17 million for this piece of shit they call "art"

[Hammock Parties]

I'm beyond appalled:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/rothko_sothebys.jpg

[BigRedChief]

I'm beyond appalled:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/rothko_sothebys.jpg

WTF, $12 mil? Thats a frigging shut down corner.

[Ultra Peanut]

Amazing.

It really drives home the contrast between blue and yellow, with the space in the middle used to indicate the beige or "gray" way some think in a remarkably effective way. Truly magnificent.

[Bob Dole]

Not that Bob Dole would pay anywhere near that much even if he had the money, but photos don't do Rothko's (or a lot of artist's) work justice.

[Hammock Parties]

Amazing.

It really drives home the contrast between blue and yellow, with the space in the middle used to indicate the beige or "gray" way some think in a remarkably effective way. Truly magnificent.

ROFL

[Ultra Peanut]

Here is my latest work. I toiled for many hours, but finally, it is complete.

It should be on the auction block by this afternoon, but its world premiere is here, on ChiefsPlanet.

I call it "Shall Heaven Help Us?" with a subtitle of "For Hell Has Emerged."

[Hammock Parties]

Here is my latest work. I toiled for many hours, but finally, it is complete.

It should be on the auction block by this afternoon, but its world premiere is here, on ChiefsPlanet.

I call it "Shall Heaven Help Us?" with a subtitle of "For Hell Hath Emerged."

The symbolism and motifs in your work are stunning. I take it the blackness represents hell, while the red swaths are indactive of the demonized hordes swarming from the underworld.

Your use of the moon in the center of the piece is true genious. And over it all the blue and yellow purity of God awaits.

GIVE THE NOBEL PRIZE TO THIS MAN!

[Skip Towne]

I'll bet the guy who bid 16 million is sick he lost that wonderful piece.

[Ultra Peanut]

I'll bet the guy who bid 16 million is sick he lost that wonderful piece.Here's a photo of that guy:

[morphius]

I guess it is really nice to have supportive and rich families to buy your art.

[BigRedChief]

but really who cares what an individual does with his money. Now cities and states paying too much for "art" thats another issue all together. Now your not spending your own money but our money

[Eleazar]

This one is called, "Pay me money suckers"

[GoTrav]

You paint this?

SEAN
Yeah. Do you paint?

WILL
No.

SEAN
Crayons?

WILL
This is a real piece of sh1t.

SEAN
Tell me what you really think.

WILL
Poor color composition, lousy use of
space. But that sh1t doesn't really
concern me.

SEAN
What does?

WILL
The color here, see how dark it is?
It's interesting.

SEAN
What is?

WILL
I think you're one step away from
cutting your ear off.

SEAN
Oh, "Starry Night" time, huh?

WILL
You ever heard the saying, "any port in
a storm?"

SEAN
Sure, how 'bout "still waters run deep"--

WILL
--Well, maybe that means you.

SEAN
Maybe what mea--

WILL

Maybe you were in the middle of a storm,
a big f***in' storm-- the waves were
crashing over the bow, the Goddamned
mast was about to snap, and you were
crying for the harbor. So you did
what you had to do, to get out. Maybe
you became a psychologist.

[Ultra Peanut]

This one is called, "Pay me money suckers"That is utter crap. You defame the name of high art by posting such an abomination.

[the Talking Can]

Rothko is great....the fact that someone would pay 16 million is a seperate matter....besides, that's capitalism, I thought we loved the Market....

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I'm torn between which response to post, so I'll post both...

Response #1
Damn....$17 million!....I'd have given at least TWICE that for such an inspiring vision! They got robbed!



Response #2
Shit...I can do that.....and I'll only charge $10 million!

[beavis]

I'm torn between which response to post, so I'll post both...

Response #1
Damn....$17 million!....I'd have given at least TWICE that for such an inspiring vision! They got robbed!



Response #2
Shit...I can do that.....and I'll only charge $10 million!
I'd have gone with door #3 if I were you.

[Rain Man]

I find Black Ice's avatar to be more inspiring and thought-provoking.

[Bwana]

I'm in the wrong business.

[the Talking Can]

you'd rather work in auctions?

[Bwana]

you'd rather work in auctions?

Hell no! :shake:

On a side note, I would rather have a Stevie Ray / First Down Elvis original if I was going to drop that kind of jack. :thumb:

[the Talking Can]

Hell no! :shake:

On a side note, I would rather have a Stevie Ray / First Down Elvis original if I was going to drop that kind of jack. :thumb:

just kidding....but Rothko has been dead for awhile, this piece was sold at an auction house....Rothko never saw any of this crazy money

[Bwana]

just kidding....but Rothko has been dead for awhile, this piece was sold at an auction house....Rothko never saw any of this crazy money

Funny how that works.:hmmm: Hey, to each their own, just not my style.

[Hammock Parties]

I'll be back later guys. I'm going to go whip up some "previously undiscovered" Rothko pieces and sell them for millions. I'll donate 2 million to Chiefsplanet so we can have our own cluster of Cray supercomputers for hosting. CHIEFSPLANET WILL NEVER CRASH AGAIN.

[KCWolfman]

Not that Bob Dole would pay anywhere near that much even if he had the money, but photos don't do Rothko's (or a lot of artist's) work justice.
Where you drinking a double soy latte mocha when you made this post?

[KCWolfman]

Whores are a better buy for rich guys


You get real pleasure from your purchase
You don't have to attempt to sell the product to someone else
It is gone by morning so you aren't reminded of what you wasted your money on

[Hammock Parties]

Whores are a better buy for rich guys


You get real pleasure from your purchase
You don't have to attempt to sell the product to someone else
It is gone by morning so you aren't reminded of what you wasted your money on


What about disease?

[picasso]

I am not much into abstract expressionism but to say that Rothko's work is shit is well - uncultured.

The best way to describe how to admire works of art like this is to wad up a piece of paper as if you were throwing it away and set it aside. Now take a piece of paper and write all the feelings that you instantly feel at that moment on it. Express those feelings now in how you wad this paper up. Now open up the two pieces of paper and you can see the difference how ever so subtle. Even if they look the same, the feelings from each one as you look at them are different. It is about association. If you can associate to a Rothko it is because his art expresses something familiar that triggers inside you. And to truly appreciate art you have to know what those triggers are. Pornography excluded.

[Hammock Parties]

I am not saying ALL Rothko work is shit.

I think this one is though.

[picasso]

I am not saying ALL Rothko work is shit.

I think this one is though.

I know you're not and I was over the top with saying uncultured.
It's your opinion. I respect that.

[Bob Dole]

Where you drinking a double soy latte mocha when you made this post?

No.

[Logical]

I am not much into abstract expressionism but to say that Rothko's work is shit is well - uncultured.

The best way to describe how to admire works of art like this is to wad up a piece of paper as if you were throwing it away and set it aside. Now take a piece of paper and write all the feelings that you instantly feel at that moment on it. Express those feelings now in how you wad this paper up. Now open up the two pieces of paper and you can see the difference how ever so subtle. Even if they look the same, the feelings from each one as you look at them are different. It is about association. If you can associate to a Rothko it is because his art expresses something familiar that triggers inside you. And to truly appreciate art you have to know what those triggers are. Pornography excluded.

Blue sinks while yellow floats.

[KCWolfman]

Blue sinks while yellow floats.
Exactly!!!

Rep

[Hammock Parties]

I know you're not and I was over the top with saying uncultured.
It's your opinion. I respect that.

It's OK. And for the record, Picasso, you blow away Rothko.

[Straight, No Chaser]

I'm beyond appalled:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/rothko_sothebys.jpg
I can't figure out why you would be other than to get some attention. Is it your money?

In the 1940's and 1950's a unique American art movement began to emerge; Abstract Expressionism. The movement effectively shifted the art world's focus from Europe (specifically Paris) to New York in the postwar years. Breaking away from accepted conventions in both technique and subject matter, the artists made monumentally scaled works that stood as reflections of their individual psyches—and in doing so, attempted to tap into universal inner sources. These artists valued spontaneity and improvisation, and they accorded the highest importance to process. Artists like Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, Lee Krasner, and Robert Motherwell got their start during the Great Depression which spurred the development of government relief programs, including the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a jobs program for unemployed Americans in which many of the group participated, and which allowed so many artists to establish a career path.

One way to look at a Rothko, if you ever have the opportunity, is consider the expressive potential of color. Rothko, for instance, created art based on simplified, large-format, color-dominated fields. The impulse was, in general, reflective and cerebral, with pictorial means simplified in order to create a kind of elemental impact. Rothko and among others, spoke of a goal to achieve the "sublime" rather than the "beautiful".

In a famous letter to the New York Times Rothko, with the assistance of other artists, wrote: "To us, art is an adventure into an unknown world of the imagination which is fancy-free and violently opposed to common sense. There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is critical."

Considering this work came from "The New York School", I think 17 mil is a steal.


--->

[Hammock Parties]

I can't figure out why you would be other than to get some attention. Is it your money?



--->

No, but there's no way this piece of crap is worth 17 million. It should be at Wal-Mart in the $20 prints section.

[KCWolfman]

I can't figure out why you would be other than to get some attention. Is it your money?

