Why does this gibberish cost $110 million

[❤Aԃɾιαɳα Rσȥαყ ❤]

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.

You're trying wayy too hard.

 

[8WON6]

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”.

Abstract to the point of gibberish as OP put it, is bullshyt. Paint splatter and painting a can convey what? This threads reminds me of this:

Photographer Wins $20,000 Prize for 'Photo' of Scratches and Spit

A top portrait photo contest in Australia has sparked an outcry this week after awarding its $20,000 top prize to a “photo” of scratches and spit.

Artist Justine Varga was awarded the 2017 Olive Cotton Award with her “portrait” of her grandmother titled Maternal Line.

Varga created the “photo” by handing a piece of large format film to her grandmother and asking her to scribble on it with a pen and then spit on it to leave saliva trails

 

[Zero]

unfortunately he n ever profited to this level while he was alive. Now cacs are profiting millions flipping his work

Saddest part about all this

 

[666 ReVeNGe 666]

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.

 

[Zero]

Ya'll better chill out before @GPBear pull out that axe thinking you got a reservation at Dorsia

 

[Standing on business]

i hope breh is trolling

hype up cac mediocrity brehs

You're trying wayy too hard.

He really thinks he's kicking knowledge


Bruh It's a fukking painting of a Campbells soup can

 

[Cynic]

Resale value/protection against inflation and bragging rights amongst the elite

 

[SadimirPutin]

 

[GPBear]

Abstract to the point of gibberish as OP put it, is bullshyt. Paint splatter and painting a can convey what? This threads reminds me of this:

Photographer Wins $20,000 Prize for 'Photo' of Scratches and Spit

You specifically included Warhol’s soup can in the list of meaningless art. I explained how it had significance. Now you’re asking me to explain to you the meaning of even more art.

Why can’t you realize the power of art is to try and understand its importanance by yourself. To make you think. Art that’s easily understood is generic, and usually pretty bland.

I didn’t understand abstract art either, so I researched it because I assumed it meant something to the people making it.

Most gestural and action art (abstract expressionism) has more to do with spontaneity, dynamism, movement, and exploring what the materials can do. Things figurative and pictorial art have a difficult time accomplishing

 

[GPBear]

He really thinks he's kicking knowledge


Bruh It's a fukking painting of a Campbells soup can

Breh you’re a fukking idiot tha can’t understand concepts, even when they’re repeatedly explained to you.

Like I said before, what’s the difference between a bowl of grapes or a can of soup in terms of artistic validity? Nothing. It’s the significance the artist attaches to the piece of art. And you’ve clearly established you’re incapable of deeper thinking, therefore those significances elude you.

 

[EndDomination]

Basquiat’s art is divorced almost entirely from its original intention.
Its literally like a slice of the NY that was sensationalized and gentrified.
Capitalist valuations are social constructs anyway breh

 

[❤Aԃɾιαɳα Rσȥαყ ❤]

He really thinks he's kicking knowledge


Bruh It's a fukking painting of a Campbells soup can

Lol he negged me sayin "I don't care what you think" like having -10 rep on a forum gon hurt me
If u pay more than $250 for those paintings you're a dumbass lmao

 

[luciddreamer]

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, 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.

 

[SupremexKing]

The modern art world has been on the hypebeast wave for at least 70 years. They find some artists to build up, fund them and give them a platform just so they can say “you ain’t up on this”

Look up the story of the MOMA art museum here in NY. A group of rich ass women basically used some of their rich husbands money to support artists they fukked with and then build a museum around that. It’s hype. And it’s not hard to replicate as long as you follow through with constantly convincing people the shyt is dope

man NYC is the hypebeast capitol of the fukking planet in every regard.

shyt is a shame how low the city has fallen.

 

[010101]

the art of finesse*