"The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    So, most of you probably know that the fourth and only privately-held version of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" sold at auction for a cool $120 million, a record.  When an event like this occurs, lots of opinions are thrown out about the value of works of art.

    I'm here partially to head off some of that discussion out of general interest, academic orthodoxy, and frustration at the lack of thought I've seen in some of the reactions to the sale.  It should be a given that there are many, many things that kind of money could be spent on.  That's not the point, and that question is banal to begin with.

    I also thought it could pivot into a conversation about how we place a value on art and music and how much we're willing to pay for such works.  Obviously, there are many differences in the type of media, the method of presentation, the "units" sold, etc. 

    But if you've ever bought an album or CD, lost it, and then bought it a second time, then you can start to see how we CAN put a price on these creative objects in which their intrinsic value is tied to our own personal ideas about what is and isn't "worth" paying for.

    As has been said, an item is "worth" exactly what someone will pay for it.  In that case, "The Scream" was worth every penny.

    Thoughts?  Recriminations?  Corollaries?  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    (P.S.  As some of you know, I have a degree in fine arts and have taught art history classes, but I'm trying to put aside for now what I know about the painting, Munch, modern art, etc. in the interests of both a more holistic discussion and to stick to Music as the subjective art medium.)  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    I have to say the funniest response I saw last night to the sale was by some guy/gal on Yahoo, who said they could easily Right Click the picture, and then they would have the "Scream" for free. I feel like that guy in the picture everyday of my life.

    But seriously, I am not an art expert at all, but to me if you have the money-- why not, if you get some enjoyment out of looking at it. I just cannot remember paying $120 mill for my lost Meat is Murder" CD.

    I've always wondered how you put a price on Art. I watch the roadshow sometimes and I shake my head at the value of everyday things.

    Why does a painting like this cost more than the GDP of Fiji?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    Funny, but I was thinking of starting a thread called "The Scream" and asking for songs in response to the sale and the price .... that's how my mind was working on a lighter note.  (seriously, I would like to see a list of songs with some good screams in them).  :)

    I'm sorry, but I am finding the interchangeable use of the word(s) "art" and "artist" with "music" and "musician" too blurry -- and I do not feel very comfortable making the crossover in a convo about a rare, one-of-a-kind painting that only the most elite art collectors could purchase, *and* was done in a shroud of secrecy (the bidder was not identified).  

    Sure, there's a part of me that feels a museum should own that painting, because now, unless it goes on loan by the owner, it's lost to the world.  That is a very sad aspect, and a selfish one.   That is the direction the art world has been taking for years now, so it's not exactly news.

    A painting like that is truly priceless, IMO.  Yes, expert art appraisers can put a dollar value on a painting, but that's on paper only.  When it goes up for auction, that estimate gets smashed to smithereens and you learn that there's a league of wealth in this world that eclipses your comprehension and a league of art collectors that is so elite, they might as well be space aliens because they inhabit a different world from the rest of us, and have a different value system.   But do I begrudge them, no, of course not.  I find those "that money could find a cure for cancer" comments tiresome and as irrelevant as you do. All nonsense, and they have no place in the conversation.  (and for all we know, the person who bought the painting has already contributed millions of dollars to cancer research ... since the person hasn't been identified).  But that's beside the point.

    As far as cross-walking this over to music, maybe I'm tired today and can't see this abstractly enough, but I just don't see it.  Certainly not in reference to the sale of The Scream.   Just --- too --- extreme an example.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    OK, so I agree this example of a single piece of art is extreme, but again, it's just a launching off point.

    We make these value judgments all the time, whether or not to purchase a .99 cent song or a 9.99 album.  A $50 dollar concert ticket may buy you, what, maybe 12-15 songs in a couple of hours...?  So we're saying a song is "worth" 99 cents, but a live performance of said song is "worth" 4-5 bucks (at least)...?  How many products have a 500% markup?  (Maybe jewelry.)

