This is exactly why modern art is complete trash.

[Umberger]

new plan:

1)pee randomly in snow
2)take picture
3)?????
4)PROFIT!!!

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: James3shin
Im sorry but that looks like sh!t...

:roll: You are just missing all the thought and feelings the artist was conveying.

 

[James3shin]

I must have, or the thought and feeling must have knocked me the fvck out, and i can't see straight any more.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: Umberger
new plan:

1)pee randomly in snow
2)take picture
3)?????
4)PROFIT!!!

Sounds like a plan. You will probably make more money if you do it on mountains like Everest though. You will need a whole series.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Umberger
new plan:

1)pee randomly in snow
2)take picture
3)?????
4)PROFIT!!!

Sounds like a plan. You will probably make ore money if you do it on mountains like Everest though. You will need a whole series.

And make it something controversial. Piss the letters B U S H on Everest. Take a separate photo of each letter and hang them next to each other on the wall. That would make you millions per photo, easily.

 

[OffTopic1]

Would you pay 82.5 millions for Portrait of Dr. Gachet buy Van Gogh. (a rich Japanese person pay for it in 1990)

The Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir is beautiful but does it worth the cool $78 million in 1990.

I personally don't find what the hoopla all about in the by Pablo Picasso, but some one thought that it worth $104.1 million in 2004.

Does the still life Rideau Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne worth $55 million in 1999 when every high school & first year art student have to draw similar things and easily replicate it?

And, who in their right mind would paid 2.5 million in 2002 for a Urinal that was signed by Marcel Duchamp.

And, wouldn't even bother to look at Action Painting, or pay a dime for any of Pollock paintings.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Would you pay 82.5 millions for Portrait of Dr. Gachet buy Van Gogh. (a rich Japanese person pay for it in 1990)

The Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir is beautiful but does it worth the cool $78 million in 1990.

I personally don't find what the hoopla all about in the by Pablo Picasso, but some one thought that it worth $104.1 million in 2004.

Does the still life Rideau Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne worth $55 million in 1999 when every high school & first year art student have to draw similar things and easily replicate it?

And, who in their right mind would paid 2.5 million in 2002 for a Urinal that was signed by Marcel Duchamp.

And, wouldn't even bother to look at Action Painting, or pay a dime for any of Pollock paintings.

At least for everything save the urinal at the end, it took a good amount of skill to create such a painting and even though it's not really worth the amount it sells for, it is at least something that the buyer could probably not have reproduced themselves.. I know I can't do something like that but in the OP's link, I could splatter paint on a canvas and "say" I was portraying my emotions even thought it really isnt jack sh!t.

 

[AntiEverything]

Renoir is one my favorites, if I had some spare $millions lying around, I'd consider buying one.

I went to an impressionist exhibit once and it was thrilling. Being mere inches away from Renoirs, Van Goghs, and Monets gave me chills. The feeling that comes across from those paintings when viewing them in person instead of a print or a copy in a book is amazing.

Modern art on the other hand, has never had any redeeming value in my mind, either in print or in person.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Umberger
new plan:

1)pee randomly in snow
2)take picture
3)?????
4)PROFIT!!!

Sounds like a plan. You will probably make ore money if you do it on mountains like Everest though. You will need a whole series.

And make it something controversial. Piss the letters B U S H on Everest. Take a separate photo of each letter and hang them next to each other on the wall. That would make you millions per photo, easily.

That wouldn't do it. It would take the name of the late pope, mother theresa, or princess Diana. Or, send a letter to PETA and threaten to squash a flee with 2 bricks between canvas.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
I've also wondered if I could just crap in a box and put it on display.

Hell if they have a cricifix on display in a vat of piss, or a bottle filled full of the artist's blood, they should take my Poop in a box 05.

Take a sh!t in a printer while its feeding a paper and call it:

Gobadgrs Number 2

LMAO

Rooofles!

 

[cyclohexane]

looks up a huge flaming pile of crap

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

That's because 100 years ago, art became crap anyone could crank out with a couple buckets of paint and a large canvas.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

A hundred years huh? Maybe that says something.

I agree there will always be critics but..........................

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

I think what gets most people is the "lack of talent" needed to paint like that, compared to a painting like this.

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
I'm an art fan but modern art is indeed a fruad.

:thumbsup:

 

[Ricochet]

Da Vinci and Michaelangelo are rolling in their graves. What gets me is schools, libraries, and public buildings paying good money for this sh!t when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[oog]

i remember reading an article that examined a number of pollock's work and determined that they were fractals (not precise repeating patterns that you might generate with a computer, but the repeating levels of complexity that you see in nature). it was in the december 2002 scientific american issue. quite an interesting work. they said that you could even date his works by ordering them in terms of fractal density. it's possible that he didn't know he was creating fractals, but it was something that he intuitively saw. they also said that you could identify fakes using this same analysis.

A link to the article.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: ricochet
Da Vinci and Michaelangelo are rolling in their graves. What gets me is schools, libraries, and public buildings paying good money for this sh!t when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Like having some kindergartners do the artwork and giving the money to the school?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

I think what gets most people is the "lack of talent" needed to paint like that, compared to a painting like this.

It has more to do with a lack of understanding Art than anything else.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

I think what gets most people is the "lack of talent" needed to paint like that, compared to a painting like this.

It has more to do with a lack of understanding Art than anything else.

I am not following you. When the average person looks at a Pollock painting, they thing "What? Paint splattered randomly onto a canvas is art? It doesn't look like anything. What is the point? I can do that!"

When they look at more traditional art, they either see something they consider beautiful, detailed, grand, or whatever else you can think of. It at least looks like it took talent to paint, and people admire that.

 

[Wadded Beef]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
You see the Monkey?!?!?!?!?!?!

I can see it!!!!!!!!!!!

11.75mil

it's one of those magic eye things where you cross your eyes to see it

 

[ucdbiendog]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
I've also wondered if I could just crap in a box and put it on display.

Hell if they have a cricifix on display in a vat of piss, or a bottle filled full of the artist's blood, they should take my Poop in a box 05.

Take a sh!t in a printer while its feeding a paper and call it:

Gobadgrs Number 2

ROFL thats comedy

 

[0roo0roo]

yea pollock is a joke. his talent was in fooling idiots.

elephants to slather paint on canvas too
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0626_020626_elephant.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news.../06/photogalleries/0626_elephant1.html
http://www.thaifocus.com/news/stories/980000b.htm
http://kidzworld.com/site/p2096.htm
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/NYBUFsurapa.html

 

[DeeKnow]

modern art is just another one of those free market forces that take money away from suckers.... I see nothing wrong with that!
anything that takes cash away from morons is good for the rest of us...