Like has been said before, it is all relative. Look at a dollar bill, it’s just a piece of paper, completely worthless, but because of what is printed on it, it becomes valuable. I’m tired right now, but I find it kind of odd that the U.S. Goverment pays for the paper they print money in with dollars…
This painting is just like a dollar bill except in one very important aspect: Instead of going down in price, it will go up. Thus it is a very good investment, and paintings can easily be bartered into money via auction houses, if they’re good paintings. Wait a few years and this painting will be worthless or priceless, so, in effect, it will end of “priceless.”
*Originally posted by Kitiara *
**Laslett, I have that painting in my hall. Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it’s still a cool picture.
Sometimes though, I just don’t get art… How is value calculated? OK, say I draw a picture. This one:
How do they know whether it’s worth fifty pence or fifty pounds? Or fifty thousand pounds? :hangover: **
Again, it’s human nature. It’s all about how it affects YOU. Think of it like food, food in itself is completely worthless. It doesn’t even last very long. But, because there is a need, people will give things for it.
Take drugs too, they are completely worthless, and in fact they’re worth less than that because they have a negative affect on people. However, due to people’s short sitedness, they will pay for them because they percieve them to have a positive effect.
omg! I wouldn’t pay a buck for that!
I couldn’t put it on my wall cuz it’s too ugly to be on the wall! I don’t care who painted it… what the heck am I supposed to do with that!?
Take drugs too, they are completely worthless, and in fact they’re worth less than that because they have a negative affect on people. However, due to people’s short sitedness, they will pay for them because they percieve them to have a positive effect.
if it werent for “drugs” we may have never become “civilised” it was the shamans in the dawn of time who were the wise ones, and they were always off their nuts… and many if not all the great painters/musicians etc were taking some recreational drug or another…so a bit wrong to say that in such a sweeping way.
as for art it is completely subjective…when i did art at school we looked into this, and there was a painting which sold for 100s of thousands and it was by a mental patient in an asylum, so just goes to show really doesnt it.
Personally though i dont like those types of paintings…there is famous one called “green on green canvas” ill let you guess what it looks like…
*Originally posted by ave *
**if it werent for “drugs” we may have never become “civilised” it was the shamans in the dawn of time who were the wise ones, and they were always off their nuts… and many if not all the great painters/musicians etc were taking some recreational drug or another…so a bit wrong to say that in such a sweeping way.
as for art it is completely subjective…when i did art at school we looked into this, and there was a painting which sold for 100s of thousands and it was by a mental patient in an asylum, so just goes to show really doesnt it.
Personally though i dont like those types of paintings…there is famous one called “green on green canvas” ill let you guess what it looks like… **
Hah, yeah, civilization is where it is today because people ate special mushshrooms :toad:
Often crazy people make very interesting art, due to the fact that they see things completely differently than everyone else
*Originally posted by Kitiara *
**So will anyone give me a few grand for my little effort? :beam: **
Unfortueatly you didn’t qualify from some unheard of art school and your first delivery isn’t wierd enough
[QUOTE]*Originally posted by Kitiara *
**Laslett, I have that painting in my hall. Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it’s still a cool picture.
QUOTE]
Mine’s signed
My favourite is this one
Got it in Hays Galleria when I was working in London
i dont think its worth 8 mill
but then sports players are bought and transfered for 100s of millions and id rather have art than sport so its all relative i guess.
Us humans priorities are all wrong…people starve and die while others spend 8mill on a painting…crazy :puzzle:
You can’t appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn’t detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can’t. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy.
Its not about looks, I think someone said it earlier; Its how much someone is willing to pay for it.
I admit 8 million is outrageous, its just what you are buying when buying art like this is the artist custom signature, its the fact that he can make anything but decides to do this, and this is what its worth. Sort of like Picasso, his later stuff was crap, but it was worth alot, because 1. Picasso was talted in ANY form of art. 2.He was famous, 3. Alot of people where willing to buy his art, not because it looks nice, but because its; Picasso
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
** 2.He was famous, 3. Alot of people where willing to buy his art, not because it looks nice, but because its; Picasso **
And you can pretty much guarantee he’s not going to be painting any more (the rarity thing)
*Originally posted by Thinker2501 *
**You can’t appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn’t detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can’t. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy. **
wow, for about 2 seconds I really thought you meant that for serious
well, bit101 revolutioned the flash experiment art. and I guess noone would pay 8*10^6$ (not even 100 $) for one of his works, although I would prefer them in regard of the painting. (I guess he spent more time on most of his experiments than this painter for his painting)
the colors don’t even fit. I wouldn’t say I accept paintings of landscapes as real art, I like a picasso too, but where the hell is the art here. (a definition of my math theacher: art is if you don’t understand why it’s that worthy!)
what was the intention of the it’s creator? did he have one???
(exept the try to mix up colors that don’t fit)
You can’t appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn’t detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can’t. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy.
Nonsense im afraid…
I have seen art like this up close and its just as pompous and vacuous in real life as on a scan.
i reckon the fact is art is how u percieve it(spelling?) and if enoug people thought that would be worth that much at sotherbys then they will think it will be able to seel fo that much i must say i quite like it but i doubt its worth that much. Also this is the first ive heard of this rothco guy but then im not particularly arty. out of curiousity does any1 know if it actually went for 8million or was that the amount it did go for not the pre auction estimate.
Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it’s still a cool picture. 
:beam:
