Any art students out there?

[Guest]

Could someone explain why this is worth 21 million pounds to a collector? I understand that I won't "get" some art, but the artist is still alive and could churn two of these out a day for the rest of his life.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9606098/Painting-owned-by-Eric-Clapton-sells-for-21-million.html

[Wild Bill]

Could someone explain why this is worth 21 million pounds to a collector? I understand that I won't "get" some art, but the artist is still alive and could churn two of these out a day for the rest of his life.

http://www.telegraph...21-million.html

Well, it always has seemed to me that those without any true talent that is popularly recognized have simply found another way to glory - and money!

They form a clique of their own and generate some piece of crap that is presented as having some value that only an elite (themselves!) can appreciate. People with more money than brains can talk about it as if they actually understand it, since when there is really nothing there then anything positive can be taken at face value.

Criticism can be dismissed with an ad hominem attack on the "sophistication" of the critic!

It's sort of an "emperor has no clothes" thing. Everyone wants to belong to the elite that supposedly appreciates the "art". Sooner or later a mark comes along with money!

Rich people have always made very good marks for this sort of thing! The artistic community always puts rich people down as "uncultured". The only way the rich mark can be classed as "cultured" is with giving money into the artistic community!

So defensive and insecure rich people are fooled into spending 21 million pounds for a piece of crap that virtually never has any true value.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Wild Bill

[msj]

Well, it always has seemed to me that those without any true talent that is popularly recognized have simply found another way to glory - and money!

They form a clique of their own and generate some piece of crap that is presented as having some value that only an elite (themselves!) can appreciate. People with more money than brains can talk about it as if they actually understand it, since when there is really nothing there then anything positive can be taken at face value.

Criticism can be dismissed with an ad hominem attack on the "sophistication" of the critic!

It's sort of an "emperor has no clothes" thing. Everyone wants to belong to the elite that supposedly appreciates the "art". Sooner or later a mark comes along with money!

Rich people have always made very good marks for this sort of thing! The artistic community always puts rich people down as "uncultured". The only way the rich mark can be classed as "cultured" is with giving money into the artistic community!

So defensive and insecure rich people are fooled into spending 21 million pounds for a piece of crap that virtually never has any true value.

I'm always amused when someone uses the ad hominem line of argument when, in effect, your entire argument is an ad hominem attack.

Edited October 13, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Could someone explain why this is worth 21 million pounds to a collector? I understand that I won't "get" some art, but the artist is still alive and could churn two of these out a day for the rest of his life.

http://www.telegraph...21-million.html

I certainly can't explain this.

As someone who has gone to Art Galleries consistently over the years I can certainly appreciate the beauty of this piece - but then the colours are appealing to me.

As to the value: well, that often depends on many factors such as how much money one has, the name of the artist etc etc.

My wife could probably do a fine job of explaining this picture but she would prefer to see it as an original and she refuses to "argue" on the internet.

I remember when we bought our first original piece of art. It was only about $1,800 or so and it's not as nearly as abstract as the above.

We bought it because we like the artist, because he was my wife's art teacher back in the day, and because of a family connection to the subject matter.

My dad could understand those reasons but didn't like the picture until the wife explained how to appreciate it (which is too difficult to try to explain in a forum without a picture so I save Wild Bill from my elitist ways ).

[msj]

My wife could probably do a fine job of explaining this picture but she would prefer to see it as an original and she refuses to "argue" on the internet.

Well, the wife may not want to argue over the internet but I showed her the picture and she had a few things to say:

No, an artist can't churn out two of these a day for the rest of his life. It's not as easy and random as people think. (I would add that to do so would devalue the work to some extent anyway).

The painting was owned by Eric Clapton which adds to its value (why, don't ask me, but I do like his music prior to that damn song "Tears in Heaven")

Many ultra rich people wouldn't blink twice at spending that much on a diamond which is just another form of art. Of course, diamonds, in general, are less rare than this painting and often coated in blood so why so much value on a piece of compressed carbon is beyond her (well, it isn't actually beyond her - she understands the marketing gimmickry and monopoly/duopoly control of the market to set prices absurdly high).

[cybercoma]

I think the "churning out two a day" comment was a bit silly. It's not as easy as it seems.

I would like to see this in real life rather than on the internet too. The texture of a painting is almost always as important as the way it looks in 2 dimensions.

[Guest]

I think the "churning out two a day" comment was a bit silly. It's not as easy as it seems.

Sorry. Two a week.

[msj]

Sorry. Two a week.

Sounds like envy to me. If only all of us could be so productive.

[Guest American Woman]

There's actually a film about how he makes a painting -

[Guest]

Sounds like envy to me. If only all of us could be so productive.

I'd settle for the money...

[BC_chick]

Same reason people buy $3million shoes or $1billion homes.

[Mr.Canada]

I just made on in the garage this afternoon with the kids. I'll be loading it up to the nearest auction house.

[wyly]

two of my kids are fine art students, one headed toward a career in animation/computer graphics the other advertising/publishing...so in regards to the op I know there is a lot involved in the concept and in the development of contemporary art, it’s more than paint smeared on a canvas, watching my kids go through the process as part of their curriculum was a revelation for me, it was my “now, I get it moment”...what many people aren’t aware of is an artist like Picasso for example were capable “conventional” artists but went beyond that into art the layman doesn’t understand, much like van Gogh was waaaay beyond contemporary art of his day it took a long time before the rest of the world appreciated his art...

and as someone has pointed out value is relative, I’d never pay millions for a stamp but wealthy stamp collectors do, I’d never pay 100+K for 70’s muscle car but gear heads do...

edit: asked one of my artists what she thought..."meh, I understand what it's about and the process but I'd never pay that much" ...

Edited October 20, 2012 by wyly