In the 1940's and 1950's a unique American art movement began to emerge; Abstract Expressionism. The movement effectively shifted the art world's focus from Europe (specifically Paris) to New York in the postwar years. Breaking away from accepted conventions in both technique and subject matter, the artists made monumentally scaled works that stood as reflections of their individual psyches—and in doing so, attempted to tap into universal inner sources. These artists valued spontaneity and improvisation, and they accorded the highest importance to process. Artists like Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, Lee Krasner, and Robert Motherwell got their start during the Great Depression which spurred the development of government relief programs, including the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a jobs program for unemployed Americans in which many of the group participated, and which allowed so many artists to establish a career path.

One way to look at a Rothko, if you ever have the opportunity, is consider the expressive potential of color. Rothko, for instance, created art based on simplified, large-format, color-dominated fields. The impulse was, in general, reflective and cerebral, with pictorial means simplified in order to create a kind of elemental impact. Rothko and among others, spoke of a goal to achieve the "sublime" rather than the "beautiful".

In a famous letter to the New York Times Rothko, with the assistance of other artists, wrote: "To us, art is an adventure into an unknown world of the imagination which is fancy-free and violently opposed to common sense. There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is critical."

Considering this work came from "The New York School", I think 17 mil is a steal.


--->

I wonder how many of these guys slap crap together and say "Hey, we are impressionists, they will fall for it".

A bunch of colored blocks stacked on top of one another is hardly fantastic revelation (IMO, obviously) and honestly, I would take a decent oil still life over that any day.

[Hammock Parties]

I wonder how many of these guys slap crap together and say "Hey, we are impressionists, they will fall for it".

A bunch of colored blocks stacked on top of one another is hardly fantastic revelation (IMO, obviously) and honestly, I would take a decent oil still life over that any day.

Give me dogs playing poker man. Something I can actually LOOK at.

[KCWolfman]

Give me dogs playing poker man. Something I can actually LOOK at.
I wouldn't go that far. But a 150.00 painting in a decent frame would catch my eye long before this.

[Hammock Parties]

I wouldn't go that far. But a 150.00 painting in a decent frame would catch my eye long before this.

What's wrong with Dogs playing Poker?

[Rain Man]

Most people misinterpret the meaning of this work. It's intended to represent the decline of France (hence turning the flag on its side), via moral decay (the ragged painting style) and the conversion of the blood of French heroes (red in the flag) to the cowardice of modern-day France (red replaced by yellow).

Plus, if you unfocus your eyes and kind of look through the painting, you can see a 3-D spaceship and dinosaur hidden in the pattern.

[David.]

Since the creation of photography many artists don't try to make realistic paintings. They paint feelings and impressions. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not art. To say Rothko is shit is just stupid. You guys would probably say the same thing about Picasso if you hadn't heard the name.

[David.]

Most people misinterpret the meaning of this work. It's intended to represent the decline of France (hence turning the flag on its side), via moral decay (the ragged painting style) and the conversion of the blood of French heroes (red in the flag) to the cowardice of modern-day France (red replaced by yellow).

Plus, if you unfocus your eyes and kind of look through the painting, you can see a 3-D spaceship and dinosaur hidden in the pattern.

ROFL those 3d pictures piss me off. I have NEVER seen them. It just doesn't work with my eyes. It may be because I am blind in one eye, but still...it pisses me off :mad:

[KCWolfman]

Since the creation of photography many artists don't try to make realistic paintings. They paint feelings and impressions. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not art. To say Rothko is shit is just stupid. You guys would probably say the same thing about Picasso if you hadn't heard the name.
I didn't call the Rothko "sh*t", but honestly, I see no redeeming value in the painting alone. That said, I didn't purchase the thing, if someone has 17 mil to blow on colored blocks, more power to him.

Also I disagree regarding the advent of photography. Sculptures are still done, sports paintings are huge, Rodin drew for 70 years after the advent of the camera, lithographs still take center stage at art fairs, Tamara De Lempicka catches a nice version of Art Deco in her lifelike paintings, Norman Rockwell, Georgia O'Keefe, Andrew Wyeth, etc etc etc.

[Straight, No Chaser]

I wonder how many of these guys slap crap together and say "Hey, we are impressionists, they will fall for it".

Misconception.

Ed Harris produced/directed/starred in a movie called "Pollack" a few years back. Rent it sometime. It's a good biography of his struggle with "life" and art and of the Abstract Expressionist movement.

Although their styles are vastly different, Pollack was a student of Thomas Hart Benton in NY. It's rumored Pollack said in reference to what he learned from Benton: "He taught me how to drink a 5th of scotch a day".

Try visiting Thomas Hart Benton's house in KC MO. Tours run by the MP&R Dept. Everything in the house/studio is left as is. The guides there are history/art grads so you can ask away... that neighborhood has some awesome homes.


---->

[Hammock Parties]

Most people misinterpret the meaning of this work. It's intended to represent the decline of France (hence turning the flag on its side), via moral decay (the ragged painting style) and the conversion of the blood of French heroes (red in the flag) to the cowardice of modern-day France (red replaced by yellow).

Plus, if you unfocus your eyes and kind of look through the painting, you can see a 3-D spaceship and dinosaur hidden in the pattern.

I love you.

[KCWolfman]

Misconception.

Ed Harris produced/directed/starred in a movie called "Pollack" a few years back. Rent it sometime. It's a good biography of his struggle with "life" and art and of the Abstract Expressionist movement.

Although their styles are vastly different, Pollack was a student of Thomas Hart Benton in NY. It's rumored Pollack said in reference to what he learned from Benton: "He taught me how to drink a 5th of scotch a day".

Try visiting Thomas Hart Benton's house in KC MO. Tours run by the MP&R Dept. Everything in the house/studio is left as is. The guides there are history/art grads so you can ask away... that neighborhood has some awesome homes.


---->
I saw Pollack, Harris is a great actor, but it didn't move me at all. Something about impressionism just seems as work uncompleted to me. It is like listening to Tommy Kat give her version of the Iliad (no insult intended, TK).

[Hammock Parties]

Quite a valuable skill.

Who taught you?

[picasso]

It does look simple I agree. But it is not. Rothko didn't make tons of money from these while he was alive. So I doubt that he was setting around thinking to himself "I will slap this crap together and call myself an impressionist and everyone will be fooled HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" He did commit suicide ya know. The only thing that I have trouble with is that he never named his artwork. He gave it a number instead which makes you believe he didn't have any relationship with his work. I know he didn't make the money that Basquiat made from his ramblings on canvas at the age of 22. Although much more interesting to look at. He is another dead artist from a heroin overdose at 27. You ought to check him out. It's a diffferent side of expressionism.

[Hammock Parties]

He did commit suicide ya know.

He probably considered himself a failure as an artist after realizing all he was capable of was "three blocks of random color."

Also, I should have made this a poll. If a mod wants to do that for me....

[KCWolfman]

It does look simple I agree. But it is not. .So explain it. If it is a jumble of feelings, it is poorly displayed for the average person to review.

Some impressionism is fascinating. Miro, Degas are great to my views, and I have spent a great deal of time in the Dali museum in St Petersburg, FL. Most "modern" art just simply seems farsical to me, and not for lack of trying to comprehend, but because of the lack of initial impression on the topic, and the failure of others to provide any explanation other than "if you don't get it now, you won't appreciate it no matter how much I explain".

[Straight, No Chaser]

I saw Pollack, Harris is a great actor, but it didn't move me at all. Something about impressionism just seems as work uncompleted to me. It is like listening to Tommy Kat give her version of the Iliad (no insult intended, TK).

Impressionism is strictly a French school. Around 1870 to the 1880's artists like Monet, Renior, Degas, and Pissaro [Mary Cassat - American] focused on the "single moment" and painted with abbreviation, speed, and spontaniety to capture a fleeting moment.
Context:
Previous extensive industrialization in Europe was seen as brutal and chaotic. The rapidity of change = unstable and insubstantial --an elusiveness and impermanence of images and conditions.

Abstract Expressionism is thought of as originating in America as stated previously. Although they valued the some of the same techniques as the Impressionists (60 years apart), they considered their focus more cerebral and worked with audacious scale.



---->

[David.]

I didn't call the Rothko "sh*t", but honestly, I see no redeeming value in the painting alone. That said, I didn't purchase the thing, if someone has 17 mil to blow on colored blocks, more power to him.

Also I disagree regarding the advent of photography. Sculptures are still done, sports paintings are huge, Rodin drew for 70 years after the advent of the camera, lithographs still take center stage at art fairs, Tamara De Lempicka catches a nice version of Art Deco in her lifelike paintings, Norman Rockwell, Georgia O'Keefe, Andrew Wyeth, etc etc etc.

notice I said "Many"

[KCWolfman]

Impressionism is strictly a French school. Around 1870 to the 1880's artists like Monet, Renior, Degas, and Pissaro [Mary Cassat - American] focused on the "single moment" and painted with abbreviation, speed, and spontaniety to capture a fleeting moment.
Context:
Previous extensive industrialization in Europe was seen as brutal and chaotic. The rapidity of change = unstable and insubstantial --an elusiveness and impermanence of images and conditions.

Abstract Expressionism is thought of as originating in America as stated previously. Although they valued the some of the same techniques as the Impressionists (60 years apart), they considered their focus more cerebral and worked with audacious scale.



---->
Modern Art = Impressionism squared with fewer colors.

[David.]

So explain it. If it is a jumble of feelings, it is poorly displayed for the average person to review.

