/lit/ - Literature

>>6356230
remember that he dealt only with tragedy and drama

>>6356230
seems about right.

>Corporate asset accumulation offset against capital gains and required zero cash-flow taxation.

$86,882,500 wasn't spent on a painting, it was saved through increasing the collective asset valuation of the company or individual buying it. They also would have avoided paying $43,441,250 CG tax.

>>6356230

>>6356230
You wouldn't be able to realise just how difficult it would be to create a subtle blend of colours like that
>muh 50kb jpg

You think I could exchange it for, let's say, 1200 rare pepes?

I know you want to 'subtly' point out how cuh-razy contemporary art is and how we're all admiring the emperor's new clothes, but concluding anything from the mere pricetag of a work is ridiculous. There are some classics that change hands for a sum that could feed entire african countries for several months.

>>6356371
But anon it would be a crime to send food aid to Africa

>>6356230
I'm jealous. Really. Fuck. Why can't I...

>>6356230

YOUJUSTDONTUNDERSTANDYOUPLEBSHITLEARN2ARTUSCUMBAGGOBACKTOB

I can sort of see the appeal. Maybe IRL if you stand at the right spot it looks cool and leaves an impression...but then its only function is to be a very expensive lava lamp.

>>6356230
Rothko has always inspired a certain anxiety in me, but a contemplative one. His shades bring forth ideas of similarity but they begin to drift apart in color the longer you look at them. and then like magic, they reform. A Rothko painting can provide a powerful meditative experience.

>>6357371
Not to sound like a snob or anything, but it does. Then again, that applies to any painting, and it goes both ways honestly. I've known people who have gone to see the Mona Lisa and been disappointed.

Same with Van Gough's portrait, though I disagree on that, I love it.

>>6357269
Basically this.

what is the book equivalent of modern art

And people died 300 years ago because they didn't paint the monarch the way he wanted, no one is saying that a painting is more valuable than a human life (or just as useful to things like cleaning or working a farm). The value that people put on objects isn't the fault of the object, the author or the institution around the object.

>>6357502
You have to remember that the Mona Lisa actually became a "must see" painting after it was stolen, copied everywhere and maybe returned. It was a PR thing that made it, before that you didn't have to take a special line to see it with a guard on a say telling you to move after a few seconds.

>>6357502
>I've known people who have gone to see the Mona Lisa and been disappointed.
Anybody who knows anything at all about art knows that the Mona Lisa is absolutely unremarkable and artistically unimportant. It's a magnet for plebs, making a big deal out of the Mona Lisa automatically marks you as a philistine.

>>6356280
This dude is right.

Modern 'art' isn't really art, it's nothing but a clever tax loophole for very rich people.

I've been thinking about this for a long time.

Rothko's stuff and ''abstract'' art in general is utter philistine trash, so how easy would it be, in today's world, to become the art world's equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard? To paint something with the sole intent to acquire money? What's the kind of modern art that people pay beaucoup bucks for?

>>6357629
>Modern 'art' isn't really art, it's nothing but a clever tax loophole for very rich people.
Do the artists get paid for becoming tax loopholes? Do they know they're being used or do they think their art is actually valuable?

I get the general theory behind using art as a tax laundering scheme but I am not sure about the particulars.

>>6357642
I'm sorry mate, you're the pleb thinking he can get into things way above their head. Painters actually do this from their heart, there is no ironic statement or tongue in cheek aspiration. And they usually die poor and hated. The people making all this money made it by being born in the right family and having the right connections, then they get an accountant they met at Yale who tells them they can turn tax money into assets by paying as much as they can for famous paintings previously bought by an NGO owned by their company at a much safer price.
There is no money for you, not only that but you're failing the grasp the happiness and fulfillment that everyone in the process found, so you aren't even enjoying life as much as they did. I'm sorry.

>>6357642
Since you seem to have modern art all figured, it shouldn't present such a problem to ask about it on laotian kabuki theater forum, eh faggot?

>>6357658
>I get the general theory behind using art as a tax laundering scheme but I am not sure about the particulars.
You don't get anything, you heard it and it sounded okay to you as a justification of how someone may do something you don't get.

read >>6357662

>>6357642
Protip, every piece of 'modern art' was painted with the sole intent to acquire money. Rothko included.

>>6357658
>Do the artists get paid for becoming tax loopholes?
Yes. Rothko was rich, for example.

>>6357662
>you're failing the grasp the happiness and fulfillment that everyone in the process found
The big wigs get their money laundered almost tax free. The "artists" get loads of money for no effort and get to laugh at all the other artists who are poor, and laugh even harder at critics who desperately try to justify to themselves why frauds are meaningful.

