Had no time to publish in a while, but sometimes news are too breathtaking to let them pass you by.
Just read a piece of news that made my heart skip a beat:
- A controversy in the art world!
- Someone 'Ruined'\ Improved an original Rothko
- Criminal is quoted as saying "I added value to it".
(You can read the news in English, Hebrew of French right here: English Hebrew French)
I remember how mesmerised I was once in Buffalo-N.Y staring at a huge Rothko and being grateful that art exists, and I am equally grateful for these 'vandals'.
Look (or listen) - Art's function is to wake you up from the constant daily sleep, from the brain's routine, and transfer you to reality, be it even for a moment, but what happens when art becomes the routine?
What happens when people see a Rothko, Matisse, Monet, and that's exactly what they see?
Not the clash of colors and shapes, not the struggle form with the eye, but the name of the artist and the price tag.
I am moved to tears by art, but paying 86.9 Million for a "Rothko" is not art appreciation, it is speculation,
And shit happens.
And if you buy art 'cause it moves you, be ready to get moved when it is destroyed.
As for me, you'll find me at the museum, appreciating both the Mona-Lisa (well... mainly the line of tourists in front of it) and Duchamp's Mona-lisa with a mustach.
(BTW - if someone would put a false signature on Duchamp's rendition, will he be a criminal? an artist? both? neither?)
And one more thing - in the video of the Rothko you can see a small bit of the restoration process, which made me imagine the difference between the brush-strokes he made, the "Criminal's" brushstrokes, and the restorator's brushstrokes.
Now, all three remain forever on the painting, which one of them would you find most different.
Yea, yea, I know you don't care, but as Laurie Anderson once said (god, I love that woman!):
When I do my job,
I am thinking
About these things,
'Cause when I do my job,
That,
Is what I think about.
There's more questions here than answers. And I don't have answers too. That's what good about art.
ReplyDeleteBTW, paying 89M for a Rothko doesn't make it a non-art.
-Igg
Hey Igg ol' chap.
ReplyDeleteI was kinda hoping there is not a single answer here, since, as you know, I am not an answer-sortof-bear.
Was kinda hoping you have some, though, my bearded friend, but I'll keep on looking elsewhere.
And for your BTW (which I find the most challenging):
- No paying 89M doesn't make it non-art. it does however make it a conversation piece, which is distracting.
- Nothing can make it non-Art (or Art, for that matter), since the best definition of Art may be - something created\ done with intention to make art.
- 'Good Art' may be defined as Art that works on you, challenges you, is not banal, so now the definition extends from the creator to include the consumer, and perhaps a mediator (opening the way to tons of people making a living as art critics).
- BTW - even Paying 89M can be a form of art, look, it made me move and react, so if it was art (Buyer intended to make the purchase as a 'performance'), it is for sure good art (for me)
Please don't consider my answer as an answer, OK?
Me.
I doubt the seller intended to create art by setting that price, but if he did than he would be a revolutionary figure in the art world
DeleteThe way you see things is more interesting than the price of the painting or what the seller/ buyer thought about it. I wonder how you come up with such ideas.....