Some impressionism is fascinating. Miro, Degas are great to my views, and I have spent a great deal of time in the Dali museum in St Petersburg, FL. Most "modern" art just simply seems farsical to me, and not for lack of trying to comprehend, but because of the lack of initial impression on the topic, and the failure of others to provide any explanation other than "if you don't get it now, you won't appreciate it no matter how much I explain".

it doesn't have to be understood by the average person. It's understood by the artists and hopefully the person who bought it. I don't see why someone liking abstract expressionism is such a big deal to you. Does it offend you for some reason?

[David.]

well...I have to go, to Art appreciation class in fact ROFL well.....college algebra first, but that's already started and I might just skip.

[Logical]

So explain it. If it is a jumble of feelings, it is poorly displayed for the average person to review.

Some impressionism is fascinating. Miro, Degas are great to my views, and I have spent a great deal of time in the Dali museum in St Petersburg, FL. Most "modern" art just simply seems farsical to me, and not for lack of trying to comprehend, but because of the lack of initial impression on the topic, and the failure of others to provide any explanation other than "if you don't get it now, you won't appreciate it no matter how much I explain".The only thing of import is I would not like 95% of it in my house. Most of it is just an eyesore waiting to be criticized.

[Straight, No Chaser]

So explain it. If it is a jumble of feelings, it is poorly displayed for the average person to review.



Ahhhhhhhh. This always comes up.
The phrase "Well, I don't know anything about art but I know what I like." A formidible roadblock indeed.

Experts don't post exact rules on "Why is this supposed to be art?" In order to have any rating scale at all, we must be willing to assume that there are fixed, timeless values in art, the true worth of a given work is a stable thing, independent of time and circumstance. Perhaps these exist, but we do know that opinions about works of art change not only today but throughout history.


---->

[Sig Kauffman]

Wasting $17 million on garbage? What moron would do something like that?





<---Oh, right.

[ChiefFripp]

Well to most buyers of modern art I'm sure it's a status symbol thing that only their snotty friends who are also "in the know" about modern art will appreciate. Personally I think modern art is just one of the many means man has constructed for himself to look down on his "ignorant" lessers.

If there is really something to modern art that I'm just not getting, I hope someone can open my eyes to it. I understand that alot of modern artist feel that photography had/has made the painting of actual objects and landscapes obsolete and that now all that is left for painter/ artist is to create mood pieces which attempt to illustrate an emotion through color and form. But I still like the paintings of actual objects and scenery because the artist leaves something of themselves in them that made the paintings more interesting than actual photographs.

[Hammock Parties]

Well to most buyers of modern art I'm sure it's a status symbol thing that only their snotty friends who are also "in the know" about modern art will appreciate. Personally I think modern art is just one of the many means man has constructed for himself to look down on his "ignorant" lessers.

Exactly.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Well to most buyers of modern art I'm sure it's a status symbol thing that only their snotty friends who are also "in the know" about modern art will appreciate...


Maybe but ask yourself: "Would I buy something I don't like?"
I keep answering "No"


---->

[Hammock Parties]

Maybe but ask yourself: "Would I buy something I don't like?"
I keep answering "No"


---->

Faulty reasoning. They like it because it gives them status.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Faulty reasoning. They like it because it gives them status.

Do you know who bought it? I guess you could ask them.

I think you created this NFT out of either ignorance or stupidity. I can't figure out which. I ask you.


---->

[the Talking Can]

the fact that the mere existence of this piece of art makes people sputter with anger and defensiveness makes it worth at least $18 million....

[Hammock Parties]

Do you know who bought it? I guess you could ask them.

I think you created this NFT out of either ignorance or stupidity. I can't figure out which. I ask you.


---->

I stole it from another forum, actually. :D

And I posted it here because paying 17 million dollars for that painting is ludicrous. It's like spending $250,000 on a hatchback.

[jcroft]

That looks like a Rothko. Mark Rothko's works are all color field designs simialr to this one. His works are amongst the most popular painting for decorating, as they offer a "punch" of color without depiciting a certain "meaning" (as in a reglious overtone, or anything of that nature).

Personally, I love Mark Rothko's work. Would I pay 17 Million for it? Hell no. But I'd pay $40 for the framed print and hang it in my living room anyday.

[jcroft]

Just went back and read all the comments. I don't know why I'm suprised that so many of the ChiefsPlanet crowd is of the "modern art is shit" persuasion.

*Art* is not about solving problems. That's design. *Art* is not about being pretty. That's decoration.

*Art* is about stimulating a response. *Art* is about making people think. *Art* is about starting discussions.

I think you've all fallen straight into Rothko's trap.

[Hammock Parties]

Just went back and read all the comments. I don't know why I'm suprised that so many of the ChiefsPlanet crowd is of the "modern art is shit" persuasion.

*Art* is not about solving problems. That's design. *Art* is not about being pretty. That's decoration.

*Art* is about stimulating a response. *Art* is about making people think. *Art* is about starting discussions.

I think you've all fallen straight into Rothko's trap.

I can get some 3rd graders to paint you some damn good "Art" if you're into that sort of thing.

[jcroft]

I can get some 3rd graders to paint you some damn good "Art" if you're into that sort of thing.

I don't doubt it. But don't you think 3rd graders can paint good art, then Rothko probably can too?

Your title implies you don't believe this is art. I'm curious what your definition is art is. Seriously, I'm not trying to belittle -- I'm honeslty interested in this sort of thing (I work in the design arts, myself).

[Hammock Parties]

I don't doubt it. But don't you think 3rd graders can paint good art, then Rothko probably can too?

Your title implies you don't believe this is art. I'm curious what your definition is art is. Seriously, I'm not trying to belittle -- I'm honeslty interested in this sort of thing (I work in the design arts, myself).

Art is something that takes talent to produce. GOOD Art, anyway.

[jcroft]

Art is something that takes talent to produce. GOOD Art, anyway.

Okay, then define talent. What about this Rotko work tells you that he didn't have talent?

[Hammock Parties]

Okay, then define talent. What about this Rotko work tells you that he didn't have talent?

I didn't say he didn't have talent. His other works are indicative that he does.

But it doesn't TAKE talent to produce blue-yellow-yellow.

[jcroft]

I didn't say he didn't have talent. His other works are indicative that he does.

But it doesn't TAKE talent to produce blue-yellow-yellow.

Really? His other works are vritually ALL color field paintings. I don't personally know of anything he did other than color field paintings (he may have, though, I'm not sure). Here's some of his other work...

http://images.google.com/images?q=rothko&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi

[Hammock Parties]

Really? His other works are vritually ALL color field paintings. I don't personally know of anything he did other than color field paintings (he may have, though, I'm not sure). Here's some of his other work...

http://images.google.com/images?q=rothko&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi

Well shit. I was under the impression he had done something worth a crap (from the other forum). That's all pretty much shit that anyone could do.

Rothko's a talentless hack.

[tk13]

This one is simple guys. The Yellow represents the rain falling from the sky. The white is a wheelbarrow protecting the blue, which represents chickens, chickens sad and dismayed as nature rains on their parade.

[Hammock Parties]

This one is simple guys. The Yellow represents the rain falling from the sky. The white is a wheelbarrow protecting the blue, which represents chickens, chickens sad and dismayed as nature rains on their parade.

Acid rain?

[stevieray]

Art is something that takes talent to produce. GOOD Art, anyway.

Are you an artist?

[Hammock Parties]

Are you an artist?

No. BUT my sister is.

[KCWolfman]

it doesn't have to be understood by the average person. It's understood by the artists and hopefully the person who bought it. I don't see why someone liking abstract expressionism is such a big deal to you. Does it offend you for some reason?
Did I state I was offended? Perhaps it is the first sentence that puts me off on the topic?

"You aren't meant to understand it" was also used in The Emperor's New Clothes, wasn't it?

[KCWolfman]

Ahhhhhhhh. This always comes up.
The phrase "Well, I don't know anything about art but I know what I like." A formidible roadblock indeed.

Experts don't post exact rules on "Why is this supposed to be art?" In order to have any rating scale at all, we must be willing to assume that there are fixed, timeless values in art, the true worth of a given work is a stable thing, independent of time and circumstance. Perhaps these exist, but we do know that opinions about works of art change not only today but throughout history.


---->
The major difference is art of the pre-"modern" era does have standards. You understand what the artist was trying to accomplish and you can gauge whether he did so or not to your own personal tastes. There is no such gauge set for "modern" art, is there? So instead we get the ever existing Emperor's New Clothes analogy like David. mentioned.

[stevieray]

No. BUT my sister is.

so?

There are no rules to art. It's subjective. Just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it isn't worth anything. I also think you'd be surprised how many famous artist never saw any ghastly amounts of money for their work.

[KCWolfman]

Maybe but ask yourself: "Would I buy something I don't like?"
I keep answering "No"


---->
So those who bought DeLoreans, Lamborghinis, and rich brain dead wifes did so because they liked them? Have you ever sat in a Lamborghini - not very comfortable? Or listened to a woman half your age ramble on regarding the social implications of press on nails versus french manicures?

Wealthy people buy things they don't like every single day - status, my friend, status.

[KCWolfman]

I stole it from another forum, actually. :D

And I posted it here because paying 17 million dollars for that painting is ludicrous. It's like spending $250,000 on a hatchback.
There I disagree with you. A painting is worth exactly what someone paid, nothing more and nothing less. If the buyer purchased the thing (regardless of his reason) he did so because he valued it at exactly the amount he paid.

[morphius]

This is the only picture I have found that might be by Rothko on google that I find even remotely intresting, rectangles of 2-3 colors named the colors themselves only make me thing, "WTF?" and "Why Bother?"

http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Art/rothko.jpg

Morphius
guess I should be in a cave...