    Let's say you bought a record on vinyl, then upgraded to CD, then saw the band live 3 or 4 times.  So, maybe $20 for the physical copies, then another $120 for the shows, conservatively.  If you listened to the song through these formats 140 times over the years, then that would equal roughly a dollar per listen.

    See, there's a general sense that music and art are there for everyone, but the artists, publishers, pressers and roadies have to eat, too, so there is indeed a relative price of admission if gained honestly.

    Back to "The Scream" - let's say the new owner builds a museum, hangs this one painting in it and decides to charge admission.  If they charged $10 a head, then they would need at least 12 million people to break even.  NY's MOMA might average 2-2.5M visitors per year at about $25 per head, but they have hundreds of works.  To see any of the other Scream paintings up close, you would need to travel to Norway.  Not cheap.  So, does it matter which museum it's in, who bought it, or what he/she does with it?

    Or, we could be like the guy on yahoo and download a digital version for free.  If that was the prevailing wisdom, then all of the museums should take photos of their work, post them online, sell the originals, and close up shop.

    UNLESS there is an inherent value to the original that we're missing...something that transcends the illusion of money and value...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    I have this picture on my wall ( a print of course, not the original):





    I also have 2 other Dali paintings which I find fascinating.

    Would I pay alot for them?

    Are you out of your mind?....I like these pictures , but I could live without them. I have them because they look nicer than an empty wall.

    I guess it's all a matter of what you like, but I'd pay more for any of my Dali paintings than I would for "the Scream"...I think this painting is very ugly and although I like the use of color, I've seen better art than this by some High School kids.

    In music, everything has a limit. I own some CDs that I paid a little more to obtain because they were only available as imports. I have some that I really like that came out of the discount bin. Some I bought used, and paid a small price for. I tend to look at the overall price. Sure , I paid too much for some, but I got others at very low prices. They tend to balance out.

    I would never, never pay ridiculous , crazy money for anything that I could not be guaranteed to resell at a higher price in the future.

    I think many of these pieces of original art are bought by very wealthy individuals for investment, not because the buyer really likes it. they expect to resell at a higher price someday. With what banks are (not) paying these days in interest, I can't blame anyone for investing in a piece of artwork. Perhaps if I was rich enough, I'd do it too.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]I have this picture on my wall ( a print of course, not the original): I also have 2 other Dali paintings which I find fascinating. Would I pay alot for them? Are you out of your mind?....I like these pictures , but I could live without them. I have them because they look nicer than an empty wall. I guess it's all a matter of what you like, but I'd pay more for any of my Dali paintings than I would for "the Scream"...I think this painting is very ugly and although I like the use of color, I've seen better art than this by some High School kids. In music, everything has a limit. I own some CDs that I paid a little more to obtain because they were only available as imports. I have some that I really like that came out of the discount bin. Some I bought used, and paid a small price for. I tend to look at the overall price. Sure , I paid too much for some, but I got others at very low prices. They tend to balance out. I would never, never pay ridiculous , crazy money for anything that I could not be guaranteed to resell at a higher price in the future. I think many of these pieces of original art are bought by very wealthy individuals for investment, not because the buyer really likes it. they expect to resell at a higher price someday. With what banks are (not) paying these days in interest, I can't blame anyone for investing in a piece of artwork. Perhaps if I was rich enough, I'd do it too.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    Good points, zill. 

    (You should really check out the Dali museum in St. Petersburg, FL, sometime...it's quite remarkable and, to my knowledge, the largest collection outside of Spain.)

    But you see yourself making the same judgments...how paying higher for some, then lower for others "balances" out the value of what you bought.  And the more you listen, the better deal you got, right...?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    Robert Mapplethorpe "art" or "porn"?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    Interesting topic, Matty.  All I can do is make some observations that probably won't cohere into any sort of lucid point.

    On the baseball forums we're always yammering about contracts and market values and measured values.  The Carl Crawford contract has been a source of endless commentary.  The Red Sox are paying him $142 million-$22 million more than 'The Scream' fetched-and nobody knows why.  Everyone agrees that it was much more than his actual value, and every day that passes makes the deal look worse.

