Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Svartalf]

Kandisky is... unpleasant to mine eyes... A friend of mine swears by him and Macke (and he had his Klimt period)... I'll admit to extremely academic tastes, like the works of Gustav Adolph Bouguereau, who is soothing if not quite deep (then again, not everybody can be Rembrandt or Botticelli)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I know some people don't like his stuff, and that's cool. I understand that subjective taste can't be held to objective standards.

I think that's a big reason this thread exists at all, in one sense, because a price-tag is an objective metric.

My tastes in art are mostly conventional, and reflect no great intellect on my part. I know what I like, and that's good enough for me. I spent five years managing a custom-framing shop, so I did see many of the major works. I share Mack's and 'Zilla's skepticism about art criticism, though not nearly to the extent they do, but at the end of it all, I don't give a shit whether some jerkoff in New York or Paris thinks I'm a bumpkin because I think Rothko is overrated.

My tastes are mine, and I make no apologies for them to anyone, especially some critic I don't know from Adam's housecat.

[hadespussercats]

I don''t understand why the folks who don't care for what they've dubbed "modern art" (although the art under discussion is not modern) are so defensive about not liking any of it.

I love the Rothko in the OP. I think most of what I see in galleries today is crap.

I think most of the work done in any period is crap, actually. The danger is that the best pieces, the "masterpieces," are what end up being saved, reproduced, and shown-- so it's easy for someone today to forget that what they're seeing from ages past is the best that was culled from the herd. Then they go on to compare that best with the full range from crap to genius of what's been produced since the turn of the twentieth century.

At any rate, it's entirely possible to dislike a piece of art without it being a statement about yourself or your intelligence. But in this thread I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

Go ahead and dislike it. But why do you have to feel so threatened by it?

(Incidentally, I think that fact this art makes some people feel threatened and belligerent may be a testament to its value. But that's secondary to the point I'm making.)

[Hermit]

I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

That's rather a sweeping statement. I don't like any of Rothko's works that I have seen, but if I displayed any belligerence in regard to him in particular or modern art in general, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

[hadespussercats]

I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

That's rather a sweeping statement. I don't like any of Rothko's works that I have seen, but if I displayed any belligerence in regard to him in particular or modern art in general, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Not so sweeping that I named you, right?

[Hermit]

I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

That's rather a sweeping statement. I don't like any of Rothko's works that I have seen, but if I displayed any belligerence in regard to him in particular or modern art in general, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Not so sweeping that I named you, right?

Referring to "the people who don't like Rothko" is as sweeping as a statement gets.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don''t understand why the folks who don't care for what they've dubbed "modern art" (although the art under discussion is not modern) are so defensive about not liking any of it.

I love the Rothko in the OP. I think most of what I see in galleries today is crap.

I think most of the work done in any period is crap, actually. The danger is that the best pieces, the "masterpieces," are what end up being saved, reproduced, and shown-- so it's easy for someone today to forget that what they're seeing from ages past is the best that was culled from the herd. Then they go on to compare that best with the full range from crap to genius of what's been produced since the turn of the twentieth century.

At any rate, it's entirely possible to dislike a piece of art without it being a statement about yourself or your intelligence. But in this thread I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

Go ahead and dislike it. But why do you have to feel so threatened by it?

(Incidentally, I think that fact this art makes some people feel threatened and belligerent may be a testament to its value. But that's secondary to the point I'm making.)

I'm not sure if your post here was aimed at my statement preceding it, but if it was, please rest assured that I don't feel that anyone here has treated me ill because of any expression of opinion on my part. Y'all are a cool bunch of people and I love rich discussions like this.

But I will say that Rothko's art doesn't "threaten" me; no art does. I'm not so much defensive about my tastes as I am unconcerned with someone else's opinion of my taste. But the condescension of folk who believe that because I don't like it, I'm uncultured -- that would be annoying, if it were to happen to me. I've seen a snob or two online, but they don't really count, to me. I'm comfortable in my own skin and don't worry myself over anonymous opinion.

I'm not anti-abstract art. I just know what I like and am not afraid to voice that opinion.

[hadespussercats]

I see so much belligerence on the part of the people who don't like Rothko, or any other work that's been done in paint since the mid-nineteenth century.

That's rather a sweeping statement. I don't like any of Rothko's works that I have seen, but if I displayed any belligerence in regard to him in particular or modern art in general, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Not so sweeping that I named you, right?

Referring to "the people who don't like Rothko" is as sweeping as a statement gets.

I didn't mean all the people who don't like Rothko. And I didn't mean you. Actually, I particularly didn't mean you.

Or Thump, for that matter. Particularly since I'd thought, from your previous comments, that you enjoyed the work in the OP, if not the artist's entire oeuvre.

[Pappa]

Can somebody show me some works that aren't famous, but you like?

I've seen loads, but I'd have a lot of trouble remembering the names of any of the artists or finding examples online. Whenever I go to a gallery I intentionally refrain from looking at the name of the artist, title and description until after I've spent a bit of time looking at the work specifically because I'd rather form my own opinion on the work without the baggage.

[Animavore]

In fairness I never side Rothko was "crap". Just that it was simple. It does look nice but those colours generally do together. It's just not 87million nice as far as I'm concerned. Though if I'm fair, nothing is to me

[mistermack]

I'm not saying that I don't like Rothko, or any abstract art. Out of 100 abstracts, you might like some and dislike others, at random.
I don't think painting something people will instantly like is high up on many artists' list of priorities.

I doubt that the OP Rothko picture was painted with "liking" in mind. I don't see anything to like or dislike particularly.
You might use it to hide a stain on a wall I suppose.
But as the OP pointed out, a child could easily paint something similar.

The thread has gone on for a long time, but nobody's explained why a child couldn't paint it, or why it's better than a similar one that WAS painted by a child.

I would admire it more if it HAD been painted by a child.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can somebody show me some works that aren't famous, but you like?

I've seen loads, but I'd have a lot of trouble remembering the names of any of the artists or finding examples online. Whenever I go to a gallery I intentionally refrain from looking at the name of the artist, title and description until after I've spent a bit of time looking at the work specifically because I'd rather form my own opinion on the work without the baggage.

So you base your opinion on personal experience and taste and not on the fame of the artist. That's good. It is bad that people think a painting is good because it was done by someone famous.

[Svartalf]

Picasso is ugly crap.
and I should know, his museum is less than 10 mn walk from my home... been dragged there a couple times too often for my taste.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Picasso is ugly crap.
and I should know, his museum is less than 10 mn walk from my home... been dragged there a couple times too often for my taste.

All crap, or just the stuff done after he got famous? (This watershed has been noted more than once with regard to "famous" artists.)

[Robert_S]

Picasso is ugly crap.
and I should know, his museum is less than 10 mn walk from my home... been dragged there a couple times too often for my taste.

All crap, or just the stuff done after he got famous? (This watershed has been noted more than once with regard to "famous" artists.)

That's just hipsters who try to gain status for knowing them before they were cool.