Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Clinton Huxley]

It's either a pyramid of testicles that the detractors don't get OR it's a fantastic and sublime piece of pigmentary wizardry. There's only one way to decide, once and for all time which it is. And that's with a poll.

What people seem to miss is that the experience of art is a subjective one. A poll won't resolve anything.

There are too many rationalists on this forum!

I was joking

[Robert_S]

It seems to me that one can like the piece in the OP without getting anything at all ... assuming you can simply look at it from the standpoint of the play of color in your eyes and no higher meaning or message, which it doesn't seem to have.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at something and simply saying, "That's pretty, I like that."

I don't think that's intellectual enough to qualify as getting it, but what does it matter anyway? Art is an inherently subjective field, and if I like something, that's good enough for me.

Well, you could apply that to any object. Why bother with art?
My foot is pretty. I like it. So is the tree outside.
Rothco's paintings come nowhere, in comparison to a photo of a pretty girl.
The question is, do you like it for what's there, or have you been conned?

Wow. You could have been Duchamp, saying that.

Pretty clever. The first time.

What if I set up a bottle tree saying "this is a urinal, of the field"?

Consider the urinals of the field...

[mistermack]

a comment from elsewhere:

'What I find really interesting in all this is the repetition of it all. After all, when JMW Turner first exhibited, he received may of the same criticisms, drawing such comments as 'nothing but daubs!'

I another 100 years or so, will Rothko draw the same reverence that Turner does now?'

Well exactly. Good Point. Turner's work got what it deserved, until the trendies turned their approval his way.
Once enough people got onto his bandwagon, it became "the thing" to "appreciate" Turner.
And yet people swear blind that their own judgement is not influenced by all of that bullshit.

People go into raptures about Van Gough paintings, because they've seen other people doing just that.
Not because they "get it".

[mistermack]

It seems to me that one can like the piece in the OP without getting anything at all ... assuming you can simply look at it from the standpoint of the play of color in your eyes and no higher meaning or message, which it doesn't seem to have.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at something and simply saying, "That's pretty, I like that."

I don't think that's intellectual enough to qualify as getting it, but what does it matter anyway? Art is an inherently subjective field, and if I like something, that's good enough for me.

Well, you could apply that to any object. Why bother with art?
My foot is pretty. I like it. So is the tree outside.
Rothco's paintings come nowhere, in comparison to a photo of a pretty girl.
The question is, do you like it for what's there, or have you been conned?

Wow. You could have been Duchamp, saying that.

Pretty clever. The first time.

I don't know the chap. But, if you're that impressed by the bleedin obvious, then we might be heading towards an answer in your case.

[hadespussercats]

It seems to me that one can like the piece in the OP without getting anything at all ... assuming you can simply look at it from the standpoint of the play of color in your eyes and no higher meaning or message, which it doesn't seem to have.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at something and simply saying, "That's pretty, I like that."

I don't think that's intellectual enough to qualify as getting it, but what does it matter anyway? Art is an inherently subjective field, and if I like something, that's good enough for me.

Well, you could apply that to any object. Why bother with art?
My foot is pretty. I like it. So is the tree outside.
Rothco's paintings come nowhere, in comparison to a photo of a pretty girl.
The question is, do you like it for what's there, or have you been conned?

Wow. You could have been Duchamp, saying that.

Pretty clever. The first time.

I don't know the chap. But, if you're that impressed by the bleedin obvious, then we might be heading towards an answer in your case.

You think that sounded impressed?

[Rum]

It seems to me that one can like the piece in the OP without getting anything at all ... assuming you can simply look at it from the standpoint of the play of color in your eyes and no higher meaning or message, which it doesn't seem to have.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at something and simply saying, "That's pretty, I like that."

I don't think that's intellectual enough to qualify as getting it, but what does it matter anyway? Art is an inherently subjective field, and if I like something, that's good enough for me.

Well, you could apply that to any object. Why bother with art?
My foot is pretty. I like it. So is the tree outside.
Rothco's paintings come nowhere, in comparison to a photo of a pretty girl.
The question is, do you like it for what's there, or have you been conned?

