This is the most valuable painting ever sold. Is it good?
>>2553831
I like it from a purely abstract aesthetic.
Keep in mind that the monetary value of an image is not the same as the quality of the painting. Things like politics, money laundering, bidding wars, historical context, name branding etc all come into play.
The Mona Lisa is the most valuable painting in existence but it's only worth as much as it is because it has the perfect storm of a history behind it and it has entered a pop icon status.
its pretty cool
>Is it good?
Fuck no, not even by abstract non-standards.
>>2553852
Shit taste, low-IQ dupe.
>>2553860
people laugh at you
>>2553967
>abstractfags
>people
>>2553990
You're using art students. I agree they are not people.
Even if you disregard the price and look at it just for itself, it is not unenjoyable to look it, imo. It does not look interesting from far away, i dont like how dirty it looks it is overall just a mess. Nothing more.
Even pic related is more aesthetic.
>>2553831
Not true, paintings sold at lower prices decades prior could be resold today for a higher price than that de Kooning. you might mean "this is the most expensive painting anyone has paid for".
And yeah, it's pretty fucking awesome. Would hang in living room/10
>>2555263
>shit washed out colors
>shit values, contrast almost non-existent
>not even a hint of even the most esoteric and usefully vague artistic fundamentals like composition
>nothing that otherwise might distinguish it from something a caged monkey or elephant would do when placated with artistic media
>...but it's a de Kooning© and anyone who's anyone knows that he was 'one of the greats'
>"it's pretty fucking awesome"
What a tool
>>2555280
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE. jpg
jesus fucking christ, could you cry a little bit more for me?
>>2555300
This picture of a juicy rabbit's ass in my post right now has more artistic merit even as an abstraction than anything de Faggot ever did lmoa
>>2555344
I like everything from de Kooning to Shishkin, and this clearly upsets you. Stay mad furry, won't change a thing on my end.
>>2553831
Better than 100% of /ic/
>>2555377
not tru abstract a shit check this bowl I drew today
>>2553990
>the satisfaction you get when you realise /ic/ faggots will never understand
>>2553831
It is, it has very good feel to it and at the time was very revolutionary.
A bit of explanaiton about the price of de Kooning's paintings: his early paintings are so valuable because he quickly got Alzheimer and there's just so little of them. He was a pioneer of abstract expressionism that defined modernist era and considering how little of his art there is, it is very significant. Also inb4
>modern art
/ic/ can't into differentiating between 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and onwards in art. Hell, nobody on the internet can into differentiating between abstract expressionism and minimalism, between pop-art and neo-expressionism. That's why youtube videos about death of art and how contemporary art sucks are so popular.
>>2555401
>Hell, nobody on the internet can into differentiating between abstract expressionism and minimalism, between pop-art and neo-expressionism.
That says more about the art movements than it says about the people who can't distinguish them
>>2555786
No, it definitely says a lot more about you if you can't tell a Pollock from a Mondrian, or a Warhol from a Basquiat.
>>2555786
if you cant differentiate those art movements, you might want to get yourself checked for brain tumours
>>2555376
You're the one that's going to remain a faggot with shit taste so it makes no difference to me lel
yae
>>2555401
This uncomfortable pseudo-intellectual posturing revolving around the semantic usage of the term "modern art" by laymen as shorthand for stuff much like that dreadful goulash in the OP is the closest thing to an impotent defense of this elephant-tier crap you lot can mount, but no matter how many times you repeat it you're still totally (and likely intentionally) missing the point.
This discussion from the beginning has been taking place between two different groups of people. One group simply does not care in the slightest what derivative "sub-genre" (of which there are nearly as many as there are artists themselves) a specific piece of art supposedly belongs to because they look to the piece itself to discern whether or not they can appreciate it for what it is. The other group seems more concerned with everything other than the piece itself. "Who was the artist?","What was his life like when he made this piece?" "What was happening in the world at the time he'd made this piece?" etc., and this kind of trivia makes up a substantial portion of the enjoyment a person in this group gets out of a piece of art. You'll find that often this is the case because the piece of art itself is incomprehensible shit that would even make the inside of a garbage can look less aesthetic.