It's not hard to see how happy and fulfilled everyone in the process is. If I got millions for shoving some paints on a canvas or got all my drug money to magically become legal, I would be pretty happy and fulfilled too.

>>6357667
Whoa, no need to get so defensive. I'm an inquisitive person and I wanted the opinion of my friends on this forum.

>>6357662
You don't have to apologize, friend. I've already had some success with the kind of thing I described, but I want to go bigger, I want to get richer. A recent thing I did was very heavy on vaginal imagery plus criticism of globalism and Republicans (all of which are very in vogue right now with the philistines), and got 25k from it.

But again, I want to go bigger.

>>6357676
I don't know if that's necessarily true.

>>6357624
I bet you subscribe to the Frankfurt Schools theories about art you gommie

>>6357687
The artist are usually dead, newfriend, it seems as if you haven't heard about many expensive paintings.

>>6357690
Living artists only go big by getting hooked with NGOs tied to big companies. It's easy to see if one is just a front by checking how they like receiving their donations. If it's through a well known front or directly a big business, then you're in luck.
Still, millionaire paintings are all about connections. Unless you're dead, then it's all about the connections the owner of your work has.

>>6357690
>But again, I want to go bigger.
If you have the extra time, you should probably invest a lot into making a brand name for yourself instead of just making bad art. Having a memorable name and persona is probably just as, if not more important, than actually doing the artwork. Figure out a cool gimmick.

>>6357704
>usually
So not always. So people are doing what I said. So nothing changes.

Thanks for the clarification.

>>6357701
Nope, I dislike their take on film. I do recognize them as a key historical point in our understanding of masses and democratization of art. Adorno wasn't a hack, but I dislike most of his ideas.

Are you the guy insisting on tying Hibari-kun to communism?

That's the price people will pay to seem cultured. What's actually on the canvas has never mattered.

>>6357713
Yes, one i the top 60, Jasper Johns. You just have to become common law married to a wealthy entrepreneur and suck every cock in every possible scene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

>>6357706
nice meme

>>6357706
get mad christcuck

>>6356303
This was actually displayed in a gallery.

http://www.kunsthallesanktgallen.ch/en/3/events/the-darknet-in-zusammenarbeit-mit-mediengruppe-bitnik-c280fb8c.html

>>6357795
That second example is actually a pretty hilarious fuck-you statement. I obviously don't think anyone should pay for it, but the act of putting it in a gallery is really funny.

>>6357795
>tfw I'm crying right now at the glorious beauty of that artwork

>>6357795
Holy shit, I study at St. Gallen, how did I miss that.

it makes as much sense as the market in figurative art

paul bloom

>>6356230
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream

>The fourth version (pastel, 1895) was sold for $119,922,600 at Sotheby's Impressionist and Modern Art auction on 2 May 2012 to financier Leon Black,[3][4]
>was sold for $119,922,600

>>6357823
And? That one you can't even pretend you could have/would have made it.

>>6357827
or that the painter got a cent

>>6357843
Well it's a unique low-supply item (which can never be properly remade) that many people would love to have. All it takes is two rich people wanting it to drive up prices.

>>6357823
Munch was amazing.

You're a fuckup.

>>6357417
That's lazy shit though. If you stare at wood long enough it can evoke some meditative experience. Why pay 80k for that.

>>6357827
The point is that art is never quantifiable into currency.

You can say that the Mona Lisa or The Scream are more aesthetically valuable than the shit you posted, but that would just be opinion, as is all art, pure subjectivity.

>>6357868
>Munch was amazing.

Never said he wasn't you fucking faggot. The point is that an artpiece is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

>>6357883
but those people were tricked into it by capitalism and sabbatean-frankist cultural marxists i-it's not fair!!!!!!!!

>>6357892
If anythign marx and the FS would be completely against paying absurd amounts of money for art, it should be free for everyone to experience. The later considered that instead of giving the masses a cheap pop simile of art they should have constant access to high art to be properly revolutionarized, I don't see how anyone could be mad about that.

>>6357892
>but those people were tricked into it by capitalism and sabbatean-frankist cultural marxists i-it's not fair!!!!!!!!

wut

>>6357823
I love Munch.

>>6357908
>>6357928
he's joking, I just don't know what's the people he wants to insult or the meaning he wants to convey so it feels as if he must be sincere. Isn't that called rule of Poe or something like that?

>>6357940
He's making fun of both the people who blame capitalism and the people who blame marxism/Frankfurt School for the Grand Global Culture Conspiracy.

>>6357908

We get it now, Hibari is a dude

>>6357957
I don't see why you mention that but I was never trying to hide that.

>>6357417

this. Anyone who's actually seen one of Rothko's color fields understands their value. Judging an art piece based on an online jpg. is like arguing about a book when you've only read the wikipedia summary.

itt: teenagers who've never seen modern art in person

>my realism
>modern art no skill XD

Your fedoras are getting BTFO, plebs, eh?

