Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Now 2 in 1! Artful Artless Art
Remember artist Mark Rothko, who once whistfully proclaimed, “Silence is so accurate”? Here he is with one of his “masterpieces”:
.
Well, at least Rothko dealt in the world of the tangible. Our idiot elites have become zombies who fall for the “con” in art..
Salvatore Garau, an Italian trickster, produced a recent example of expensive non-art. His “immaterial” sculpture Io Sono (I Am) sold for $18,000. The piece does not exist. What the purchaser received for their money was the artiste’s word salad poor excuse for an explanation and a gen-u-ine “certificate of authenticity.” The patron must keep a five-foot-square space available for the nothing to be on display; fortunately, it does not require any special lighting or climate control. What a bargain.
By the way, I have created an artistic triumph, which is available for $1 million in gold. (Although, I’m open to negotiation, depending on our inflationary spiral.)
It’s entitled, “Behold, the Stars.”
You may participate in an exclusive viewing tonight. DM me. Only serious inquiries entertained.
Dusting will be a breeze. Literally.
Modern art sucks . . .
…. I’m in the wrong line of work!
The installation lacks a musical motif. I suggest John Cage’s 4’33” playing on a loop.
That will be an additional $18k.
I loathed Rothko when I was taking art history. Still do.
Perfect!
My kids ( both artsy types ) have a running joke about printing up faux labels to be surreptitiously installed in various places through the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. The labels would mimic the official MOMA labels containing information about the art on display…
To be placed on the floor outside a Women’s Rest Room:
“Women Standing In Line”. By Anthony Lemonjello. 2021.
Next to a window:
”View of 53rd Street”. By Basil Fomeen. 2021
Two on a stairway:
”Going Up“. And. “Going Down”. By Citib Ank. 2021.
And see how long it takes before they are removed.
I get what Rothko says he’s trying to do…
”I’m not an abstractionist… I’m not interested in the relationship of color to form or anything else…I’m interested only in expressing basic human emotions – tragedy, ecstasy, and so on.”
So he’s trying to have a direct, emotional connection with the viewer through the art. It just doesn’t work for me. I’m willing to concede that they might speak clearly and unambiguously to others. But they don’t to me. And if the artist’s goal is to communicate to everyone, then Rothko has not succeeded. If he’s only trying to communicate to those who can decipher the code ( as it were ) then I guess he has succeeded.
Most art, like most fashion, architecture, modern classical music and other elite pursuits, is mainly a scam to extract money from rich people.
Apparently it’s also now a way to launder political contributions:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/hunter-biden-art-selling-500k
I wouldn’t take a penny under $999,995.00 Mark.
At least Jackson Pollock had the energy to throw some paint up against the wall…
The book publishing industry is also being used to launder political bribes, hence those hugely lucrative deals for books that will never, ever earn back their advances.
Rothko’s paintings didn’t do much for me . . . until I stood in front of one.
As for all the new stuff: garbage. A triumph of marketing and theory (manifestos) over actual artistic creation.
btw: I’m married to a painter with works in collections around the world. She despises the new stuff — and only studies Old Masters these days
I’d have an overwhelming desire to wait until no one is watching, then hang it upside down. Just to see if anyone would notice.
Is it fungible?
Their one virtue, as far as I can tell, is perfect juxtapositions of shades of color. From my point of view they function as a sort of wallpaper. That said, such abstractions have no place in my home where art should be about human beings and about the beauties and wonders of the natural world. Abstract designs might go on the floor, though. ;-)
Wow.
That’s a far out painting.
Negative space.
Even better: Deposit a pile of crumpled bits of waste paper, put a plaque on the wall above it, and see how long it takes someone to notice it does not belong there. Write on just one of the bits of paper, “Gotcha, you suckers!”
I like the Rothko shown. It’s assertive, it’s violent. It says something.
I don’t like all of his paintings I have seen. Which shows that they involved me.
My great-aunt Louise Ewing was a minor artist, had a studio, sold paintings in big city galleries. Her husband Raymond taught art at Smith College in the 1950s and, besides painting, was an illustrator for a card company, maybe Hallmark. They made a very good living in art and were able to acquire 16 acres in Deer Island ME, where they lived their last 25 years, painting and clamming and raising hogs.
Late in her long life Louise, my first wife and I sat down one night over clams and corn (which she had collected and grown, respectively) and talked about Art, with a capital A, and how it differed from simple painting. I learned that night, by her patient questioning, that the viewer has to immerse himself much more deeply in abstract art to understand the message, than in a work which is merely illustrative.
Please don’t protest that Great Masters show what things really look like and abstract art doesn’t. There’s plenty of really awful representational art out there. https://www.christianbook.com/painter-of-light-thank-you-cards/pd/51855X
Your Great Masters don’t show what things really look like, they always put their own stamps on reality. One of the Ricochetti who is a nurse has a husband who does FABulous portrait paintings; it’s good art that is representational, it’s not good art because it’s representational.
Representational art versus abstract, to me, is like song versus symphony.
What do you suppose I can get for it?
Rene Magritte beat you to it.
There’s a Musée Magritte Museum in Brussels, across the street from the Musical Instrument Museum where I once did a research project. I wish I had spent more time at the Magritte.
https://www.musee-magritte-museum.be/en
If Magritte had known, back when he painted it, that it would be his most famous work, would he still have painted it?
My husband is an extraordinary portrait painter, but you can’t be talking about us because I’m damned sure not a nurse.
The old masters required years of practice and talent. The degree of difficulty in producing something gives a clue to its value. If a two year old having a bad day could have duplicated what’s on display, it’s a scam. IMHO.
Magritte’s most famous painting. It’s fun, but I wouldn’t have it on my living room wall because aesthetically speaking it’s not much.
What if I want to just see, perhaps, say, twenty to thirty stars. Do you prorate? Or charge a la carte?
Better than cattle futures.
The Clintons cone to mind. Our tax dollars at work.
Actually, he did most of his painting on the floor. Gravity causes too many drips when flinging otherwise valuable paint against a horizontal surface.