    On another baseball front, Forbes Magazine recently valued the LA Dodgers franchise at $1.5 billion.  That was before it was purchased for $2 billion by the Magic Johnson group.  Again, just a staggering sum of money.

    I'm not an economist but these things fascinate me because I'm intrigued by numbers and money and human nature.  I know there are concepts of efficient markets and inefficient markets but I don't fully grasp them.  It seems to me that there are rational markets and irrational markets.  Baseball free agency certainly appears to have created an irrational market.  Team owners are throwing vast sums of money at extraordinarily risky assets.  Why are they doing it?  Some of the motivations make sense-trying to attract fans, trying to win a championship.  But over the years so many of these big-money deals have gone bad that it's clear the odds are heavily against the investor.

    As for a painting commanding $120 million, I don't know enough about the art business or who bought it to do anything but guess what would motivate that kind of purchase.  What intrigues me, though, is that it could actually be a wise investment.  Maybe they can earn a bunch of money from exhibits and then years from now recover their $120 million or more.  Or maybe they want to have it buried with them.  No idea.  There are so many possible explanations for what motivates people.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    The only personal comparison I can make, one that I've mentioned before, is the Paul McCartney concert.  I laid out $600 for myself and my wife to take it in.  I'm still amazed that I spent that much on a night's entertainment.  But I think it was worth it.  I got to see a Beatle play live, probably the only chance I'll get, and he put on a show that exceeded my expectations.  But was it a rational purchase?  Probably not.  I could have used the $600 to buy a new refrigerator.  But I would have missed that unique experience.  I guess it goes to the price we will pay for some of the higher-order gratifications in life.  Again it's the fascination of human nature.  We might spend $100 on a night out on the town and not think twice about it.  But then the next day we'll be in the store comparing prices on groceries and exulting if we save $5 on the bill.  Us humans don't really make a lot of sense in some areas.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]Robert Mapplethorpe "art" or "porn"?
    Posted by RogerTaylor[/QUOTE]

    A completely different discussion entirely...a field full of thorny moralities that are subjective, at best.

    But if you asked me, I would unequivocally say "Art".  Same goes for so-called "french postcards" of yesteryear. 

    I consider the term "pornography" to be somewhat loaded...like the term "bubblegum pop" can be for music.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]Interesting topic, Matty.  All I can do is make some observations that probably won't cohere into any sort of lucid point. On the baseball forums we're always yammering about contracts and market values and measured values.  The Carl Crawford contract has been a source of endless commentary.  The Red Sox are paying him $142 million-$22 million more than 'The Scream' fetched-and nobody knows why.  Everyone agrees that it was much more than his actual value, and every day that passes makes the deal look worse. On another baseball front, Forbes Magazine recently valued the LA Dodgers franchise at $1.5 billion.  That was before it was purchased for $2 billion by the Magic Johnson group.  Again, just a staggering sum of money. I'm not an economist but these things fascinate me because I'm intrigued by numbers and money and human nature.  I know there are concepts of efficient markets and inefficient markets but I don't fully grasp them.  It seems to me that there are rational markets and irrational markets.  Baseball free agency certainly appears to have created an irrational market.  Team owners are throwing vast sums of money at extraordinarily risky assets.  Why are they doing it?  Some of the motivations make sense-trying to attract fans, trying to win a championship.  But over the years so many of these big-money deals have gone bad that it's clear the odds are heavily against the investor. As for a painting commanding $120 million, I don't know enough about the art business or who bought it to do anything but guess what would motivate that kind of purchase.  What intrigues me, though, is that it could actually be a wise investment.  Maybe they can earn a bunch of money from exhibits and then years from now recover their $120 million or more.  Or maybe they want to have it buried with them.  No idea.  There are so many possible explanations for what motivates people.  
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Good points.

    Re: the sports world...

    ...perhaps a better analogy would be the sports collectible market, where a baseball card of a long-dead player (or, in terms of a product created by that player, an autograph) can sell for more possibly more than that player ever earned in their lifetime.