It's like you expect the criticism of a piece of art or pieces of art to be reversed once the shocking revelation that it wasn't modern art, but POST-modern art is revealed to the ignorant rube that'd dared to question it. Can you imagine a discussion about music playing out this way?
>"Wow this vaporwave playlist you showed me the other day really sucks, man.
>"ACKTUALLY it's 'future funk'"
>"Knowing that, this music is now great and I am admittedly ignorant. Yes, you certainly showed me the power of insignificant trivia that most normal people couldn't give less of a rat's ass about. I am forever indebted to you"
>>2555929
Typing long-ass rant doesn't make your smuggled half-truths and opinions true.
I can work in allegories too: you are like a guy that thinks drone doom and instrumental prog are same shit because both have guitars and bass. Or that stout, marzen, pilsner, porter, IPA etc. are same shit because they are beer.
Process of making art was important for one art movement called - wait for it - process art. To appreciate abstract expressionism of Pollock or color field of Rothko you only need to not be blind and retarded.
BUT being actually an artist and knowing stuff you said certainly helps in appreciation of ANY art. There's a painting Temptation of St. Anthony in Muzeum Narodowe in Sukiennice by Lucjan Wędrychowski. Sure, you can look at it and see some old dude sitting on the ground in front of fading bonefire and with dark background. But if you'd read the title for a painting maybe, just maybe, you'd try to see where is the object of temptation - and position yourself accordingly so you'll see a woman's face in the smoke.
Or the painting next to it, "Nero's Torches". You'd see only big-ass canvas, some ancient dudes and half-naked ladies looking at half-naked people being strapped to wooden stake. If you are non-retard though you'd scenes from the beginning of christianity and if you know latin, you could actually read on the golden frame quote from the Bible "And the light shines in darkness..."
Sure, it's not necessary, but it helps your sensitivity. Same with abstract art. Problem with it is though that it was aimed for specific audience and thus people generally have trouble with seeing modern and contemporary art. Shame, because you'll need to stand just a bit closer to fuckhuge canvas and be devoured by Rothko colors.
And stop posting student/deviant art tier "abstract" art, you are just making yourself look silly.
>>2555344
MODS
>>2555959
You missed the point.
You're dismissing what he said and calling it a rant when by your standards you are doing the exact same thing. You're not ranting smuggled half-truths and opinions. You're having a discussion, and you're failing to listen, you're dismissing it by trying to act superior.
You missed the point.
It is a great deal more important to have an art degree to experience it, or you just see student/deviant art tier "abstract" art. I say "it" because at this point I'm afraid you'd jump on me to argue semantics when you clearly understand what I mean.
You said it yourself, that this art is made for a specific audience. The kind of audience that has an art degree, that cares about what sub sub label you use to discuss things, that thinks people who don't understand modern contemporary art are retarded.
To everyone else, it's indistinguishable from student/deviant art tier "abstract" art, apart from one being laughed at, the other being the most expensive painting ever sold.
what is art even
why do we make art
why is anything
why care about quality
EVERYTHING IS ART
muh deep abstract thoughts.. can only be expressed... by shitting color onto a canvas...
if u don care about muh subgenre, u just dont kno art mane
No
Abstract art exists for people to pretend to like it.
It's deliberately bad.
Also money laundering
>>2555996
you put it into words like a poet
>>2555391
This. The confusion and anger that arises in these tablet-wielding neckbeards who've never sold a work is hilarious. This is the site where people praise "daddy trump" and blame modernism on the corrupting influence of jews, so you can't expect open mindedness or thoughtful responses.
>>2555929
That's a cute false dichotomy
>>2555986
>you're dismissing it by trying to act superior.
And this is what modern art seems to be about (aside from money). I gave it a fair chance, asked a lot of questions and tried to learn more about it from books, but the gist of all the answers is 'that artist was a genius and you are too pleb to comprehend.' 'if you don't appreciate it you are literally a caveman' or my favorite: 'oh my god, I know so much about abstract art and different artists, it's just too complicated to explain it to you.'
>>2555929
Well, what makes Paintings valuable is not just how they look, but the context surrounding it. It feels better to own something special than to own something mundane. With music however context matters less. So your analogy really doesnt work at all faggot.