[KCWolfman]

so?

There are no rules to art. It's subjective. Just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it isn't worth anything. I also think you'd be surprised how many famous artist never saw any ghastly amounts of money for their work.
Exactly.

The effort (both mental and physical) simply cannot be gauged; therefore, worth can only be applied in a relative format compared to other works of art by the same artist or other similar works by other artists.

That said, again Modern art just doesn't emote anything from me; therefore, the Modern artist has failed to capture a client with me.

[KCWolfman]

Couldn't you say the same for the hatchback?

Perhaps the hatchback once belonged to Hank Williams, Jr. Thus raising the value in the purchaser's eyes.
Yup, therefore blocks painted by Rothko should be worth more than blocks painted by gochiefs classmates.

[Rain Man]

So those who bought DeLoreans, Lamborghinis, and rich brain dead wifes did so because they liked them? Have you ever sat in a Lamborghini - not very comfortable? Or listened to a woman half your age ramble on regarding the social implications of press on nails versus french manicures?

Wealthy people buy things they don't like every single day - status, my friend, status.


Just the other day I was in Arby's, and there was this bunch of cute teenage girls in line behind me, and when the counter guy asked me if I want to "value-size" my meal, I said yes, just to illustrate to the girls that I had money and wasn't afraid to spend it.

[Hammock Parties]

At some point Russ's mind is going to have to reconcile the fact that he's agreeing with gochiefs... at which point, we can only hope his brain does not explode.

HAHA!!! ROFL

[ChiefFripp]

We don't all agree on what constitutes art but we all agree paying 17 grand for a piece of it is rediculous.

[jcroft]

Couldn't you say the same for the hatchback?

Perhaps the hatchback once belonged to Hank Williams, Jr. Thus raising the value in the purchaser's eyes.

Or perhaps some people actually like hatckbacks. I do:

http://www.bmw.de/de/produkte/automobiles/1er/index.html

I also like the color field paintings, and I have three prints of them hanging in my house. My right to like them is just as great as anyone's to not like them.

Is it worth 17 Million? Not to me, but apparently to someone. Like anything, it's worth what someone will pay for it.

[Hammock Parties]

We don't all agree on what constitutes art but we all agree paying 17 grand for a piece of it is rediculous.

I'm not saying Rothko's painting is not art. It's DEFINITELY art. Most specifically, it's BAD art.

And that's 17 MILLION. :shake:

[Rain Man]

so?

There are no rules to art. It's subjective. Just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it isn't worth anything. I also think you'd be surprised how many famous artist never saw any ghastly amounts of money for their work.


Off topic, but I was in some museum a while back (can't remember which one) and there was a placard next to one of the great Impressionists. Most of them lived about the same time and knew each other, and were even roommates on occasion. I wish I could remember the exact two artists, but one of them ended up owning dozens of another one's works because he moved into the guy's apartment after the guy had moved out, and he had just left a bunch behind that he hadn't been able to sell. So someone like Gaugin ended up with a big bunch of Manet's paintings or some such thing, which would be worth untold millions of dollars today.

[jcroft]

I'm not saying Rothko's painting is not art. It's DEFINITELY art. Most specifically, it's BAD art.

And that's 17 MILLION. :shake:

If that's true, then I don't really have a problem with what you're saying. You implied in the title that you didn't think it was art, by putting art in quotes and using the words "they call".

If you think it's art, but bad art, That's fine. You are definitely entitled to your opinion about what is or isn't good art. As long as you understand that this is an OPINION, and not a fact, then everything is kosher.

You also suggested that it "takes talent" and "anyone could do this." If you really believe that Rothko has no talent, and anyone could do this, i'd love to see your attempt.

I was under the impression you felt as though this panting was not art, in which case you'd have a very skewed definition of what art *is*, and I'd have to argue with you. :)

[ChiefFripp]

I'm not saying Rothko's painting is not art. It's DEFINITELY art. Most specifically, it's BAD art.

And that's 17 MILLION. :shake:
17 thousand may as well be 17 million to me :banghead:

[Rain Man]

I went to the Tate Museum in London a couple of years ago, and one of their pieces of art was a looping videotape of a guy cussing and punching himself in the face while wearing boxing gloves.

I'm not kidding.

[Uncle_Ted]

Couldn't you say the same for the hatchback?

Perhaps the hatchback once belonged to Hank Williams, Jr. Thus raising the value in the purchaser's eyes.

Or a Chrysler Le Baron convertible that once belonged to Jon Voight!

"Everybody's talkin' at me...I can't hear a word they're sayin'...just drivin' around in Jon Voight's car..."

[jcroft]

I went to the Tate Museum in London a couple of years ago, and one of their pieces of art was a looping videotape of a guy cussing and punching himself in the face while wearing boxing gloves.

I'm not kidding.

My cousin had a project in a KC gallery that was a bunch of hardcore porn photos taken from the internet, which he had somewhat abstracted (but were still very reconizable). He displayed them with a glass cover and invited viewers to write/draw on the covers with markers that were by the display. Pretty soon the images were completly obscured by the markings.

His point was to demonstrate that controversial issues, such as porn, eventually get so embedded in controversy that the controversy *becomes* the issue, rather than the subject itself.

Art really can be anything, but one constant is that it's designed to evoke a response. It's designed to stimulate some emotion or another. A lot of people seem to have the idea that if that emotion isn't "aww, that's pretty," or "wow, look at the incredible details in this work," then the emotion is worthless.

Rothko's work uses color more than another other element to evoke emotion. As a graphic designer, I'll be happy to point you to any bumber of resources on how color evokes emotion, if you don't believe this is possible.

[Hammock Parties]

I'll be right back folks. I'm going to go create my next masterpiece. I call it "Pumpen Sie vom Porzellangott aus."

[Rain Man]

I went to the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in New York a couple of months ago, and they had one display that was a child-size table and chairs with a lamp. On some dowels nearby were a dozen or more colors of masking tape, and patrons were invited to stick a piece of tape onto the table, chairs, or lamp in an artistic manner.

So yes, I do have some work on display at the Cooper-Hewitt.

[Hammock Parties]

Rate the following paintings on a scale of 1 to 10.

http://img80.exs.cx/img80/9611/art5.jpg

http://img128.exs.cx/img128/7909/art3.jpg

[jcroft]

I'm not really a fan of either of them.

The first one is just not my style -- it has a very middle eastern vibe to it, which i'm just not into. It looks well done, and I like the colors, but the patterns just aren't for me. I've never seen this before. Who's it by?

The second one (which is a Rothko) is very bland, IMHO. The colors are nice, but I prefer ones with more contrast and ones that bleed to the edges. I also prefer ones that have a more "square" feeling to them, rather than the sort of rounded edges of this one.

So, ratings? I'll say 6 for the first one, 3 for the second.

[Rain Man]

I'd go with a 2 and a 1. I'm not really into geometric shapes and blobs in my art. That said, the first one is a hundred times more interesting than the second one. Call it what you want, the second one's not art, in my opinion.

[Hammock Parties]

The first one was done by a 4th grader.

The second one was done by Rothko.

The defense rests. ROFL

[jcroft]

Call it what you want, the second one's not art, in my opinion.

Then what is it?

[jcroft]

The first one was done by a 4th grader.

The second one was done by Rothko.

The defense rests. ROFL

What's your point, though? I already said that I have no doubt that some elementary kids can make great art. And no doubt, some great painters sometimes make things that aren't very good. But does that mean they aren't art? No.

Shitty bands make really good songs once in a while. Great bands sometimes make shitty songs. Sometimes, child prodigies make great songs, too. But we still all know who the great bands are, right?

Just because you can say that the greatest work of one fourth grader is better than a shitty piece by a great artist doesn't even come close to proving that the fourth grader is the better artist.

All you've proven is that exhibit A seems to be more "well-liked" than exhibit B.

In the end, I'm not really sure where you're going with all this. I first thought you were saying that Rothko's color fields aren't art. You renigged on that. So what are you saying? That you don't like Rothko's work? Fine. That you like this fourth grader's work? Fine. That's all matter of opinion, which you are duly entitled to.

[Rain Man]

The first one was done by a 4th grader.

The second one was done by Rothko.

The defense rests. ROFL


Excellent.

[Monty]

We coined the term "shart" a while back to describe this stuff.....that way when we were commenting on a piece, the "shartist" wouldn't be offended. :)

[jcroft]

We coined the term "shart" a while back to describe this stuff.....that way when we were commenting on a piece, the "shartist" wouldn't be offended. :)

Haha. Nice.

Like I've said about a hundred times now, it's perfeclty fine for someone to not like a piece. I've got no problem with that, and I don't like all art myself (and I don't even like the Pink/Red/Orange Rothko above). It just bugs me when someone says that this "isn't art," because it displays a clear misunderstanding of what art *is*.

[Hammock Parties]

Haha. Nice.

Like I've said about a hundred times now, it's perfeclty fine for someone to not like a piece. I've got no problem with that, and I don't like all art myself (and I don't even like the Pink/Red/Orange Rothko above). It just bugs me when someone says that this "isn't art," because it displays a clear misunderstanding of what art *is*.

Yup. The glass of water I'm drinking right now is art.

[Rain Man]

Then what is it?


Just because there's paint on a canvas doesn't mean that there's art present. I look at that, and it doesn't provide any insights, it doesn't make me pause and think, and frankly, it's not creative at all. It's just some paint smeared across a canvas.

