Why does this gibberish cost $110 million

[GPBear]

What is there to understand about this?

$11 million

Awesome, perfect example of what I was saying about how you don’t know anything about art, aren’t willing to learn, and are only focused on monetary value.

Most peons, like you, only see that as a can of soup. First of all, Warhol was a trained professional artist, and his screen prints are inarguably some of the greatest of all time from a technical and aesthetic perspective. But for people such as yourself, you still say “it’s just soup”. Andy Warhol had the same thing for lunch everyday: Campbell’s Soup. So his repetitious series was a comment on commercialism mixed with an underlying message that Andy Warhol was just a regular guy.

This message, of the superficiality of commercial art in response to the disappearance of the artist’s individual humanity, is the same comment you (and most brehs in this thread) are trying to express.
The difference is, he did it in the 60s when that was an original thought, and he expressed it through a beautiful image, not some bytchy post on an online message board
You’re so stupid, you don’t even understand something when it’s right in front of your face.

 

[Michael's Black Son]

You’re completely distorting the Basquiat narrative to serve your own (thinly veiled misogynist) outlook on the art world.
The art world didn’t find Basquiat. He went out of his way to position himself in the center of the artworld, and he had the genius level of talent and ability to do something about it. The art world at the time was a closed, sterile environment which wanted nothing to do with “street” artists. Basquiat purposefully sprayed his SAMO graffiti in neighborhoods like Soho, where the high end art gallery’s were, forcing the art world to notice him.

Fam, the original post is about the insane financials associated with the art work. I’m well aware of Basquiat’s story and versed in the fact that he never saw such monetary pleasures in his short lifetime. Doesn’t take away from the well established institutions that create themselves, patronize certain artists, acquire vast collections and then assign monetary value to them. This isn’t taking away from the reality that Basquiat put together some stunning pieces and his style has been imitated countless times since his death.

When the art world “decided” to ride his wave it was at a stale point that even other artists like Warhol (who was played out by them) showed up and tapped into some of Basquiat’s energy.

But let’s not act like the modern art world (and it’s establishments) don’t control who gets put on and who gets visibility. And when someone doesn’t happen to build up a buzz right under their noses, that individual gets cherry picked into prominence under their rules.

 

[Standing on business]

Awesome, perfect example of what I was saying about how you don’t know anything about art, aren’t willing to learn, and are only focused on monetary value.

Most peons, like you, only see that as a can of soup. First of all, Warhol was a trained professional artist, and his screen prints are inarguably some of the greatest of all time from a technical and aesthetic perspective. But for people such as yourself, you still say “it’s still just soup”. Andy Warhol had the same thing for lunch everyday: Campbell’s Soup. So his repetitious series was a comment on commercialism mixed with an underlying message that Andy Warhol was just a regular guy.

This message, of the superficiality of commercial art in response to the disappearance of the artist’s individual humanity, is the same comment you (and most brehs in this thread) are trying to express.
The difference is, Andy Warhol did it in the 1960s when it wasn’t a contrived, rehashed cliched idea through a beautiful piece of artwork, while you did it through a spiteful post on an online message board.
You’re so stupid, you don’t even understand something when it’s right in front of your face.

Breh it's a painting of a fukking Campbell soup can

 

[GPBear]

Fam, the original post is about the insane financials associated with the art work. I’m well aware of Basquiat’s story and versed in the fact that he never saw such monetary pleasures in his short lifetime. Doesn’t take away from the well established institutions that create themselves, patronize certain artists, acquire vast collections and then assign monetary value to them. This isn’t taking away from the reality that Basquiat put together some stunning pieces and his style has been imitated countless times since his death.

When the art world “decided” to ride his wave it was at a stale point that even other artists like Warhol (who was played out by them) showed up and tapped into some of Basquiat’s energy.

But let’s not act like the modern art world (and it’s establishments) don’t control who gets put on and who gets visibility. And when someone doesn’t happen to build up a buzz right under their noses, that individual gets cherry picked into prominence under their rules.

The original post was about Basquiat (and it was incredibly simple minded and derogatory at that) it wasn’t about the art market

Your post was about how the art market finds artists to put through the mill and reprocess.

