No. 5, Jackson Pollock, 1948Answers to the nearest hundred million will be fine (have a guess before you have a look). Exclamations of outrage will be accepted. Observations on the buyer being conned will also be countenanced.
Yes, it is the buyer's money to waste if he wishes. But that doesn't mean we can't judge his painting, and his judgement, for ourselves.
LINK: Pollock painting sold for record $xxxm - Stuff [Hat tip Willie S.]
RELATED: Art, Nonsense
10 comments:
I saw this story earlier, and so know the answer. I was looking around for a picture of it, so thanks for that.
Now, having seen both the 'thing' (It doesn't deserve to be called 'art' and even 'painting' is too generous) and the price that someone paid for it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Come to think of it, it's a nice day, and a Friday, so I'll laugh.
I've made similar things myself while painting walls & ceilings - I usually call them 'drop cloths', & throw them out when I'm done.
Maybe I missed my calling ;-)
I think it's a great work of art, although if I had that much money to spend on art, I'd probably buy a Dali.
Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean the first guy who did it wasn't a genius. Nobody quibbles about the greatness of the Beatles just because your local pub covers band can play all their stuff.
Anyone see an episode of "Bullshit" (Penn & Teller) last week, where Teller was lobbing bottles of different coloured paint, at Penn, who was whacking them with a baseball bat onto a white sheet?
In my opinion, their result was far superior.
"Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean the first guy who did it wasn't a genius. Nobody quibbles about the greatness of the Beatles just because your local pub covers band can play all their stuff."
That's a straw man Blair. No-one is saying that Pollock's work isn't art because anyone could all do it, but because it is crap. I'd also disagree with your music analogy, A Pollock work is not analagous to the Beatles, to Yoko Ono maybe, but not the Beatles.
The thing is, if Pollock's "drop cloth" can be called "art", then I'd ventrue to say that the word "art" no longer has any meaning.
There is no objective value to that irrational peice of crap (and that's a generous name for it)! If that is at all a recreation of the artist's value judgements then the artist clearly has poor value judgements and clearly needs a Metaphysics 001 lesson (pre-101).
"The thing is, if Pollock's "drop cloth" can be called "art", then I'd ventrue to say that the word "art" no longer has any meaning."
Spot on, Eric. That in a nutshell is precisely the point of the whole con.
I think the analogy to Yoko Ono, sums it nicely up for me.
Duncan, that sound's about right. Seems you could get rich off those drop clothes of yours. In fact you wouldn't need to bother with the effort of painting. Just drop paint on the drop cloth and sell it as "abstract art". Tha seems's to work these days.
"Abstract art"? What they mean by that seems more like "not art" to me.
Rebel, I saw that episode and yes sadly even that was superior as unlike that peice of "art" it had a purpose, ie, to show what a load of bullshit bottled water is.
Blair, read my previous comment to see why it isn't great art, or art at all for that matter. Also Eric has some good points too. As does PC for agreeing.
Yeah...
"Spot on, Eric. That in a nutshell is precisely the point of the whole con."
Yeah...
"I think the analogy to Yoko Ono, sums it nicely up for me."
Yeah...
"Eric has some good points too. As does PC for agreeing."
Who the man!
Post a Comment