. OK, Animavore belittles the product as a "child's painting", but so what? I'll ignore that aspersion for the purposes of the argument in order to make it easier for you to justify the price tag. Can you?

Another news flash, my friend: this thread has ranged beyond the definition of the OP. As do many threads. I certainly can respond to what people actually say here. It's rather unfair to then say "hey, you're out of bounds."

Re your question: I never said the price tag is justified. I never said it isn't. Those things have a lot to do with the market, attitudes and competition among collectors and among auction houses, provenance and the value people place on it - a whole host of things I'm in no position to know. Therefore I'm in no position to make an informed judgment. And, as I've said, I'm not really that interested in that aspect. Personally, as long as I can make enough money from making art to live decently, I'm happy.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have no definition of art. I have what I like, and that's mutable. Defining "art" is like defining "pretty".

[Animavore]

A) The cosmos, beautiful though it is, is not art. We can appreciate it aesthetically, sure. But "art" is related to the word "artifice" for a reason. I have a fascinating book that has reproductions of Cezanne's landscape paintings, and on facing pages photographs of the actual landscapes themselves. Often both are beautiful, but in their own ways. You can see that he was trying to make something quite different than an attempt at a literal reproduction. That's not to denigrate the real, but to say that it's "art" is the same sort of vocabulary distortion as saying (pace Spinoza) the universe is god.

I certainly know what you mean here. When I was in the National Gallery one day they had an exhibition of Polish art. There was one particular painting of a frozen waterfall at night and, although I haven't seen it, I swear it was more haunting, looming and beautiful than the real thing. I looked at it for quite a while. Moving in and out looking at details and looking back at the whole.

That to me is real art and although you assert seeing a Rothko in real life would have that same captivating quality I have to admit severe skepticism. That Polish painting, I don't know the person's name. Kicking myself I didn't take it down. I didn't, like I never do, know what was on in the National Gallery when I walked in that day. It was completely serendipitous. A Rothko just looks like something I would walk by and not even notice without someone having to explain to me that it is in fact art and not a whim of an interior designer. I think it was Gandhi who said art shouldn't have to be explained.

[orpheus]

And I repeat my main point: unless you've seen the original, your judgment can, by definition, only pertain to the reproduction. Especially with an artist like Rothko, since the reproduction conveys very partial information.

I was allowing for that. I'm quite well used to seeing the difference between originals and photos, because my brother-in-law is quite a prolific artist, who does sell his work in galleries. ( not in this price bracket though ).
I see his originals all the time, and get the photos emailed to me when he's got an exhibition.

And anyway, you could get any old piece of crap off the hook with that argument.
The OP picture isn't going to rise in MY estimation, if I see the original. I EXPECT to see more.
An original turd has more to see than a reproduction. But it's still a turd.
I can assure you of that you from experience.

And I can assure you that you're wrong about that in terms of Rothko. Now, the information you do get from the reproduction may be so distasteful to you that you have no desire to see the original. That's fine. But given your experience, you should know that different works will lose different amounts in translation to reproductions. And that can really vary quite a lot.

[Audley Strange]

W/R to seeing the actual works. When team Strange were in Amsterdam last year I went to the Van Goch Gallery with a deeply enthused Lady Strange, who at the time considered Van Goch and Picasso (who was luckily on display also) with the mentality of them being half assed daubings. I wouldn't say she came away utterly converted, but she did appreciate both the talent and work that went into some of the canvases.

[orpheus]

 :fp:

A) The cosmos, beautiful though it is, is not art. We can appreciate it aesthetically, sure. But "art" is related to the word "artifice" for a reason. I have a fascinating book that has reproductions of Cezanne's landscape paintings, and on facing pages photographs of the actual landscapes themselves. Often both are beautiful, but in their own ways. You can see that he was trying to make something quite different than an attempt at a literal reproduction. That's not to denigrate the real, but to say that it's "art" is the same sort of vocabulary distortion as saying (pace Spinoza) the universe is god.

I certainly know what you mean here. When I was in the National Gallery one day they had an exhibition of Polish art. There was one particular painting of a frozen waterfall at night and, although I haven't seen it, I swear it was more haunting, looming and beautiful than the real thing. I looked at it for quite a while. Moving in and out looking at details and looking back at the whole. 

That to me is real art and although you assert seeing a Rothko in real life would have that same captivating quality I have to admit severe skepticism. That Polish painting, I don't know the person's name. Kicking myself I didn't take it down. I didn't, like I never do, know what was on in the National Gallery when I walked in that day. It was completely serendipitous. A Rothko just looks like something I would walk by and not even notice without someone having to explain to me that it is in fact art and not a whim of an interior designer. I think it was Gandhi who said art shouldn't have to be explained.

Well, all his great qualities in other areas doesn't mean Gandhi knew much about art.

But actually I agree with him on this. It doesn't have to be explained. In fact, it can't, really. If art gives you an aesthetic experience you cannot get in any other way, that also means you cannot translate that experience into words. Now, that doesn't mean explanations can't be helpful pointers (though they're often pretentious, obscurantist bullshit, as I readily concede). 

By the way, I too might walk by a Rothko without noticing it. As I said, one of the special things about his work is that it takes time to deliver its impact. And it doesn't call attention to itself at first, so it is easy to miss. Totally unlike, say, a Twombly, which reaches out and grabs you. Or some of Giacometti's figures from the early '60s: small though the heads are, they immediately suck your eyeballs to them the minute you walk in the room. (At least, that's true for me and for many others. Of course, YMMV.) You still need to devote time to these; they're  complex enough to reward repeated investigation, but they do initially grab you in a way Rothko's paintings don't. 

I wish I knew the name of the artist  whose painting you mention. It sounds familiar.

[orpheus]

Ok, all. I'm going to have to take a break for a while today, and actually work on some art. I told my wife about this thread and how involved I've gotten, and she reminded me that I do actually have a deadline to meet for a piece I'm working on.

More later.