I have grown up in that world, it’s what all my family do, it’s what a significant portion of our friends and peers do, and I’d argue you’re coming over as precious, sorry. As well as quite clearly pulling rank/appealing to authority/howeveryouwannasliceit.
You make art, then you have to expect the full gamut of responses to it. Responses to it are what it’s for. ‘Pile of bricks’ scoffers notwithstanding.
Haddaway, man.
As I said above, I’ve lived in & around that world my entire life; there’s pretentious idiots all the way down, as it were.
Aye, I’m well aware. Personally, I’m not impressed by this work. I’ve seen some of his later stuff as a result of this foofaraw (hell, I found out he existed because of this foofaraw), and I prefer it. I totally get what it is, I’m just not impressed. Clearly someone is, to the tune of millions, but thetre you go.
and to extend that, you can glance at a painting or whatever and like it or not, but that would be similar to watching a movie trailer instead of committing to the whole 90 min, takes your commitment and time… then there are the people who will read about the making of the movie and it’s back story, and the director’s abio…
and getting hysterical about something you haven’t seen IRL or really understand beyond headlines… i’d ask naive questions instead of proclaiming on something i’m really uninformed about.
I’m with you there. On the one hand undrer the schema I’d personally want to exicute for copyright this would be perfictly legal. On the other hand it appears there wass no attribution or citing that it’s based off an existing work produced by an illistrator that made maybe a hundred or so bucks then had to move onto the next job.
This just feels rather douchbagged. Then again he seems to be fleecing rich idiots that don’t seem to know they could have gotten the same effects at Kinkos with some photoshop filtering.
why, cos i know you can’t take a novel size original into kinkos and walk away with 79 1/8" by 118 1/8" oil painted canvas (or something of same quality).
Well, not much of that is actually true. There was attribution in the title the artist assigned to the work. Brown did have Foss’s permission (though it sounds like Foss was distracted when he granted it). And Brown isn’t fleecing anybody–he sold the original painting for much less than the $5.7 million it sold for recently, and he doesn’t see a dime of the $5.7 million–other than, I suppose, as possibly being able to increase the price of his current work based on how much his past work has sold for on the secondary market.
Someone should try arguing that they were “recontextualizing” some movies by Bittorrenting them and then displaying them on a TV with the contrast turned up. Maybe show them in a art gallery. That could be amusing.
I see what you’re against, but you haven’t yet said what you are for.
You have said that you do know what you are talking about, so, what is your take on all of this?
(When you only say whats wrong with somebody else’s opinion, but you don’t give your own, you’re the only one who thinks he’s right. Of course, once you do give your opinion it can only be taken into consideration)
Me, I think the art market seems to be all about investing with little regard for art. This explains how a painting such as this can be sold for millions of dollars without saying anything new or original in any but the most trivial sense.
I think the explanation of its value as art is just a justification, an apology of sorts, for its commercial value and I don’t believe they are related.
I also think that not liking the painting is enough to say that its not worth more than the materials used to create it, and that really liking it a lot is also enough justification to pay 5.7 millions dollars for it, but as I said, I believe that’s not what’s happening here, I just think somebody though he could buy it for 5.7 million dollars, and sell it for 6 million later on based on the reputation of the artist.
You can see the differences if you look at the painting in real life. Comparing two tiny thumbnails of images that are in very different media at very different scales doesn’t give an accurate impression.
That’s part of the point of the painting, as is the fact that it’s an appropriated image. It is a material transformation of pulp sci fi imagery and four colour print into a gallery-ready artwork that puts a whoopee cushion under the fetishes of heroic painting as seen by art history and the market. It’s as upsetting to artworld gatekeepers as it is to geek ones. Perhaps if it had big eyes or carried the proper signifiers of manly painterly labour we’d be able to breathe a sigh of relief and get back to work.
Its ridiculous selling price is a product of it being a scarce, unique physical object. Again, you can see this if you look at it in real life. But yes it’s still a ridiculous price.