I try to be open-minded about art, but if you think of every item on earth as "art" that would be in the bottom 1 percent. My stapler and the plastic cup on my desk are far more interesting and insightful, in my opinion.

[jcroft]

Yup. The glass of water I'm drinking right now is art.

Potentialy. I think it depends what the purpose of making it was. When you poured the glass, did you intend to create an emotion in anyone who saw it?

[Hammock Parties]

Potentialy. I think it depends what the purpose of making it was. When you poured the glass, did you intend to create an emotion in anyone who saw it?

Hold on, I'm on the phone. Someone wants to buy my glass of water for 17 million dollars. I'm negotiating for more.

Although I really like this glass. I broke all the other ones.

Maybe I can sell the broken ones? I'll call it "Shattered Hydration of the Soul."

[jcroft]

Just because there's paint on a canvas doesn't mean that there's art present.


Of course. No argument there.


I look at that, and it doesn't provide any insights, it doesn't make me pause and think, and frankly, it's not creative at all. It's just some paint smeared across a canvas.

I try to be open-minded about art, but if you think of every item on earth as "art" that would be in the bottom 1 percent. My stapler and the plastic cup on my desk are far more interesting and insightful, in my opinion.

This is all fine. You're stating that, IN YOUR OPINION, that piece is not very insightful. I happen to agree. But, if Rothko made it with a purpose, designed it with some emotion or feeling in mind, then wouldn't it qualify as art, even if we don't like it?

This makes me think of 4'33". I was a music major in school. There was a composer in the mid 1900s, names of John Cage. His most famous work is entitled 4'33". It can be described as four minutes and thirty three seconds of scilence. Lots of people say this isn't music. I disagree. I don't really LIKE it, but Cage pout a great deal of thought and purpose behind what he wanted it to sound like, what he wanted people to feel when they heard it, and how it would be performed -- to me, that makes it music (and art).

[Rain Man]

Haha. Nice.

Like I've said about a hundred times now, it's perfeclty fine for someone to not like a piece. I've got no problem with that, and I don't like all art myself (and I don't even like the Pink/Red/Orange Rothko above). It just bugs me when someone says that this "isn't art," because it displays a clear misunderstanding of what art *is*.

Either everything on earth is art, in which case the term is meaningless, or there has to be a definition of what defines art. It's got to be something more than "an item of no discernible practical value" in my opinion.

One might also say that art is something of aesthetic value that makes one think or ponder its symbolism. In that case, "art" is up to the beholder. And that Rothko thing is not art to me, because it just bears nothing that indicates interest or talent or symbolism or anything more than just some paint smeared across a canvas.

[jcroft]

Hold on, I'm on the phone. Someone wants to buy my glass of water for 17 million dollars. I'm negotiating for more.

Although I really like this glass. I broke all the other ones.

Maybe I can sell the broken ones? I'll call it "Shattered Hydration of the Soul."

I'm sure you could sell it, and that's a very clever name. Nice going. i'd assert that the very sarcastic, cynical nature you've put behind it makes it art. There are many artists over time that have made a career of poking fun at other art, and being cynical about the whole thing (see Wierd Al Yankovick).

[Hammock Parties]

This makes me think of 4'33". I was a music major in school. There was a composer in the mid 1900s, names of John Cage. His most famous work is entitled 4'33". It can be described as four minutes and thirty three seconds of scilence. Lots of people say this isn't music. I disagree. I don't really LIKE it, but Cage pout a great deal of thought and purpose behind what he wanted it to sound like, what he wanted people to feel when they heard it, and how it would be performed -- to me, that makes it music (and art).

What the hell? You have to PERFORM music. You can't just stare off into space.

[Hammock Parties]

I'm sure you could sell it, and that's a very clever name. Nice going. i'd assert that the very sarcastic, cynical nature you've put behind it makes it art. There are many artists over time that have made a career of poking fun at other art, and being cynical about the whole thing (see Wierd Al Yankovick).

Yeah but Weird Al actually has talent. And he actually worked to create his "art."

I just poured some water into a glass of ice.

Rothko just threw some paint on canvas.

Just because someone wants something to BE art doesn't make it art.

[Rain Man]

Of course. No argument there.



This is all fine. You're stating that, IN YOUR OPINION, that piece is not very insightful. I happen to agree. But, if Rothko made it with a purpose, designed it with some emotion or feeling in mind, then wouldn't it qualify as art, even if we don't like it?


Hmm, I guess there are two schools of thought. It sounds like you're arguing that it's art so long as the creator considers it to be art. I think I'm arguing that it's art only if the viewer considers it to be art.

My support for my argument is that there are things that occur naturally that I would consider to be art (or at least artistic), such as sunshine coming through a stand of trees, or a footprint in sand. If no one created them, or no one created them with the intention of influencing anyone, can't it still be art?

[jcroft]

Either everything on earth is art, in which case the term is meaningless, or there has to be a definition of what defines art. It's got to be something more than "an item of no discernible practical value" in my opinion.

One might also say that art is something of aesthetic value that makes one think or ponder its symbolism. In that case, "art" is up to the beholder. And that Rothko thing is not art to me, because it just bears nothing that indicates interest or talent or symbolism or anything more than just some paint smeared across a canvas.

I don't believe everything on earth is art. I believe that things that are created in the spirt of art are art. Things that are not, are not.

I kind of agree that art is up to the beholder. I can respect that that particular Rothko isn't art to you, but to me it still is art (even if it's bad art), because Rothko intended it for some artful purpose. If I find out that this partiular painting is actually not a painting at all and was just a canvas upon which he was mixing his reds (which, frankly, is what it looks like), then i will no longer believe it's art.

Everyone does have their own definition of art, and yours is well thought out and well worded. I can respect that. On the other hand, i don't respect, "something that requires talent" as a definition for art.

[jcroft]

What the hell? You have to PERFORM music. You can't just stare off into space.

Cage would walk to the piano, sit down, open his sheet music, and "perform" the slience.

[jcroft]

Yeah but Weird Al actually has talent. And he actually worked to create his "art."

I just poured some water into a glass of ice.

Rothko just threw some paint on canvas.

Just because someone wants something to BE art doesn't make it art.


Wierd Al most certainly does have talent. So does Rothko, and so does Cage.

And I don't really agree with your last statement -- if someone intends something as art -- as in, they create it with a feeling, emotion, and thought of affecting people in some way -- then I believe it is art (even if it's bad art).

[Hammock Parties]

Cage would walk to the piano, sit down, open his sheet music, and "perform" the slience.

Sorry, that's BS. The "music" was "performing" before he went through his asinine routine and it was "performing" after he got up from the piano.

Some people just need a good slap upside the head (not you, unless you recently composed 8'22'' :D).

[jcroft]

Hmm, I guess there are two schools of thought. It sounds like you're arguing that it's art so long as the creator considers it to be art. I think I'm arguing that it's art only if the viewer considers it to be art.

My support for my argument is that there are things that occur naturally that I would consider to be art (or at least artistic), such as sunshine coming through a stand of trees, or a footprint in sand. If no one created them, or no one created them with the intention of influencing anyone, can't it still be art?

Yeah, I think you're right on. I do think that if the creator intended it as art, then it probably is art. Of course, "intended it as art" can't be as simple as shattering some glass and being like, "there! it's art!" UserName seems to be under the impression that Rothko just "slapped paint on canvas" and then deemed it art. I can assure you this is far from the truth. Rothko defintiely put a great deal of thought and time into his pieces and how he wanted them to turn out, as did Jackson Pollak and many of the other more abstract modern artists.

As for the second part of your post: first, some people would argue that someone did create those things (as in God). Not me (I'm agnostic), but some people. To me, those things are beautiful and artistic, but aren't really art, since they don't have a creator (unless you want to call them "nature's Art" or something equally cheesy like that).

[KcMizzou]

This makes me think of 4'33". I was a music major in school. There was a composer in the mid 1900s, names of John Cage. His most famous work is entitled 4'33". It can be described as four minutes and thirty three seconds of scilence. Lots of people say this isn't music. I disagree. I don't really LIKE it, but Cage pout a great deal of thought and purpose behind what he wanted it to sound like, what he wanted people to feel when they heard it, and how it would be performed -- to me, that makes it music (and art). Wow. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Rain Man]

I kind of agree that art is up to the beholder. I can respect that that particular Rothko isn't art to you, but to me it still is art (even if it's bad art), because Rothko intended it for some artful purpose. If I find out that this partiular painting is actually not a painting at all and was just a canvas upon which he was mixing his reds (which, frankly, is what it looks like), then i will no longer believe it's art.

Everyone does have their own definition of art, and yours is well thought out and well worded. I can respect that. On the other hand, i don't respect, "something that requires talent" as a definition for art.

I can certainly agree with your second paragraph.

With regard to your first paragraph, then it sounds like you're saying that something is art as long as either the creator OR the viewer believes it's art. Is that correct? I think my interpretation would differ, in that I think that after the creator has created the object, he/she then becomes just another viewer.

[Hammock Parties]

Wierd Al most certainly does have talent. So does Rothko, and so does Cage.

And I don't really agree with your last statement -- if someone intends something as art -- as in, they create it with a feeling, emotion, and thought of affecting people in some way -- then I believe it is art (even if it's bad art).

jcroft,

Are you implying that it took talent to compose 4'33'?

[jcroft]

Sorry, that's BS. The "music" was "performing" before he went through his asinine routine and it was "performing" after he got up from the piano.