    The value of collectibles likewise varies depending on the player, the condition of the object, its importance, and so on.  They could also be cold, hard investments without consideration of their significance to the sport.  Their values only really compare to other collectibles and by that token the scarcity and quality of the comparison objects.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]OK, so I agree this example of a single piece of art is extreme, but again, it's just a launching off point. We make these value judgments all the time, whether or not to purchase a .99 cent song or a 9.99 album.  A $50 dollar concert ticket may buy you, what, maybe 12-15 songs in a couple of hours...?  So we're saying a song is "worth" 99 cents, but a live performance of said song is "worth" 4-5 bucks (at least)...?  How many products have a 500% markup?  (Maybe jewelry.) Let's say you bought a record on vinyl, then upgraded to CD, then saw the band live 3 or 4 times.  So, maybe $20 for the physical copies, then another $120 for the shows, conservatively.  If you listened to the song through these formats 140 times over the years, then that would equal roughly a dollar per listen. See, there's a general sense that music and art are there for everyone, but the artists, publishers, pressers and roadies have to eat, too, so there is indeed a relative price of admission if gained honestly. Back to "The Scream" - let's say the new owner builds a museum, hangs this one painting in it and decides to charge admission.  If they charged $10 a head, then they would need at least 12 million people to break even.  NY's MOMA might average 2-2.5M visitors per year at about $25 per head, but they have hundreds of works.  To see any of the other Scream paintings up close, you would need to travel to Norway.  Not cheap.  So, does it matter which museum it's in, who bought it, or what he/she does with it? Or, we could be like the guy on yahoo and download a digital version for free.  If that was the prevailing wisdom, then all of the museums should take photos of their work, post them online, sell the originals, and close up shop. UNLESS there is an inherent value to the original that we're missing...something that transcends the illusion of money and value...
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Remember the hullaballoo that came about when the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis planned to sell all of their holdings and close? :)   -- yeesh, all of a sudden there's this big uprising -- (and yes, I went over there, but not during the upheaval, I waited quite a while -- and it's a very nice, intimate museum, I really liked it).   Museums, historical societies, even churches --- they're all selling their holdings / objects / stained glass / etc.  because they need the money -- and who can blame them?  

    But back to the rhetorcal question about the value of an original -- and how it (or if it) transcends monetary value -- and of course, the answer is, that's always going to be in the eye of the beholder and their own value system.  However, as it pertains to music, I don't think there's any argument among music lovers that purchasing music, in any format, is still one of the most cost-effective forms of entertainment and soul food.  Considering the ability for ownership and use, let alone the pleasure, happiness and comfort it brings as a life enhancing force, the cost containment has actually been remarkable.  What it costs in dollars and cents becomes secondary to the consumer (at some point, perhaps) -- so yes, it transcends monetary value, it does.  But there's still no greater fun than to find a gem, dirt cheap, and have that feeling of satisfaction, like finding a needle in a haystack, as though it was waiting there, just for you.  That's almost like finding a "one of a kind original" , even though you know it's not.  :)

    Despite all that, however, there are limits to what I, or most of us, can spend, and at some point, you're forced to hold the line.  That's the way it is, and that's not a regrettable thing, it's a fair and honest reality.  There's a good deal of this conversation that's comes down to basic economics, philosophy, supply and demand.   Can't get around it.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE] For myself, I much prefer impressionists, and crazies like Dali.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Salvador Dali was not "crazy."

    A very unique individual who saw life differently than most of us.

    Perhaps he saw things as they really are and we are the ones who are crazy?