>>2556154
It sounds like the problem isn't modern art itself, but that you were getting answers from pretentious and uneducated twats. When I studied art, it was under actual art historians, so I got real, substantial answers to my questions and not the crazy shit you just described. And no one likes EVERY modern artist or movement, you're allowed to think some or even many are misdirected shit.
>>2556113
>you are like a guy that thinks drone doom and instrumental prog are same shit because both have guitars and bass. Or that stout, marzen, pilsner, porter, IPA etc. are same shit because they are beer.
That's fair, and here's the secret: I have no real incentive to care and neither do most laymen. This is about two different value systems. To use your analogy, regardless of whether the beer is a pilsner, or IPA, one will either like it or one will not (certainly not all brands of either), and regardless of whether the thing is "correctly identified" or not doesn't change anything tangible about the thing itself.
If for example I were to be so specific about the genres I were criticizing it would be purely for the benefit of those who do care, mincing hippies whom are the only people that would conceivably get 'offended' when "modern art" is used as an aphorism rather than intended to be understood as a literal art movement that took place between this year or that.
>To appreciate abstract expressionism of Pollock or color field of Rothko you only need to not be blind and retarded.
What you really only need to be is an easily impressed burnout pedant with a superiority complex, and the posts by you and your fellow abstractards suggest as much.
>>2556277
>context matters less
According to who? You? There are many people that follow musical personalities or actors and pore over every detail of their lives. There's very little that separates the post-menopausal hambeast that religiously watches Entertainment Tonight® and someone that'd make a post like this: >>2555401
>So your analogy really doesnt work at all faggot.
The analogy is perfect in the 'context' of a discussion that you apparently haven't kept up with to be honest, family man.
>>2556387
You cant really own a unique Song, since everyone else can have the song also, you however can own a unique painting. And for this uniqueness context is very relevant. Thats what I mean. It's not about following personalities, its about owning something special.
>>2556387
dude lrn2link to the proper posts...
>>2556398
Keep in mind the theme of the thread isn't only about the monetary value of the piece but is also an inquiry into whether it's good or not, and I maintain, whether you like abstract/contemporary/modern/post-modern/futurism art or not, if there wasn't a "historically relevant" narrative about a person who' had a hard life® ( ;_; )' tacked on to this piece it would be considered wholly unremarkable, completely devoid of any kind of appeal as it is.
>>2556401
I find the irony of this misstep of mine pretty amusing given the discussion at hand.
>>2556413
I dont think those works purely visually speaking are without appeal. But even if that were the case, in our world Art is ALWAYS also judged by context, so I don't really see your point. You are saying if it wasn't judged by context also, it would be less appealing. Well big news. That's true for every piece of art.
If you are saying that shouldn't be the case, thats a whole other ballgame.
>>2556413
>I maintain, whether you like abstract/contemporary/modern/post-modern/futurism art or not, if there wasn't a "historically relevant" narrative about a person who' had a hard life® ( ;_; )' tacked on to this piece it would be considered wholly unremarkable, completely devoid of any kind of appeal as it is.
Disagree completely. I can tell immediately if I like an abstract work I haven't seen before, just like I can immediately tell if I like a realist work I haven't seen before. I used many of the same judgements- composition, colors, brushstroke, line, form, etc., and my personal tastes tend toward expressionist tendencies rather than minimalist tendencies. You act like your singular perspective is the way every other person on the planet should think.
>>2553831
http://gawker.com/5776710/1-in-3-art-students-cant-tell-famous-paintings-from-paintings-by-monkeys
:^)
>>2555391
Lol the pic you posted is much better than the OP
>>2556504
apples and oranges
>fuck u apples suck anyone who says they like apples is just lying to look sophisticated
>>2553831
>abstract
>>2556526
eloquent
>>2553831
im pretty sure this expensive abstract modern whatever scene is just a thinly vailed money laundering scheme by whatever mafia is cool at the moment seeing as you cannot put a real price on a painting
>>2556450
>I used many of the same judgements- composition, colors, brushstroke, line, form, etc.