I took this to mean you were implying Basquiat was one of those artists


And in any event, your thesis is more-or-less incorrect anyways. The most popular artists of the late 20th and 21st century all made their own paths without patronage. Save, maybe, for some of the Young British Artists.
But people like Warhol, Basquiat, Keith Herring, Banksy, and David Choe - the most famous painters (the YBAs were more conceptual) of the modern art world have “played the market themselves” as you say.

Artists are geniuses. They saw everything everyone in here is already saying years before. They’re smart enough to figure out how to use the system against them, once they recognize which mechanizations are at work.

Watch Orson Welles’ final movie, F for Fake, for a more in-depth analysis. It examines how two famous art forgers fooled the experts and the implications of authorship and authenticity in art.

 

[GPBear]

Breh it's a painting of a fukking Campbell soup can

I already told you, that you were going to say that. And I further explained how Warhol was making the exact same comments you’re trying to articulate through a beautiful image over fifty years ago.

I sat you down, took you step-by-step through the process, and schooled you.

All you’re doing at this point is further proving my point that you’re a close minded idiot. But everyone on this site already knew that, so

 

[Software]

art is a blast my nikka

 

[666 ReVeNGe 666]

Awesome, perfect example of what I was saying about how you don’t know anything about art, aren’t willing to learn, and are only focused on monetary value.

Most peons, like you, only see that as a can of soup. First of all, Warhol was a trained professional artist, and his screen prints are inarguably some of the greatest of all time from a technical and aesthetic perspective. But for people such as yourself, you still say “it’s still just soup”. Andy Warhol had the same thing for lunch everyday: Campbell’s Soup. So his repetitious series was a comment on commercialism mixed with an underlying message that Andy Warhol was just a regular guy.

This message, of the superficiality of commercial art in response to the disappearance of the artist’s individual humanity, is the same comment you (and most brehs in this thread) are trying to express.
The difference is, Andy Warhol did it in the 1960s when it wasn’t a contrived, rehashed cliched idea through a beautiful piece of artwork, while you did it through a spiteful post on an online message board.
You’re so stupid, you don’t even understand something when it’s right in front of your face.

 

[ba'al]

I personally like Basquiat work.

 

[GPBear]

One, I wasnt fukking talking to you.
Two, sorry art’s not simple and can’t be explained in two sentences.

But this can: fukk you. Don’t talk to me.

 

[315]

Coli art connoisseurs coming for you

 

[LiveFromLondon]

People used to attack Monets with umbrellas, people who don’t understand art are always looking to attack it. And are more focused on monetary value than anything else.

You can’t honestly expect an answer to your leading question. There’s no formula. Certain materials + Compositional elements = X amount of money. Doesn’t work that way.

You just wanted to shyt talk something you resented and didn’t understand. And criticizing things because you don’t understand them is a hallmark of a closed mind

 

[8WON6]

Abstract bullshyt will always get a side eye from me. There are artists and painters that actually have technique and skills and shyt, then you have people splattering paint on a canvas or painting soup cans calling it art. It's abstract bullshyt. And when people say "you don't get it" they think they smart or we missing something.

 

[GPBear]

Abstract bullshyt will always get a side eye from me. There are artists and painters that actually have technique and skills and shyt, then you have people splattering paint on a canvas or painting soup cans calling it art. It's abstract bullshyt. And when people say "you don't get it" they think they smart or we missing something.

The object the artist is portraying doesn’t implicitly matter. It’s the significance the artist associates with that image. What makes a Dutch Renaissance painting of a bowl of grapes any more artistically valid than a can of soup? Nothing.
Andy Warhol certainly had “techniques and skills and shyt”.

 

[Take It In Blood]

I like alot of Basquait's stuff but with that said...Nothing on this planet is worth 110 million

I don't care if it's a house, a basketball contract, a business. Nothing

If I'm paying 100 million for something it has to be from another planet or the 4th dimension.

 

[knickscrusaderm]

Breh it's a painting of a fukking Campbell soup can

i hope breh is trolling

hype up cac mediocrity brehs