Some people just need a good slap upside the head (not you, unless you recently composed 8'22'' :D).

To hear Cage explain it, he'll tell you that the performance is different everytime and the real "music" is the sound of the discomfort. People sitting in an auditorium, shuffling in their seats because they're not sure what to do, perhaps eventually jeering or booing, just wondering what the hell is going on. That sound was the "music" of 4'33".

I'm not professing that this is great music. All i'm saying is that it was done with a very artful intent -- which is much different than if I just decide that I'm going to be silent for the next four minutes.

[Rain Man]

Cage would walk to the piano, sit down, open his sheet music, and "perform" the slience.


I can play that song in my sleep, as long as my nose isn't stuffy.


I would have to interpret that as not being music, but rather an act or performance of some sort. I think I'd be asking for my money back on that one, too.

[jcroft]

Wow. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Maybe, but does that make it "not art?"

[jcroft]

jcroft,

Are you implying that it took talent to compose 4'33'?

Well, like Rothko, we know that Cage had talent from his other works.

Whether or not it took musical talent to come 4'33" is certainly debatable, but we know that Cage was a great philsopher of music, had musical talent, and did 4'33" more as a form of social art than a piece of music in the traditional sense.

I guess I'm saying that no, it didn't take musical talent to compose 4'33", but it did take a brilliant mind who understands music to come up with the idea.

[jcroft]

I can play that song in my sleep, as long as my nose isn't stuffy.


I would have to interpret that as not being music, but rather an act or performance of some sort. I think I'd be asking for my money back on that one, too.

Well, it may not be "music" in the traditional sense, but it is art (at least IMHO).

There's a whole segment of art that is "art for art's sake." It's not often among the favorites of the Average Joe, but it's there to help progress art itself. It's experiemental, crazy, wild, whatever -- and it's purpose is to "let go" of traditional limitations so that creativity is not stifled by them.

Cage was a composer and pianist, but his real role in music history is as a philosopher. 4'33" was really more of a concept and an experiment than a "song". It was done for the sake of art -- not for the sake of selling CDs. :)

[Rain Man]

Maybe Rothko should name that painting that username found, "4'33". It's kind of the same concept.

[jcroft]

Maybe Rothko should name that painting that username found, "4'33". It's kind of the same concept.

I think Rothko probably came before Cage. Maybe Cage should have named 4'33" Pink/Red/Orange.

PS. I have no idea if that's really the name of the painting or not, but most of his have names like that.

[jcroft]

http://www.azstarnet.com/~solo/4min33se.htm

That's an interesting essay on 4'33".

[Rain Man]

As an aside, I worked at a company several years ago where any new employee was allowed a small "art allowance" for their office. The office manager kept drilling into me that I could only spend $200. I found out later that a guy who had started six months before me had not been told about any limits, and he had gone out and bought three big Rothko prints for something like $2,000. It was an "issue."

[KCWolfman]

My cousin had a project in a KC gallery that was a bunch of hardcore porn photos taken from the internet, which he had somewhat abstracted (but were still very reconizable). He displayed them with a glass cover and invited viewers to write/draw on the covers with markers that were by the display. Pretty soon the images were completly obscured by the markings.

His point was to demonstrate that controversial issues, such as porn, eventually get so embedded in controversy that the controversy *becomes* the issue, rather than the subject itself.

Art really can be anything, but one constant is that it's designed to evoke a response. It's designed to stimulate some emotion or another. A lot of people seem to have the idea that if that emotion isn't "aww, that's pretty," or "wow, look at the incredible details in this work," then the emotion is worthless.

Rothko's work uses color more than another other element to evoke emotion. As a graphic designer, I'll be happy to point you to any bumber of resources on how color evokes emotion, if you don't believe this is possible.


Bobo the Gorilla also painted and had her work released as modern art that was accepted by a greater portion of the art community before it was debunked.

Color does cause emoting to an extent. Color in a square emotes nothing inside me.

[jcroft]

As an aside, I worked at a company several years ago where any new employee was allowed a small "art allowance" for their office. The office manager kept drilling into me that I could only spend $200. I found out later that a guy who had started six months before me had not been told about any limits, and he had gone out and bought three big Rothko prints for something like $2,000. It was an "issue."

Haha. I can't imagine why this would be an issue. The boss must've thought they "weren't art" or something. :)

[jcroft]

Color does cause emoting to an extent. Color in a square emotes nothing inside me.

That's quite possibly true (although color theorists would say that it does cause an emotion, even if it's subtle enough that you're not noticing it).

But, the fact is simply undeniable that Rotcko's work causes a great deal of people to emote -- it's among the most popular modern art in stores today.

[KCWolfman]

That's quite possibly true (although color theorists would say that it does cause an emotion, even if it's subtle enough that you're not noticing it).

But, the fact is simply undeniable that Rotcko's work causes a great deal of people to emote -- it's among the most popular modern art in stores today.
Survivor is the most popular television show and The National Enquirer is one most popular weekly magazine. I don't consider either of these to work for me as well.

[jcroft]

For the interested:

-------------------------------

4'33", pronounced "four minutes, thirty-three seconds", (Cage himself referred to it as "four, thirty-three") is often mistakenly referred to as Cage's "silent piece". He made it clear that he believed there is no such thing as silence, defined as a total absence of sound. In 1951, he visited an anechoic chamber at Harvard University in order to hear silence. "I literally expected to hear nothing," he said. Instead, he heard two sounds, one high and one low. He was told that the first was his nervous system and the other his blood circulating. This was a major revelation that was to affect his compositional philosophy from that time on. It was from this experience that he decided that silence defined as a total absence of sound did not exist. "Try as we may to make a silence, we cannot," he wrote. "One need not fear for the future of music." 6

To Cage, silence had to be redefined if the concept was to remain viable. He recognized that there was no objective dichotomy between sound and silence, but only between the intent of hearing and that of diverting one's attention to sounds. "The essential meaning of silence is the giving up of intention," he said. 7 This idea marks the most important turning point in his compositional philosophy. He redefined silence as simply the absence of intended sounds, or the turning off of our awareness. "Silence is not acoustic," he said, "It is a change of mind. A turning around." 8 He was later to identify this with Eastern thought. "In India they say that music is continuous; it only stops when we turn away and stop paying attention."9 In 1988, in a conversation with William Duckworth, Cage affirmed the connection of this idea with 4'33". "No day goes by without my making use of that piece in my life and in my work. I listen to it every day. . . . I don't sit down to do it. I turn my attention toward it. I realize that it's going on continuously. More than anything, it is the source of my enjoyment of life. . . . Music is continuous. It is only we who turn away."10 Cage often referred to it as his most important piece, and it was his favorite. "I always think of it before I write the next piece." 11

[Hammock Parties]

if Cage wants to experience silence he should rip out his ears.

[jcroft]

Survivor is the most popular television show and The National Enquirer is one most popular weekly magazine. I don't consider either of these to work for me as well.

Fine. They don't work FOR YOU. But that doesn't make them "not entertainment," does it?

Point is, what is art can not be definied by whether or not YOU happen to like it.

[jcroft]

if Cage wants to experience silence he should rip out his ears.

I think the art community doesn't condone that. You know, after Vincent and all.

[Hammock Parties]

I think the art community doesn't condone that. You know, after Vincent and all.

Vincent?

Seriously, I want to see a performance piece by Croft. He can call it "pain."

:D

[jcroft]

Vincent?

Seriously, I want to see a performance piece by Croft. He can call it "pain."

:D

Vincent, as in Van Gogh, who cut off his own ear (at least, I think I've heard that).

[Straight, No Chaser]

Survivor is the most popular television show and The National Enquirer is one most popular weekly magazine. I don't consider either of these to work for me as well.

Wolfman, I can't figure out if you are genuinely interested in "getting it" or just argueing for the sake. You're at a huge disadvantage until you can get the terminology right. "Modern Art" is generally considered early to mid-twentieth century. Since then we've moved through post-modern and currently we're in what some call po-po modern, not to be confused with the PuPu Plate (an appetizer avaliable at most Chinese take-outs). You need an art lesson.



--->

[jcroft]

Well, I'm out of here. Good discussion, guys! Nothing personal, of course! :)

[tk13]

This makes me think of 4'33". I was a music major in school. There was a composer in the mid 1900s, names of John Cage. His most famous work is entitled 4'33". It can be described as four minutes and thirty three seconds of scilence. Lots of people say this isn't music. I disagree. I don't really LIKE it, but Cage pout a great deal of thought and purpose behind what he wanted it to sound like, what he wanted people to feel when they heard it, and how it would be performed -- to me, that makes it music (and art).

Sounds like something Andy Kaufman would do.

[Rain Man]

If I had written that 4'33" thing, I would have ended it with cannons, like the 1812 Overture. That would be fun.

[Hammock Parties]

If I had written that 4'33" thing, I would have ended it with cannons, like the 1812 Overture. That would be fun.

Oh jeez. I laughed really hard just now.

ROFL

[Hammock Parties]

There's one thing that I've learned from this thread...

actually, to be accurate, I already knew it... it's just now be reaffirmed...

"artists" are nuts.

Not all of them. But most of them, yes. :D

[KCWolfman]

Fine. They don't work FOR YOU. But that doesn't make them "not entertainment," does it?

Point is, what is art can not be definied by whether or not YOU happen to like it.
No one stated otherwise.