>>6358014
>>6358024
this has happened at no point in the thread. it's no surprise that every art thread goes the same way if people like you post the same no matter what's been discussed.

>>6358024
sure, pic related saw this thread and is probably sad now and might even quit painting and become a second hitler

>>6358035
Alright, what have you lads discussed about that my comment is inappropriate for?

>>6357795
>i'll be there in 30 minutes
hahaha i remember this it was a nice day it took a while but that stand fell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

you've gotta watch out for those standards or one might fall over your head!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>>6357605
what animu is that

>>6358156
the adventures of the boy who wouldn't understand.

>>6358156

Looks like evangelion

>>6358156
finnegans wake

>>6357706
>b-but muh mannerism

Get fucked, Raphaelite.

>>6356280
Oh man, please explain this more for a pleb like me

>>6358118

I like how it has such subtle variations as it plummets. I can't help but wonder if the scholars responsible for this video tracked back through time and graphed it based on what art sold for how much money and how shitty or good was the art in question before finally brushing over everything past the 60s and thus discrediting their own opinions on art by claiming there are 0 standards now.

>>6358397
When you see someone's value you're not seeing how much money they have in the bank or under their pillow, it's the assets in their power. If you buy an 80 million dollar painting you now are valued 80 million dollars more, even if you're actually broke. That way you can make yourself or your company look more appealing to new investors.
Regular joes do it with houses, some with bling, but it's all the same.

>>6358417
>and how shitty or good was the art in question
the joke is that you can't really do that.
I really like the small peak it does around 1860, I really wonder what they were thinking with that.

>>6358156
Boku no Pico.

>>6358156
Utena is better: The Animation

>>6357803

I wanna do masters there

>>6358118

so you just posted a retarded video clip from prager "university" which is an online non-profit college founded by the extreme right wing radio host and paranoiac dennis prager. cool and super reliable!

>>6358702
it's just so you guys know how dem standards have been falling and anyone who hasn't seen a pollock in their life couldn't recognize one.

I remember once an anon saying he stood under that rock sculpture and it was a pretty cool feeling and experience.

>>6356230
>/lit/ - Literature

>>6358118
that apron looks nothing like a pollock lol
>mon-ay
i hate when people pretend to pronounce french name and then do that stupid sound.
his paintings are mediocre at best and that's not even a real university lmao.

>price
>value

>>6358864
one could post adorno and keet the text and meaning.

>>6358864
yes, that is what price means

>>6358864
>50 ore

If only books were that cheap today Jesus Christ.

>>6358873
No, friend, even in marginalism "price" is used as a proxy for value.

my psychiatrist had a poster of that one until I told her rothko commited suicide and she took it away.

it would be insanely badass to have a $50mil.+ painting behind you in your office liek david rockefeller had. you can't get that kind of cachet even with wachtches planes or yachts

other collectors and saatchi and galgosian and christies etc will have other rothko's and benefit by driving up the price of one insanely high, then dumping the rest on Chinese billionaires, rinse and repeat lol.

>>6356230
It looks like a woman's body.

>>6357706
>technical difficulty
infinite kek

>>6357629
>Mona Lisa is absolutely unremarkable and artistically unimportant.

Trying so hard to look smart on 4chan of all places.

>>6357706
not a single rebuttal to the image, lol

>>6359386
You don't rebut the man pissing himself on the train, covered in his own vomit. You move carriages.

>>6359403
>You don't rebut the man pissing himself on the train, covered in his own vomit.
Someone pissing himself on the train covered in his own vomit sounds like a good summation of contemporary art.

>>6359384
The Mona Lisa is famous because of the exciting art heist story connected to it. Artistically it's no different than the other 2000 generic works of renaissance art.

>>6359403
Buy some Buttblastine for that hurt, son.

>>6356230
you may like that painting, but it was actually done by HITLER

>>6358007
>Anyone who's actually seen one of Rothko's color fields understands their value.
I've 'actually seen' one, and it has absolutely no value. Yes, modern artificial dyes are amazing, thanks to the wonders of chemistry. What the fuck does that have to do with Rothko?? Rothko wasn't a chemist inventing dyes.

>>6359507

lol you know nothing about pigments.
stop pretending faggot, these aren't synthetic
just heavy metals and earth colours.

>>6357706
>arguably some Surrealist art has some merit as well
God, what a prick

>>6359411
It's not a very informed info-graph, anon. Please don't post it again.

>>6356230
Ah, Rothko's Rusty Metal Plate #2

>$15,000,000

>>6359519
>these aren't synthetic
>just heavy metals and earth colours.
a) Heavy metals are only found in synthetic pigments.
b) Color hue has nothing to do with being synthetic. In fact, most natural dyes have bright hues, we only figured out how to make reliable 'earth color' hues with modern chemistry.