Then why do you feign appreciation for a piece that exhibits none of those qualities on an exceptional level? Every single painting has those features, you're just using them as buzzwords at this point. The fact that nobody defending the de Kooning piece in the op has come forward with what they actually like about it is telling (don't bother, it's too late now). There isn't much if anything to be said about it as far as how it stands as a piece of art itself. It's a comically sad, drab looking piece of shit that you'd really have to grasp at straws to find any merit in.
>>2556561
>Then why do you feign
could you drop this smug "hurr ur faking cuz you don't share my opinions" shit?
>Every single painting has those features
no shit
>you're just using them as buzzwords at this point
wrong friendo, but ironically you're using "buzzword" as a buzzword.
>>2556561
and save better boccioni images pleb, wtf is that shit, I can see the ben-day printing pattern
>>2556387
But you are dismissing all modern art by putting everything in one bowl. It's like you'd say "I hate beer" when you'd try Pabst once. Modern art (and contemporary even more) is incredibly diverse, but you'll see "Black square on white background" and cry how it all is shit and muh renaissance art. With that type of thinking everybody would be drinking 2€ wine or eat cheese-like "gouda" because it's all essentially the same shit. That's very limited perspective.
>What you really only need to be is an easily impressed burnout pedant with a superiority complex, and the posts by you and your fellow abstractards suggest as much.
Seriously, if anything I would expect from artists here that learn fundamentals religiously and how to see line relations, edges and colors to be sensitive enough to see merit in abstracted art and have eye for it instead if bashing on it senselessly like symbol seeing crowd.
>>2556573
>could you drop this smug "hurr ur faking cuz you don't share my opinions" shit?
I'll consider doing that when you stop embarrassing yourself.
The painting in op has no composition.
Its colors are drab primaries with the exception of a meek portion of teal and a few patches of burnt orange ensconced in a grayish-pink
There is no "line" or "form" to speak of. It's completely flat.
You got me, there sure are "brushstrokes" though.
By every manner in which you purport to judge a painting the de Kooning in op has failed, and yet you soldier on with your demented support for it.
>>2556578
>that ostentatious, busy thing
>better than the tangentially-related 'Horizontal Volumes'
It's like you're actually going out of your way to have bad taste.
>>2556601
this guy gets it
>>2556610
>The painting in op has no composition.
>Every single painting has those features
Christ, you don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.
>>2556610
>that ostentatious, busy thing
>better than the tangentially-related 'Horizontal Volumes'
said literally no one ITT
My favorite part about abstract art is that you don't need to have technical skill to create something that looks good. I think that's kind of fun and motivates people to experiment with paint even though they don't know how to draw.
What's kind of bullshit is the whole idea that famous abstract artists are some sort of superhuman geniuses. Anyone can create something just as appealing as a Pollock painting and for me that was always the point of it and the fun part.
Of course the art world is trying to monopolize and monetize it by making up bullshit explanations why the abstract art of some average joe is so much inferior than some of the expensive stuff.
As a musician I think not getting too caught up with technical skill is a healthy balance, so I appreciate the playful nature of abstract art, but I don't really buy into all the hot air around it.
>>2556601
>But you are dismissing all modern art by putting everything in one bowl. It's like you'd say "I hate beer" when you'd try Pabst once. Modern art (and contemporary even more) is incredibly diverse
You're absolutely right, but you're also making a bigger deal out of it than it is, as if one is obligated to say...
"God dammit it all I hate abstract-expressionism, color field painting, conceptualism, constructivism, cubism, dada, de Stijl, Expressionism, Fauvism, Minimalism, Post-Minimalism, Supremism etc."
...going down the line to the very end whenever the subject comes up, when they can simply say "I dislike modern art", post a few examples of what they mean and instantly reach an understanding with the plurality of their audience who will have a general conception of what they're talking about.
>>2556613
>what is hyperbole?
>>2556632
>have technical skill to create something that looks good
could you provide an example?
> Anyone can create something just as appealing as a Pollock painting
again, proof needed. anyone can splatter painting on a canvas, but few can make it look as interesting (or capture the fractal-like compositions) that Pollock has.
>>2556632
>>2556632
Oh man...you should have seen some things de Kooning draw/painted >>2555390 , same with Mondrian.
