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.

https://remodernreview.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/the-invisible-sculpture-sale-is-symbolic-of-the-systematic-shams-elites-expect-us-to-swallow/

Published in Culture
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    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.

    • #1
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Mark Alexander: The patron must keep a 5 foot square space available for the nothing to be on display; fortunately, it does not require any special lighting or climate control.

    Dusting will be a breeze. Literally.

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Modern art sucks . . .

    • #3
  4. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    …. I’m in the wrong line of work!

    • #4
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The installation lacks a musical motif. I suggest John Cage’s 4’33” playing on a loop.

    That will be an additional $18k.

    • #5
  6. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    I loathed Rothko when I was taking art history. Still do. 

    • #6
  7. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Percival (View Comment):

    The installation lacks a musical motif. I suggest John Cage’s 4’33” playing on a loop.

    That will be an additional $18k.

    Perfect!

    • #7
  8. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    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.

    • #8
  9. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    I loathed Rothko when I was taking art history. Still do.

    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.

    • #9
  10. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    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

    • #10
  11. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    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.

    I wouldn’t take a penny under $999,995.00 Mark.

    • #11
  12. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Percival (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander: The patron must keep a 5 foot square space available for the nothing to be on display; fortunately, it does not require any special lighting or climate control.

    Dusting will be a breeze. Literally.

    At least Jackson Pollock had the energy to throw some paint up against the wall…

    • #12
  13. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    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

    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.

    • #13
  14. Michael S. Malone Contributor
    Michael S. Malone
    @MichaelSMalone

    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

    • #14
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Michael S. Malone (View Comment):

    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.

    • #15
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Is it fungible?

    • #16
  17. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Michael S. Malone (View Comment):
    Rothko’s paintings didn’t do much for me . . . until I stood in front of one.

    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. ;-)

    • #17
  18. davenr321 Coolidge
    davenr321
    @davenr321

    Wow. 
    That’s a far out painting.

    Negative space.

    • #18
  19. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Percival (View Comment):

    Michael S. Malone (View Comment):

    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.

    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!”

    • #19
  20. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    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.

    • #20
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    What do you suppose I can get for it?

    • #21
  22. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    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

    • #22
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    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?

    • #23
  24. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    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.

    My husband is an extraordinary portrait painter, but you can’t be talking about us because I’m damned sure not a nurse.

    • #24
  25. Max Knots Member
    Max Knots
    @MaxKnots

    Michael S. Malone (View Comment):

    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

    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.

    • #25
  26. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    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

    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.

    • #26
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    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.

    I wouldn’t take a penny under $999,995.00 Mark.

    What if I want to just see, perhaps, say, twenty to thirty stars.  Do you prorate?  Or charge a la carte?

    • #27
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    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

    Better than cattle futures. 

    • #28
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    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

    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.

     The Clintons cone to mind. Our tax dollars at work. 

    • #29
  30. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander: The patron must keep a 5 foot square space available for the nothing to be on display; fortunately, it does not require any special lighting or climate control.

    Dusting will be a breeze. Literally.

    At least Jackson Pollock had the energy to throw some paint up against the wall…

    Actually, he did most of his painting on the floor.  Gravity causes too many drips when flinging otherwise valuable paint against a horizontal surface.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.