>>6359524
I didn't post it, and I have serious problems with it (cropping, demotivationals) but on the whole it is correct. There are plenty of striking images that cannot be reproduced with a camera, especially with the stylizations of various artistic periods. But proponents of contemporary art always trot out the "cameras exist!" line.

I don't exactly care to be informed about the subtleties of the Emperor's new clothes. Your identity requires you to appreciate how the sun makes it SEEM like he isn't wearing anything, while the actual costume is very elaborate, and if you would just clap your hands and believe etc., and I can appreciate it from a distance. But let's be real for a second, the only value contemporary art has is it's use in the money laundering scheme already described.

>>6356230
>implying Rothko is contemporary art

Rothko has been dead for 45 years, and that painting is over half a century old.

>>6359618
>it's
ಠ_ಠ

But yeah, the only reason people fawn over modern art is the fact that it is megabucks of money in highly concentrated form. Money has a profoundly powerful magnetism, especially money in such concentration; a Rothko painting, gram-by-gram, is more expensive than gold or cocaine or most any other substance on Earth. The other bullshit reason people cite ("bbut look at it in person, such power, such conceptual", etc.) is just primitive and most plebeian rationalization.

>>6359618
Money laundering?
It's not compeletly wrong, but it's kinda dumb too.
The wealthy just dig the goofy and sometimes ugly shit. You've heard about that woman with an actual Jackson Pollack that the art world wont buy from her at the value they give that stuff, right? It is a scam, but not all contemporary art is shit.
The not-so-underground "pleb shit" enjoys a healthy followoing too.

>>6357795

>>6357870
That's 80 million, not 80k.

>>6359618
>proponents of contemporary art always trot out the "cameras exist!" line

I've never argued this. I've also never seen it used here. If you dug out many examples from the archive (not just one or two, you said ALWAYS trot the line out), I might concede the point.

The "money laundering" idea is absurd for reasons I laid out in a previous thread (will repost here if really necessary), and is different from the tax-loophole argument another anon mentioned earlier in the thread, which is something I actually find more plausible.

I did a half-assed job in a previous thread when that macro was posted, but can make a more in-depth reply as well.

Finally, Rothko and abstract expressionism hardly reflect what's going on in fine art today. American abstract expressionism peaked in the 1950s, and most of the famous artists working in that style are dead. Realism, hyperrealism, and neo-classicism have all been in resurgence. Gottfried Helnwein, though not a household name, he is still very successful, and is one example of a hyper-realist painter with neo-classical themes. Chuck Close would certainly be a super-star today if he hadn't been paralyzed from the waist down, and continued making his enormously scaled photo-realism portraits. Even with the paralysis, he is nearly a household name. I could continue to name others, but if you aren't aware of them already and you need me to inform you, you only show your ignorance of contemporary art.

>>6359812
>Rothko and abstract expressionism hardly reflect what's going on in fine art today.

lol this

fuckin art plebs

>>6359812
>Gottfried Helnwein
Not a fan of his, but goddamn if this isn't a classic.

>>6359057
Actually most Chinese billionaires don't give a single fuck about Western art.
Yes, they go to Western art museum as tourists, yes they take selfies in front of that Mona Lisa, but that's it, that's just part of the trip.
You have that one Chinese dude who bought a Picasso and a Van Gogh because they are universally well-known even by your standard pleb tourist.
If they had money, the first thing they'd buy is Chinese art, all sorts of Chinese art (except from tombs).
I worked for a major auction house.

>>6356303
how do I scam these morons?

>>6360001
anons bid up the auction without intending to pay. no one was scammed, nor were there any morons.

>>6357803
hueresohn

>>6358118
is this le wrong generation /art/ edition?

>>6358118

If we did have "objectivity in art" this dipshit clearly wouldn't make a buck. Even if he was right that everything is terrible now you couldn't change anything. Why would everyone start painting Jesus again? For what purpose?

>>6359386

Ok.

1. Photography didn't kill realim but it did make a lot of it kinda redundant. Y'know what killed realism? The sheer proliferation of it. Any city in the western world has like three museums full to its exit with shitty realist paintings. Why do we need anymore? Those painting are good but if we're being honest about art and accepting a lot of modern art is shit we also have to accept photohraphs look just as, or even more, impressive as a lot of shit in portrait or classical art galleries.

2. So? This isn't an argument.

3. It doesn't actually refute the idea that modern art is more popular. I tend to find people that hate modern art don't tend to huge patrons of the arts in general.

4. It doesn't even disagree with the idea that realism is boring. It says "Maybe it is boring but that doesn't mean modern art isn't shit."