Oct 25th, 2017: Paintings

[Leus]

Those are all bad art. But because some of them are statements by really renowned artists they can stand criticism based on what they represent and not what they are.

If Joe Whatshisname is a extremely good artists and somehow decides to create bad art as a statement, we have no clue about his intention: we only see bad art. Even if he tells us, we don't see because we don't know if Joe is any good. That's not our fault, but Joe's.

That said, that Magritte is really good (once you know is a Magritte.)

Incidently, that's one of the reasons why I can't stand stupid modern "art" consisting of three sticks, some wire and a piece of fabric, complete with a 1,000 words "manifesto" about the author's intention. I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU WORTHLESS HACK.

Uh, sorry.

[glatt]

That shouldn't be the case, Leus, but I have to agree with you.

Association with fame will make anything, not just art, more valuable. See the recent sale of a nasty old cigar that sat in Churchill's lips. It should have been worthless trash based on its own merits, but sold for $12k last week.

[Leus]

Originally Posted by glatt

That shouldn't be the case, Leus, but I have to agree with you.

Association with fame will make anything, not just art, more valuable. See the recent sale of a nasty old cigar that sat in Churchill's lips. It should have been worthless trash based on its own merits, but sold for $12k last week.

That Churchill thing is memorabilia. That's prime example of value theory :-)

What I (poorly) tried to say is that you need some cred if you want to pull shit like this. I bet that if Michaelangelo somehow decided to sculp a turd we all would get nuts about it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're absolutely right, Leus.
OMG, the Michaelangelo turd is coming to auction, sell my stock portfolio, sell my estate in the Caribbean, I must have the turd.