They really knew what they were doing, same with most abstract painters.
I mean, you have some right, abstract art has this playful quality, especially non-representative, but there's usually a lot of technical thought behind most of the pieces. Color field movement is basically all very complex color studies on usually large canvas. I can assure you that painters from that movement know how to mix paint and make interesting color palettes. All color theory there and a lot of experience.
>>2556649
How am I making bigger deal out of it than it is? You are basically acting like that assholish kid who says "I hate hip hop!" or "I hate metal!" or even "I hate pop music!"
This is what you are doing. Wonder now why "abstractfags" tell you off from unwashed pleb. It's hard to argue on such level.
It's like the jews are getting scammed.
>>2553831
I really don't like it. Don't look like a painting at all.
>>2555802
*tips fedora*
>>2553831
This is money laudry. We do it a lot here in Brazil, but with trashy funk music.
>>2557006
You're an imbecile
>>2557008
>That's art
Smart guy knows what is and isn't art. Tell us guru, what is art?
>>2556972
>Don't look like a painting at all.
Are you high? What else could it look like, it's paint on a canvas.
>>2555391
It's a good feeling to have actual creativity.
>>2559031
>actual creativity
>100 years of pollock and duchamp knockoffs
Another delusional statement from a modern art mouth breather. Your ape-tier shit manages against all odds to be even less creative than space marines and dragons. What a joke.
>>2559052
literally no one ITT was talking about pollock knockoffs, the discussion is about original modernist work. Furthermore, anyone who isn't a "mouth breather" can easily tell the difference between a pollock and something made by koko the gorilla, and fractal analysis can even determine the difference between a pollock and a human-created knock-off with 93% accuracy.
>>2559083
>and fractal analysis can even determine the difference between a pollock and a human-created knock-off with 93% accuracy.
You mean a computer program that has all of the data of a pre-existing Pollock piece down to the pixel can tell the difference between the images it's already scanned and one someone tried to imitate by hand? Wow! The functional equivalent of a reverse google image search that, rather than comparing an image to thousands or hundreds of thousands of similar images to help find its origin, compares a piece submitted to its pre-recorded Pollock's existing paintings library does not lend any mystique to him or his work
>>2559116
not what I said at all, learn to read, and to think:
>Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock's fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals.
> In 2015, fractal analysis was shown to have a 93% success rate in distinguishing real from imitation Pollocks.
R.P. Taylor, B. Spehar, P. Van Donkelaar and C.M. Hagerhall, “Perceptual and Physiological Responses to Jackson Pollock’s Fractals,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 5 1- 13 (2011).
L. Shamar, “What Makes a Pollock Pollock: A Machine Vision Approach”, International Journal of Arts and Technology, vol. 8, 1-10, (2015).
>>2559116
abstract:
> Here we study Pollock’s unique artistic style by using com-
putational methods for characterizing the low-level numerical differences between
original Pollock drip paintings and drip paintings of other painters who attempted
to mimic his signature drip painting style. Four thousands and twenty four numer-
ical image content descriptors were extracted from each painting, and compared
using Weighted Nearest Neighbor classification such that the Fisher discriminant
scores of the content descriptors were used as weights. In 93% of the cases the
computer analysis was able to differentiate between an original and a non-original
Pollock drip painting. The most discriminative image content descriptors that were
unique to the work of Pollock were the fractal features, but other numerical image
content descriptors such as Zernike polynomials, Haralick textures, and Cheby-
shev statistics show substantial differences between original and non-original Pol-
lock drip paintings. These experiments show that the uniqueness of Pollock’s drip
painting style is not reflected merely by fractals, but also by other numerical image
content descriptors that reflect the visual content.
>>2553831
That painting and anyone that supports such art are absolute trash.
>>2559147
no u
>>2553831
I don't like it.
(first time posting on /ic/)
>>2559859
Read sticky plz and go immediately to "Keys to Drawing" by Dodson. Also I recommend "Color 2nd Edition: A Workshop for Artists & Designers" by David Hornung, his color studies will IMO help you with appreciating abstract art. Also Schmidt "Alla Prima" and Gurney ofc.