    I mean , who says "crazy" people are in the minority?...I don't believe a world like ours could be inhabited with a majority of sane people.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art : Remember the hullaballoo that came about when the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis planned to sell all of their holdings and close? :)   -- yeesh, all of a sudden there's this big uprising -- (and yes, I went over there, but not during the upheaval, I waited quite a while -- and it's a very nice, intimate museum, I really liked it).   Museums, historical societies, even churches --- they're all selling their holdings / objects / stained glass / etc.  because they need the money -- and who can blame them?   But back to the rhetorcal question about the value of an original -- and how it (or if it) transcends monetary value -- and of course, the answer is, that's always going to be in the eye of the beholder and their own value system.  However, as it pertains to music, I don't think there's any argument among music lovers that purchasing music, in any format, is still one of the most cost-effective forms of entertainment and soul food.  Considering the ability for ownership and use, let alone the pleasure, happiness and comfort it brings as a life enhancing force, the cost containment has actually been remarkable.  What it costs in dollars and cents becomes secondary to the consumer (at some point, perhaps) -- so yes, it transcends monetary value, it does.  But there's still no greater fun than to find a gem, dirt cheap, and have that feeling of satisfaction, like finding a needle in a haystack, as though it was waiting there, just for you.  That's almost like finding a "one of a kind original" , even though you know it's not.  :) Despite all that, however, there are limits to what I, or most of us, can spend, and at some point, you're forced to hold the line.  That's the way it is, and that's not a regrettable thing, it's a fair and honest reality.  There's a good deal of this conversation that's comes down to basic economics, philosophy, supply and demand.   Can't get around it.  
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    I don't blame the museums entirely, although it is their job to present work in an interesting eno[ugh way to get people through the door.  Perhaps the museums can post, next to the artist card, an estimated value of a painting to get people more interested in art.  They could have a special exhibition of $10M+ works only.

    But then you have the italian spun glass flower collection at the HMNH - a cumulative volume of naturalistic art that has no equal...it is quite literally priceless (and very fragile). 

    It's always a bit sad when a more traditional medium falls out of favor, be it fine arts, classical music, or whatever.  And it's a mixed blessing, I think, when an big ticket art auction instills such a reaction.  Because, on the good side, at least they're interested; on the bad side, they're interested for a reason that quite beside the point of the artwork itself.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    Funny, but in logging onto Google today, you might have seen it's Keith Haring's birthday.

    Now talk about accessible, popular and visible.   I saw a KH exhibit a bunch of years ago and got on the bandwagon right away.   I was on vacation, and the museum was in a remote spot.  When there was a local exhibit of his work, I dragged a friend of mine to see it with me, and she became an instant fan, too.   

    Bought the cards, postcards, pins, and yes, the t-shirt (my t-shirt is pretty tattered at this point -- I wore it all the time).  

    Truly a shame that he died so young. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art : I don't blame the museums entirely, although it is their job to present work in an interesting eno[ugh way to get people through the door.  Perhaps the museums can post, next to the artist card, an estimated value of a painting to get people more interested in art.  They could have a special exhibition of $10M+ works only. But then you have the italian spun glass flower collection at the HMNH - a cumulative volume of naturalistic art that has no equal...it is quite literally priceless (and very fragile).  It's always a bit sad when a more traditional medium falls out of favor, be it fine arts, classical music, or whatever.  And it's a mixed blessing, I think, when an big ticket art auction instills such a reaction.  Because, on the good side, at least they're interested; on the bad side, they're interested for a reason that quite beside the point of the artwork itself.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Funny, but in thinking about the sale of that particular version of The Scream -- after reading some comments from "Scream" scholars yesterday -- I began to assess and wonder: what type of art collector would vie for a painting like that?  You take a clear case of "supply and demand" like nothing you've ever seen (second most famous, most recognized and most pop culturally embued painting in the WORLD), throw it in the ring with the wealthiest art collectors in the world and you have people who are competing, truly competing, for the prize.   There's no second place, there's no second chance.   Go home big or go home. 

    What type of art collector really wanted it?  Among those who could have afforded it, how many showed up?  I wonder.  I only say that because there has to be something about wanting to own that particular painting that coincides  with being shrewd and ego-driven.  For the price to have gone that high -- that's an extension of a pretty big ego IMO, not just a pretty fat wallet.   "Trophy" painting?   Who knows, but I'd be hard pressed to believe there's a 120 million bucks worth of happiness in owning that painting, and that the reason for the purchase was, let's say, more base.  