Wow. You could have been Duchamp, saying that.

Pretty clever. The first time.

I don't know the chap. But, if you're that impressed by the bleedin obvious, then we might be heading towards an answer in your case.

You have very strong opinions on Art but you have never heard of Duchamp? Perhaps you should read and view a bit more widely before making your very generalised pronouncements.

[Svartalf]

Honestly, Duchamp's views on art were pretty surrealist (both proper and common usage).

[mistermack]

You have very strong opinions on Art but you have never heard of Duchamp? Perhaps you should read and view a bit more widely before making your very generalised pronouncements.

Orpheus says don't criticise a picture till you've seen it in the flesh.
You say don't criticise modern art until you know all of the artists.

It seems to me that criticism is the problem. It's not approved of, frowned on, looked down on.
Why is that I wonder? It gets more like religion all the time.

Religion ..............................................Modern Art
You lack faith.........................................You don't get it
You haven't seen the pic............................You haven't experienced god
You haven't read the bible.........................You haven't read and viewed widely enough

If he'd said "Urinal Man" I would have known who Duchamp was.
This is from Wiki :

The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. - Marcel Duchamp[8]

It seems that Duchamp and I DO share some opinions. I said the same as the above a few times, in different words.
According to Wiki, he wasn't the most prolific artist, but he had a major influence on western artistic taste. So if anybody knew what's what, it was him.

I would say that the above quote from him means much the same as what I said. Most of the quality is in your own head, not in the painting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, I think knowing a little about the topic is useful.

[hackenslash]

Turner's work got what it deserved,

Case closed. You don't get it.

Turner was a genius.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[mistermack]

Turner's work got what it deserved,

Case closed. You don't get it.
Turner was a genius.

Yeh yeh yeh. There are so many geniuses. Slap a bit of paint around, and you're a genius. If you're in fashion, that is.

It makes you wonder why all the geniuses went into painting. What was the attraction to geniuses, of daubing paint on canvas? Monkeys and elephants can do it.

I think that people like Turner could see the writing on the wall for proper painting, because of the growth of drawing aids and very early cameras, so they gave up trying to compete, and went for painting mood rather than things.
People like Turner spent years learning to draw perspective, and then along comes the camera, and anybody can do it.

[Clinton Huxley]

Elephants can paint like Turner? They're wasted in th circus....

[Rum]

You have very strong opinions on Art but you have never heard of Duchamp? Perhaps you should read and view a bit more widely before making your very generalised pronouncements.

Orpheus says don't criticise a picture till you've seen it in the flesh.
You say don't criticise modern art until you know all of the artists.

It seems to me that criticism is the problem. It's not approved of, frowned on, looked down on.
Why is that I wonder? It gets more like religion all the time.

Religion ..............................................Modern Art
You lack faith.........................................You don't get it
You haven't seen the pic............................You haven't experienced god
You haven't read the bible.........................You haven't read and viewed widely enough

If he'd said "Urinal Man" I would have known who Duchamp was.
This is from Wiki :

The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. - Marcel Duchamp[8]

It seems that Duchamp and I DO share some opinions. I said the same as the above a few times, in different words.
According to Wiki, he wasn't the most prolific artist, but he had a major influence on western artistic taste. So if anybody knew what's what, it was him.

I would say that the above quote from him means much the same as what I said. Most of the quality is in your own head, not in the painting.

You can criticise art as much as you like. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how ill informed and uneducated. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum though and being educated about it, as I am having gone to art college, gives you a different perspective and frankly a more informed one.

Say what you like, just don't be expected to be taken seriously.

And Turner, one of my all time favorites was a fucking genius.

[Svartalf]

Elephants can paint like Turner? They're wasted in th circus....

Ever hear of the art hoax called "Sunset on the Adriatic" by Joachim-Raphaël Boronali?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boronali would you believe that the painting was made by a donkey with a brush tied to its tail?

and I must admit I am ill placed to appreciate Turner fully, but honestly, I don't appreciate him... that's the painter famous for his skies, right?