Randomly last saturday I drank a bottle of rum with some friends on a raft in the middle of a lake and pretended we were pirates and screamed ARRRRGGGG! for a few hours.
you can buy paintings at boot sales? london is mysterious.
you may have a hidden treasure there, thal, with the paderewski. i found a signed book of sousa marches at a flea market (is that what you call 'bootsale?') and stupidly gave it away to have it authenticated (that it was really sousa's signature). i never got it back - so i guess it was. who knows what it was worth.
A sculpture of a dress made of raw meat, hanging at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, has outraged politicians and food-aid agencies. The sculpture, made of 50 pounds of salted flank steak, is a waste of food and taxpayers' money, critics say. But museum curators defend the work, "Vanitas," as a graphic reminder of mortality and the aging process. "It's a powerful piece," Helen Murphy, a museum spokeswoman, said yesterday. "It can be quite repugnant, even to people who eat meat. People just aren't prepared in some cases to say this is art." The meat dress by Montreal artist Jana Sterbak is on a hanger beside a photo of a woman wearing it. When the meat decomposes after six weeks, it will be replaced with another $260 worth of fresh meat. "Vanitas," on display since March 8, will remain until May 20 before traveling to the United States and Europe.
Quite right John. We must keep it because there is nothing else. But I wonder if it could be modified a great deal more to reduce its extremes, absurdities and inhumanities. After all, if people can agree that this painting is valuable and that gold is precious, both of which notions are demonstrably absurd, might not we somehow, slowly and globally, come around to a more sensible correlation of human value and money ?
I can think of dozens of other things that matter. Nature in the wild is a ghastly example of cruelty, surely completely unsuitable as a model of human behaviour in economics or anything else. Can we not, as a species, try to prove rational intelligence and kindness superior to conditioned reflex ? Are we really doomed to rush about competing and eating one another, metaphorically speaking, and prizing things of negligible value at the cost of reason and compassion ? I cannot see why this has to be the case.
It's a beautiful painting. And this tirade from people who would jump down the throat of anyone who suggested Bach is crap, meaningless, "just sounds". It's the same principle. Bach is hard to understand for those "not in the know". So is Picasso, and abstract expressionism, and performance art and Dadaism. That doesn't lessen their worth.I don't get how people who have such a sensibility for classical music can be so ignorant when it comes to the visual arts.But all this has nothing to do with the absurd monetary value attached to that particular painting. Or the reverance with which the Mona Lisa, for example, is regarded. Art, like music, isn't a commodity. This doesn't stop the capitalist system trying to turn it into one.
You may be able to appreciate "art" but you seem to be ignorant about investing in it.
Just to play or listen to it once Painting art is messed up. Imagine that people would only care about the original recording of a Horowitz piece. Copies would be worthless. Etc, etc.
Isn't it funny that you assumed people thought that the painting had no artistic value because they thought the amount of money payed for the painting to be absurd?I mean, you created a connection between the two while you wanted to say there isn't one, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BoyWithAPipe.JPGno?
Like I said. If someone wants an original Horowitz item they want it like someone wants to have Britney Spears underwear. It is just a novelty item owned by a famous person. Apperently people want items like this, for some reason. Now I could give a list of all kinds of items people want because thet were owned by famous people; the items themselves are famous. But this has nothing to do with art.A good copy, or maybe rather a medium, will contain all the artistic value expressed. It is silly to say that a copy of a copy has less artistic quality than the original recording. It is the same music.
would YOU be happy to burn a CD of it and give the original away?
I wouldn't even burn it on CD, probably. I don't like Horowitz that much. I guess the most rational thing to do is to sell it on ebay. Then what to do with the money? That depends on how I aquired that recording.But the value would be the same kind of value as Britney Spears underwear has. I mean, you can argue that I am avoiding your point but I just can't see it any other way. We were talking about artistic value. The value of objects like this irrational. The fact that an object was owned by a famous person does not change an object at all. It remains the same. I don't see how an object like this has added value.
if you want to check out absurdity, check out Mark Rothko and check out how much his works have been sold for.A piece for paper with only one color painted onto it roughly with no visible means of patterns whatsoever sold at some price!Boy, I am going to be an artist!
Has anyone compared it with opus claviwhatisface yet?
I have just had an awful thought.Did Sorabji paint??
You can make a copy of it and the original becomes pretty useless. The only reason to collect it would be to collect it because it is an item fanboy collecters want. Just like people want Jimi Hendrix his guitar, Elvis his suit, etc.I mean, what would you all pay for Glenn Gould his chair?
Topic: is this worth 104 million $$$ ?? 