    It's a world I don't inhabit, however.  All speculation.  GL to the new owner. :)
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]Funny, but in logging onto Google today, you might have seen it's Keith Haring's birthday. Now talk about accessible, popular and visible.   I saw a KH exhibit a bunch of years ago and got on the bandwagon right away.   I was on vacation, and the museum was in a remote spot.  When there was a local exhibit of his work, I dragged a friend of mine to see it with me, and she became an instant fan, too.    Bought the cards, postcards, pins, and yes, the t-shirt (my t-shirt is pretty tattered at this point -- I wore it all the time).   Truly a shame that he died so young. 
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Cool.  I still have an original vinyl copy of A Very Special Christmas for which Keith did the cover art.

    His work parallels with Basquiat (a personal fave) - backgrounds as graffiti artists, formal art training, singular scopes and techniques, and both were sadly cut down in their primes.  Tragic.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art : He's got a photo of a guy getting a bl*wjob and vice-versa re: a girl. Tend to lump explicit depiction of sexual acts under "pornography"....but of course....it's all in the eye of the beholder.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Why only sexual acts?  Why not violent ones? 

    Why is it not just a photo of a mouth attached to a peni(s)?  Would it still be "porn" if the two parts weren't touching...?  And what's wrong with blo*jobs anyway?  I think they're swell...and really, what guy doesn't?

    I MIGHT say it's "all in the eye...", too... 

    But given how the right-wing has used Mapplethorpe as their own perverse cudgel against public funding for the arts over the years, that photo of a 'blo*job" comes across as sensitive and life-affirming and decidedly unoffensive.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re:

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art : Might be "all in the eye"? I rather think all art - and whether it is "art" - is "all in the eye"....and rather think that's where most people end up seeming to agree on these forums. We play in terms. As for pornography, any definition generally encompasses the concept of a sexual act depicted in a way that is intended, or does, cause sexual arousal. Hence "prurient interest" in USSC opinions. Now I don't particularly go in for bl*wjob porn, but plenty of other people apparently do. It's hard to distinguish the picture that popped up in google images from anything from a self-identified pornography site, except there's more effort put into lighting, etc. I'm not "objecting" in the sense of some kind of conserative prudish idiot being offended by it. I just look at it and think, "yeah, ok, but.....? Why bother with a explicit sexual act?" Are viewers supposed to be made to force themselves to look at anything else in the picture? And of course, you can look at a photograph of a nude woman and appreciate the play of light and shadows across the skin. Or you can focus on specific body parts and think about sexy time. It's "all in the eye". So perhaps something is art and pornography. But again...all in the eye. Same sort of debates can be had with anything. I walk into a modern art museum, and I leave laughing. Others stare studiously and with appreciation. To me, a series of wooden blocks sitting on the floor is not "art". It's hardly even "design". It's an uninteresting set of wooden blocks. Same for pianos haning from the ceiling. I don't think I'd enjoy it even if a few tabs of acid were coursing through my veins. Meh. But other people enjoy it. "art" is simply too vague to define because whether it is appreciate as art, or as good art, is "all in the eye." So, to quote Monty Python, I f*rt in the general direction of "modern art", pop music, and hip hop.But you like hip hop and have apprecaition for pop. All differ.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Speaking of Hip Hop, I would be remiss, if I didn't mention the passing of Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys today of cancer. While not for everyone, their funny, almost brash style of hip hop, jazz and rock infused jams were groundbreaking. Along with Run DMC, they were one of the first real hip/hop bands to be taken seriously. They were a part of my youth. 

    Sorry, Now back to art. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE] "art" is simply too vague to define because whether it is appreciate as art, or as good art, is "all in the eye." Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Art is easy to define.  It's differentiating between good and bad art that's vague and subjective...but in this, too, are definite terms used to accomplish this.  Hence art critics who may understand the technique, the inspiration, the precedents, etc.

