![]() |
|
![]()
November 10, 2005
Good art is cheaper than bad art!
I'm sorry, but I just don't think I'd pay $23.8 million for this: ![]() But that's exactly what a New York art dealer paid: NEW YORK (AFP) - A large-scale metal sculpture by American artist David Smith has become the most expensive work of contemporary art ever sold at auction, fetching 23.8 million dollars at Sotheby's in New York.I don't care how rare it is; I just don't like it. The flow isn't there for me. I asked a friend who's an art collector and an artist himself. His immediate reaction? "What a piece of trash! The emperor's new clothes!!!" I told him that I thought a 1950s bumper sculpture he owns would be worth far more to me, and that if he'd send me a photo, I'd be glad to put it in my blog. So here it is: (It's made from 1950s car bumpers.) In all honesty, I would pay more for the bumper sculpture than I would for the one that fetched the $23.8 million. I know there's no accounting for taste, things are worth what they sell for, and you get what you pay for. I'd rather get value. Sheesh! posted by Eric on 11.10.05 at 08:51 PM
Comments
quick, somebody wrap that thing in saffron! fishkite · November 10, 2005 11:05 PM 1st Item: Except for the leaning blocks I was building that sort of thing when I was four. Alan Kellogg · November 10, 2005 11:49 PM Steven, while I can't say that 1950s bumpers are "better" than sterile blocks, I find the sculpture more esthetically appealing, and by far the better value. Anyway, I'd rather see it in my yard. Good seeing you again Mick! Hope all is well. Alan, if only you'd have saved your art, you could have sold it and had a nice retirement fund. Eric Scheie · November 11, 2005 08:26 AM It seems to me that a good chunk of art(especially modern art) is based more around the artist than around the actual value of the art. If you find doodlings of Picaso or Da Vinci, they can be worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They're no longer just art, but a gateway and connection to the artist. In the case of this 'block' art, that seems to be along those lines. Maybe there's something here I'm missing in the camera angle, but I doubt it. The dealer didn't buy the art per-se, he bought the name of the artist. alchemist · November 11, 2005 02:09 PM Eric, There is nothing more transient than the work of a small child. :) Alan Kellogg · November 12, 2005 03:18 AM I wrote [one word added here]: Two thoughts here: 1) The contrast between these two abstract sculptures here is extremely interesting. Paradoxically, the one you prefer is curvaceous, sensuous, feminine, surrounded by lush, dark foliage, while the one I prefer is linear, angular, masculine, standing on bright sunlight, surrounded by tall, angular skyscrapers. A reversal? Femocrats vs. Transcendental Scientists? Yin vs. Yang? 2) Norma, to the Right even of Dawn on this issue, opposes both abstract sculptures, for, as I said, for her a sculpture must be a concrete representation of a heroic human figure or of a Deity. I think she would see it more harshly, as in the light of what W. Cleon Slousen described here in his list of 45 "Current Communist Goals": "....22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate sll good sculpture from from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms"...." (from W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, 1961) Though I oppose W. Cleon Skousen on certain things (i.e., censorship, homo-sexuality), his style is extremely interesting and he is absolutely right about what the Communists are doing. We must expose them and stop them. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 12, 2005 03:06 PM I also admire the style of the man who, when asked what were the worst crimes he could think of, replied: "Incest with his mother or matricide (crime against an individual). Destruction of world culture, e.g., books, sculpturing, etc. (crime against humanity)." Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 16, 2005 04:09 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Interesting differences in taste here. I won't say that one is better than another, as both are of the same type of abstract scupture, but, like Dawn, I like the square-looking sculpture above. Norma would like neither, insisting that a sculpture must more concretely represent a human figure or a Deity.
Interesting questions about it all....