>>3825>>I do also think that some of these artists are pulling a fast one on their rich customers
Okay, from this point I am pretty familiar with this way of thinking about it, and it amuses me how people on opposite ends of the political spectrum tend to hate the whole art market because it basically proves everyone wrong about how capitalism works. Hardcore socialist and communist used to hate modern art as an "attack by capitalist on rationality" and promoted socialist realism as the "objectively" correct art style. Meanwhile, your fascist and autocratic types blamed it all on the commies and labeled with a number of variations on the Nazi's "Cultural Bolshevism" concept.
If you are thinking of it in this karmic way in which the free market always rewards the objectively
best efforts, then of course the success of art you don't like is just going to feel ... unfair, right?
Well, I mean, in the world of art, where you are selling one-of-a-kind unique items, it doesn't matter what "the market" would dictate your art is worth. All that ultimately matters is why it's worth it to the person writing the check.
And well ... that's kind of how most things in life work, and the art world is this grim reminder to these idealogues that they just don't know as much about people than they like to believe they do.
I mean, you literally said: >because I feel like very little art should instantly make someone a multi-millionaire, much less something that's seemingly easily reproducible (the exact mixture of red not withstanding).
I mean, which I would assume is because such a thing is "unfair"? That such reward should only come from effort and sacrifice, cause that's only fair?
Well, I mean, of course it's not fair, what your efforts are worth are only as much as valuable to a person paying for them. If your efforts go toward something with some clear utility then of course effort translates into reward.
But in the art world, things like ingenuity, creativity, a sense of aesthetic, and all sorts of other things related to your aesthetic judgement
is what is valued, far more than the effort you would have had to put into it. Art might take some craftsmenship but what ultimately makes it art is not it's craftsmenship but what end aesthetic effect that craftmanship and effort had.
But above all that, what art that is valued as such is valued for it's final effect on the observer. Whatever subjective effect that may be. Which is inherently
unfair cause not all of us can imagine or come up with an idea that can have enough of an effect on a wealthy art collector who wants to own the only copy of one of one of your works. >But if I was right about this all being some kind of scam, or perhaps a money laundering scheme or something for tax evasion (trading paintings and donating them is a sneaky way to move money around without using actual money), then I'm worried it might have an emperor's new clothes effect on art, where people assume that this art must have value because it sells for so much, so they've invented reasons to like it, and they're encouraged to make more of it because it sells for so much.
Don't kid yourself. I think you're just being incredulous to subjective value in art. Different people have different perspectives that they bring with them when they experience art. > I want to hear why someone spent millions to buy it, because as is I think art might be warped for suspicious reasons more closely tied with money than art.
Okay dude, this is a ridiculous idea. Occam's razor would suggest that the reason things you think are garbage sell is just that people with the money to pay that much for it value it much more than you. >I think most artists make something that they think is good, and if you ask them why it's good they will tell you why it is good.
Usually true but not always the case in some notable cases. > They will tell it has value and that other people should value their work
This is a massive over-generalization. Sure some artist would have a lot of confidence in their work and might express it as such explicity but that is not implicitly
suggested by the act of making art. >probably depends on the gallery itself.
It is absolutely
dependent on the gallery, not the artitst. The gallery
decides who's works are presented as valuable. Often in accordance to one or more schools of art criticism, but of course, not necessarily, especially
if it's a private gallery of some billionaire and all the pieces he owns and not one whose contents are selected by committees of art critics, historians and other artist who might have a painting or two on permanent display.
So yeah, it's a massive
stretch. >To go a bit less broad, though, plenty of art contains messages about society or politics. ....> .... But the movie definitely attempts to assert certain values, an in this case they're even asserting those values to impressionable children!
I don't disagree but I can't help but wonder if this is why you don't understand a lot of art, if you think of it as fundamentally having just one
point or purpose or function or whatever. Art exist for all sorts of purposes, sometimes for little more than to be an interesting aesthetic experience. Yeah it could
be expressing some idea or value judgement on the part of the artist, it could be some form of social commentary, but it doesn't have
to be. Self expression is just one of the many functions art can serve. > But many or most either assert that their art is good and should be appreciated
Where are you getting this "most" from? Is that just some subtext your reading as being their by default or something? You haven't really presented any compelling evidence to justify that "most".