    You may dislike Britney Spears' music...but it's still music.  John Cage proved that even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of 'silence' could technically be music.  (It was divided into three movements, btw.)

    You may dislike 'modern art' (which by definition includes Van Gogh), but it's still art...whether you want it to be or not.  I may be biased here, but I think the burden of proof is entirely upon the viewer or listener, not the artist or musician...a sort of assumption of innocence.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    Ok, just like in the overrated thread, to me, art is a totally subjective medium. It comes down to ones's own opinion. Do YOU like it, or not. I never go by a critics view of what is art and what isn't. Eye of the beholder etc..I saw the Robert Maplethorpe's exhibit, and while it was distrubing to me on many levels, who am I to say it's not art. The fact that it bothered me, and reached me on some level, must mean it has value.  

    I don't fill my walls with pretty pastels, but with photographs of the people and places that are important to me. Not that I don't like Dali, or Monet, I just like Photo's better.  A Diane Arbus, or Ansel Adams photograph to me is the highest quality of art.

    I just spent a fortune going to a concert that I always wanted to attend. The experience was amazing. I heard bands that I probably would never have even known about, met new people, who's company i really enjoyed, and I learned about new cultures and attitudes -- it was worth every cent. To me you cannot put a price on that.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art : "Art is easy to define." I obviously disagree. And haven't seen an easy definition in my life. I would reject the position that "art" is whatever a creator calls "art." I could call a book "literature", but if it was just some random words thrown at a page it wouldn't be "literature" "You may dislike 'modern art' (which by definition includes Van Gogh)," To about the same degree that Led Zeppelin is "heavy metal"... meaning barely, if by that the speaker means "that which lead to the body of work considered heavy metal but is louder than old fashioned "rock"". "You may dislike Britney Spears' music...but it's still music. " Nah, it's synthesized diahhrea.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    You have a few false assumptions here.

    Van Gogh indeed belongs to the era of modern art, by definition, as does Monet, Picasso, Dali and so on up until roughly the late 60s/early 70s.  We're currently in the post- (or post-post-) modern era.

    Choosing a category does not subsume the larger definitions of Art or Music or Literature.  An online book can be literature; so can a comic book - which is itself an amalgam of art and literature...same goes for film and tv productions.

    An artist doesn't need to call something art for it to be art.  Its very existence speaks to some sort of creative process, no matter how "artistic" it might be.  A painting can be art, and a photograph of that same painting can also be art. 

    Again, while the intent can be important, it informs the piece but does not necessarily dictate the viewer's reaction to it.  The burden is upon you to explain why an art object is or is not art.

    And yes, as hard as it might be to accept, that includes Britney Spears, Tiny Tim and Milli Vanilli, too.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    In Response to Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art:
    [QUOTE]Ok, just like in the overrated thread, to me, art is a totally subjective medium. It comes down to ones's own opinion. Do YOU like it, or not. I never go by a critics view of what is art and what isn't. Eye of the beholder etc..I saw the Robert Maplethorpe's exhibit, and while it was distrubing to me on many levels, who am I to say it's not art. The fact that it bothered me, and reached me on some level, must mean it has value.   Posted by polar123[/QUOTE]

    YES!!!

    (Whether you like it or not has no bearing on whether or not it's art.)

    That "value" you mention is what I've been talking about all along.  The exhibition conveyed something to you - disgust, or pain, or happiness or empathy - that affected some part of your humanity, if even for a second.

    Now, maybe he intended to disturb you.  That doesn't make it good or bad either...just successful at achieving a specific goal, a reaction.

    Thanks, polar...you just made this thread, for me.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: "The Scream" and the "Value" of Art

    The topic reminds me of the scene in "The Freshman" when the Marlon Brando's character had the "real" Mona Lisa in his house and had a button next to the painting that would cause a recording of "Mona Lisa" to play when pushed.

    What if the $120 million Scream is a fake and the real one is sitting in someone's house.  You push a button next to the painting and a scream comes out of the speakers.

     

Share