My point was even subjective, some stuff is just utterly ridiculous. This 17 Mil painting, do you believe it will be held in higher regard than La Pieta or a Monet or Starry Night 300 years from now? If not, then doesn't it seem the slightest bit ridiculous that that the piece sold more for all three of the others combined at their last auction?

[KCWolfman]

Wolfman, I can't figure out if you are genuinely interested in "getting it" or just argueing for the sake. You're at a huge disadvantage until you can get the terminology right. "Modern Art" is generally considered early to mid-twentieth century. Since then we've moved through post-modern and currently we're in what some call po-po modern, not to be confused with the PuPu Plate (an appetizer avaliable at most Chinese take-outs). You need an art lesson.



--->
I disagree. If I need a lesson just to like something, let alone appreciate it, it isn't worth the effort.

[Hydrae]

Nah... I'm pretty sure every artist out there is a nut.


Stevie Ray is nuts. Got it! :thumb:

[Hammock Parties]

Stevie Ray is nuts. Got it! :thumb:

He dresses up as f*cking Elvis at Chiefs football games. Hello?

[ChiefFripp]

We all need to create some of these abstract pieces and see who can BS their way into getting some of it sold. Read a few books on abstract art and hang out at a chic coffee store, get into the right type of crowd and sell your stuff. Only CP will be in on the joke and we will all have our chance to sneer down our noses at the fools who took it seriously.

[KCWolfman]

We all need to create some of these abstract pieces and see who can BS their way into getting some of it sold. Read a few books on abstract art and hang out at a chic coffe store, get into the right type of crowd and sell your stuff. Only CP will be in on the joke and we will all have our chance to sneer down our noses at the fools who took it seriously.
As I said, a gorilla who managed to learn sign language did it, and got away with it.

[nychief]

your right fellas, this lacks some of the quality of, oh I don't know, "dogs playing poker," or my dale earnhart black light poster.

[KCWolfman]

your right fellas, this lacks some of the quality of, oh I don't know, "dogs playing poker," or my dale earnhart black light poster.
I don't know about that. But my copy of Starry Night, Creation, Streetside Cafe, and Kasamatsu's Evening Sky at Suwa Shrine are definitely more appealing.

Thanks for demonstrating exactly why post-modern (Hope I got it right this time S, NChaser) is more for arrogant pricks and wannabes.

[stevieray]

He dresses up as f*cking Elvis at Chiefs football games. Hello?

I think you'd be surprised at what happens.

[stevieray]

Stevie Ray is nuts. Got it! :thumb:

ROFL

[gblowfish]

I'm beyond appalled:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/newsmakers/sothebys_auction.reut/rothko_sothebys.jpg
OK guys n gals, time for a Blowfish rant. Haven't had a good one for awhile, so here goes:

I can see how you'd think $17 Mill for a painting like this "piece of shit" is crazy. Why would it be worth $17 Mill when you could take a dump on a canvas, swirl it around with a leaf blower and call it art seemingly as interesting as this Rothko painting? That's a legit question on the surface. But look closer.

I'm not an art history major, nor do I play one on TV. But I've been married to an art teacher for 10 years. I've been to art museums literally all over the USA, and have seen a lot and learned a lot about art in that time through osmosis. Mark Rothko is not my favorite painter. Believe me, I thought he sucked pond water when I first saw his stuff. There's a couple dark grey and black Rothko's in the Modern Art section at the Nelson-Atkins Museum here in KC. But I do have more of an understanding of what his ideas and goals as an artist were, why he was an important figure in the history of modern art, and therefore why his paintings are worth millions.

Rothko was an experimental painter in the 1940's. This was before Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Richard Estes and other contemporary modern art painters. Rothko experimented with what was called "color fields." It was the study of gradients of color on canvas; playing with the subtle shades of a color, textures and moods of color. It wasn't about painting objects, it was about flow and energy and the perception of colors in contrast and conflict. These gradients and color fields were difficult to create. Took a lot of skill in mixing the paint, applying it to canvas and in the general execution of the painting. It was exacting work, difficult to near impossible for a lesser artist to create. And for his time (1940's) it was ground breaking stuff. If you stand nose to nose with a Rothko, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Its the kind of thing that doesn't translate well on a 72dpi internet picture, if you know what I mean.

His paintings are sometimes done in a series of panels, sort of like how Monet did panels for "Water Lillies" in the Impressionist era. You can get an introduction to Rothko at this website:

http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/intro1.shtm

"NGA" by the way, is the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. Not a bad place to have your stuff hangin' up. Every experimental artist in the 1900's helped bring something to the table to push the envelope. Color fields was Rothko's contribution. It helped artists understand the power of color, and helped them learn how to control color on canvas for effect.

Understand a little more now?

I know...if I'm so smart why didn't I think to whizz in a mason jar, put a crucifix in there and call it art (Like Robert Mapplethorp). That's why they get paid and we regular stiffs don't.

Art is important guys. Most works by historic artists like Rothko aren't really worth $17 Mill. They're essentially priceless. Why do you think Munch's "The Scream" keeps getting ripped off?

Discuss amonst yourselves...
Ahhh. I feel better now. Thanks!

[Sig Kauffman]

This one is called, "Pay me money suckers"

No...I thought this one was called "Pay me money, suckers."

[Skip Towne]

Call me "uncultured" or whatever you want. That "painting" doesn't amount to a sled load of shit. That type of "art" sucks. What FDE does is art.

[Rain Man]

No one stated otherwise.

My point was even subjective, some stuff is just utterly ridiculous. This 17 Mil painting, do you believe it will be held in higher regard than La Pieta or a Monet or Starry Night 300 years from now? If not, then doesn't it seem the slightest bit ridiculous that that the piece sold more for all three of the others combined at their last auction?


I'm curious. Where is "Starry Night" displayed?


I've had the opportunity to visit several prominent museums in the past few years, and I must say this: there are many artists that I like, such as Van Gogh and Pisarro, but Monet is just in an entirely different universe. I look at his paintings and I study them and I find the brushstrokes, and I still can't figure out how he created them. They're just beyond my ability to even understand, much less imitate.

[Straight, No Chaser]

I'm curious. Where is "Starry Night" displayed?
MoMA (Museum of Modern Art). You should also catch Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and Brancusi's Bird in Space

They are opening soon after a major, major $$$ renovation.

[el borracho]

I know...if I'm so smart why didn't I think to whizz in a mason jar, put a crucifix in there and call it art (Like Robert Mapplethorp).
Piss Christ artist = Andres Serrano, not Mapplethorp.

[KCWolfman]

I'm curious. Where is "Starry Night" displayed?


I've had the opportunity to visit several prominent museums in the past few years, and I must say this: there are many artists that I like, such as Van Gogh and Pisarro, but Monet is just in an entirely different universe. I look at his paintings and I study them and I find the brushstrokes, and I still can't figure out how he created them. They're just beyond my ability to even understand, much less imitate.
[QUOTE]
The MOMA in NY. It was attempted to be repurchased by his family and kept in his museum in Amsterdam, but to no avail.

Van Gogh is my favorite of all artists, followed closely by Kasamatsu and then Dali

[Rain Man]

MoMA (Museum of Modern Art). You should also catch Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and Brancusi's Bird in Space

They are opening soon after a major, major $$$ renovation.


Dang. I was just in New York a couple of months ago, but we didn't make it to the MoMA. I'd love to see that painting.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Dang. I was just in New York a couple of months ago, but we didn't make it to the MoMA. I'd love to see that painting.

You have to get there for at least 3-4 hours sometime. Summer is OK and it's close to the park but major exhibitions occur in fall and winter. Of course, the permanent stuff is not "bad". Established in 1929 the Modern's art collection has been cultivated by an influential group of patrons (one of a trio of women founders was Abby Rockefeller).MoMA has developed an extensive and enviable collection of nineteenth- and twentieth- century art. Actually it's the most influential museum of modern art in the world (even the Wolfman should visit :) )

Check this out: On Nov. 20 after a four-year renovation and expansion, it will have completed one of the most expensive projects ever undertaken by a cultural institution. The expanded building, a cool granite and glass fortress designed by the Japanese architect Yoshio Taniguchi, ultimately cost $858 million - a sum that was raised largely during a period in which the city suffered a terrorist attack and an economic recession, while other big New York museums were laying people off and reducing hours.

Can you imagine how many patrons were giving 5 mil a pop to get that going..?


---->

[gblowfish]

Piss Christ artist = Andres Serrano, not Mapplethorp.
Ah, yes. My Bad, Sorry. Mapplethorpe is the photographer of wholesome New York Young Men, right?

[David.]

I love how everyone is trying to out manly each other in this thread. ROFL

[Ultra Peanut]

Most people misinterpret the meaning of this work. It's intended to represent the decline of France (hence turning the flag on its side), via moral decay (the ragged painting style) and the conversion of the blood of French heroes (red in the flag) to the cowardice of modern-day France (red replaced by yellow).

Plus, if you unfocus your eyes and kind of look through the painting, you can see a 3-D spaceship and dinosaur hidden in the pattern.
It's a rectangle with three color bars.

I can't tell which analysis is better. ROFL

[tk13]

I can't tell which analysis is better. ROFL
I'd go with the dude who had the brilliant wheelbarrow analogy....

[Ultra Peanut]

there's my new definition for art....

"Is the creator sane?"
"Yes."
"It ain't art."In that case, I've made some more art:

[Ultra Peanut]

I'd go with the dude who had the brilliant wheelbarrow analogy....It was a brilliant observation, but I think this piece actually fits it better:

[Hammock Parties]

Psicosis, I'll give you 17 cents for the lot.

[jcroft]

In that case, I've made some more art:

Phahahahahaha.

Sorry.

[Hammock Parties]

Phahahahahaha.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, but that evoked emotion in me. I'm in tears.

Are you shitting on me?

[jcroft]

Thanks for demonstrating exactly why post-modern (Hope I got it right this time S, NChaser) is more for arrogant pricks and wannabes.

Oh,okay. So now you don't only dislike the art, but you dislike everyone who likes the art?

That's a mature, wordly point of view if I've ever heard one.

[Ultra Peanut]

Psicosis, I'll give you 17 cents for the lot.SCORE!

[jcroft]

I'm sorry, but that evoked emotion in me. I'm in tears.

Are you shitting on me?

Heh.

Psicosis work can stand on it's own just fine and be repected. But, when compared to a Rothko (which is obviously what he's trying to do, here)...well, there's just no comparison.

[Hammock Parties]

Heh.

Psicosis work can stand on it's own just fine and be repected. But, when compared to a Rothko (which is obviously what he's trying to do, here)...well, there's just no comparison.

Honestly, I prefer Psicosis work. Plus it's dirt cheap. And not available in the real world.

[redbrian]

A metal working artesian buddy of mine in Springfield explained it to me this way.
The difference between an Artesian/graphic artist and an “Artist” is the agent.

The agent sells the hype, once the hype is bought the Artesian / graphic artist is elevated to the rarefied height of artist. This is often done well after the artist death, which leads you to wonder is the dealer really selling art or hype; I leave you to your own conclusion.

Case in point, in Springfield there is a guy named Bobby, who is not playing with a full deck of cards. He does very primitive art pieces, one of the art prof’s at Drewry (sp?) believed that his work was fabulous and started to promote him. Andy Williams started to collect Bobbies work and now as I understand it his pieces are selling for quite a bit. Of course the Prof. is the one making all the money off of this deal.

One other point, this piece sold for 17 million today because it is “in style” with the hob knobs, taste changes often in these circles and years down the road this piece could end up being worth little.

[Ultra Peanut]

Heh.

Psicosis work can stand on it's own just fine and be repected. But, when compared to a Rothko (which is obviously what he's trying to do, here)...well, there's just no comparison.I'm an artiste! The chronicler of our struggle!

Few great artists are respected in their time, because the ignorant masses, much like you, try to discredit them. Feel free to scoff at my next work, upon which I have placed the moniker "Face in the Mask."

[Hammock Parties]

I'm an artiste! The chronicler of our struggle!

Few great artists are respected in their time, because the ignorant masses, much like you, try to discredit them. Feel free to scoff at my next work, upon which I have placed the moniker "Face in the Mask."

That sucks. I prefer your earlier work. You're a sell out.

[Ultra Peanut]

I don't have to f*cking impress you!

[stevieray]

....

[stevieray]

...

[Hammock Parties]

Both of those are worth a hell of a lot more than anything Rothko ever shat onto canvas.

[jcroft]

Those ones Elvis posted are nice -- who are they by?

[stevieray]

Those ones Elvis posted are nice -- who are they by?

Me.

[Ultra Peanut]

But... haven't you made any flags for strange, as-yet-unconceived nations?

[FAX]

I've purposefully avoided posting here because I love art and don't enjoy arguing about it.

But, Mr. FDE. Those works are wonderful. Are they really yours? What are the dimensions? Media?

Best,

FAX

[stevieray]

I've purposefully avoided posting here because I love art and don't enjoy arguing about it.

But, Mr. FDE. Those works are wonderful. Are they really yours? What are the dimensions? Media?

Best,

FAX

Thank you, 36x48, Acrylic.

[Ultra Peanut]

I've purposefully avoided posting here because I love art and don't enjoy arguing about it.

But, Mr. FDE. Those works are wonderful. Are they really yours? What are the dimensions? Media?

Best,

FAXThey are, indeed, very cool.

[Ebolapox]

Vincent, as in Van Gogh, who cut off his own ear (at least, I think I've heard that).

yep--if memory serves, he cut off his ear and sent it to the daughter of the man he was 'renting' a room from--who he was 'in love' with

-EB-

[jcroft]

Me.

Wow, very nice work!

[Ultra Peanut]

yep--if memory serves, he cut off his ear and sent it to the daughter of the man he was 'renting' a room from--who he was 'in love' with

-EB-Okay, I'm not going that far to chronicle our struggles.

[Hammock Parties]

FDE > Rothko

I heard Rothko was a Broncos fan too.

[the Talking Can]

....

Wow...who'd a thunk it, one of our own...I love Rothko, personally, and I'm also impressed with those paintings you posted...just looking at the pictures it is obvious you're a student (by which I don't mean academic) of art history, something that is, apparently, unwelcome on this thread....

I've got $15 mill....can I have one?


seriously, though, have you done shows or do you sell your work somewhere?

[KCWolfman]

Oh,okay. So now you don't only dislike the art, but you dislike everyone who likes the art?

That's a mature, wordly point of view if I've ever heard one.
Where did you derive that conclusion? An asswipe made an all encompassing statement with his "well you don't understand it, so you must be stupid" analogy and you are jumping my statement?

[jcroft]

Where did you derive that conclusion? An asswipe made an all encompassing statement with his "well you don't understand it, so you must be stupid" analogy and you are jumping my statement?

Perhaps I didn't look at the context too well. But, you did say that "postmodern art is for pricks and wannabes." I enjoy postmodern art, so I took that as you calling me a prick and a wannabe. I shouldn't have taken it personally, as I know it wasn't intended for me. But, you are making a pretty broad generalazation by saying that all those who enjoy postmodern art are pricks -- don't you think?

And for the record -- whomever said "you don't undrestand it, so you must be stupid" was also making an unfair generalazation.

[KCWolfman]

Perhaps I didn't look at the context too well. But, you did say that "postmodern art is for pricks and wannabes." I enjoy postmodern art, so I took that as you calling me a prick and a wannabe. I shouldn't have taken it personally, as I know it wasn't intended for me. But, you are making a pretty broad generalazation by saying that all those who enjoy postmodern art are pricks -- don't you think?

And for the record -- whomever said "you don't undrestand it, so you must be stupid" was also making an unfair generalazation.
I believe I said "is MORE for pricks and wannabes" not solely for pricks and wannabes. Obviously the stuff moves you, the artist did their job for you. Nothing taken away from your tastes.

However, it was statements like nychief's that makes the entire genre even more unappealing for me.

[jcroft]

I believe I said "is MORE for pricks and wannabes" not solely for pricks and wannabes. Obviously the stuff moves you, the artist did their job for you. Nothing taken away from your tastes.

However, it was statements like nychief's that makes the entire genre even more unappealing for me.

If you said "more," then I misread and I appologize.

I completly agree that there are a number of arrogant pricks in the art community (of which I'm not really a part -- I just enjoy the stuff from a distance). That's unfortante, but I don't think it's the art itself that creates it. The people that act this way are typically just in it for the money, and to look like academics at their cocktail parties.

[KCWolfman]

If you said "more," then I misread and I appologize.

I completly agree that there are a number of arrogant pricks in the art community (of which I'm not really a part -- I just enjoy the stuff from a distance). That's unfortante, but I don't think it's the art itself that creates it. The people that act this way are typically just in it for the money, and to look like academics at their cocktail parties.
Yup, See also Trophy Wives, Maseratis, Overpriced Real Estate, and David Lynch films

[jcroft]

Yup, See also Trophy Wives, Maseratis, Overpriced Real Estate, and David Lynch films

This is probably a bad time to admit that I enjoy David Lynch films, Maseratis, and trophy wives, isn't it?

[KCWolfman]

This is probably a bad time to admit that I enjoy David Lynch films, Maseratis, and trophy wives, isn't it?
The last is fine, the second is suspect, the first puts you in the same category with Rausch.

[jcroft]

The last is fine, the second is suspect, the first puts you in the same category with Rausch.

Heh.

Unfortantley, I can't afford a Maserati OR a Trophy Wife, so I'm out of luck on those. I can afford to rent Lynch films, though -- and while I don't ectually like each and every one, there are a few that I enjoy and they are all just focked up enough to make you think, and therefore be enjoyable.

[David.]

Yup, See also Trophy Wives, Maseratis, Overpriced Real Estate, and David Lynch films

okay now you just suck

[KCWolfman]

okay now you just suck
Anyone who liked Twin Peaks or Eraserhead needs to visit real society once in a while. Anyone who liked the original Dune needs to have their nuts extracted as they never use them anyway.

[David.]

Anyone who liked Twin Peaks or Eraserhead needs to visit real society once in a while. Anyone who liked the original Dune needs to have their nuts extracted as they never use them anyway.

never seen em. But Lost Highway is one of my favorite movies ever.

[KCWolfman]

never seen em. But Lost Highway is one of my favorite movies ever.
I think Dune is subtitled, How to Ruin one of the 20th Century Classics and Still Make a Profit.

[David.]

I've never even heard of it :hmmm: what's it about?

[KCWolfman]

I've never even heard of it :hmmm: what's it about?
You have never heard of or read Dune?

It is a sci fi classic of literature in the same HOF as I, Robot and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Do yourself a favor and read it.

[David.]

You have never heard of or read Dune?

It is a sci fi classic of literature in the same HOF as I, Robot and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Do yourself a favor and read it.

I'll have to look it up. Actually, I'm at a library now, I could probably check it out in 5 minutes.