Art vs. Artifice - Page 2 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discuss literary and artistic creations, or post your own poetry, essays etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
La Hara by Basquiat $35,000,000 and worth every penny of it!


Woman - Ochre $160,000,000, bien sur


Interchanged $300,000,000 by Willem de Kooning who of course painted Woman - Ochre above

Look it up. It will make you too an art expert.
User avatar
By Wellsy
Perhaps wish to consider the role of money and the capitalist economy in shaping art.
That larger sense of purpose can best be seen in his two classic books on art, The Shock of the New and Nothing If Not Critical. The first is the book of his great BBC television series about the story of modern art. For Hughes, it is a tragic story. He believed he lived after the end of the great creative age of modernism. I remember, watching the television series as a teenager, how excitingly he described the Paris in the 1900s, when motor cars and the Eiffel Tower were young and Picasso was painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. But Hughes would not tolerate any glib pretensions that art in 1980 (when The Shock of the New aired) lived up to that original starburst of modern energy. For him, Andy Warhol was an emotionally thin artist bleached by celebrity, and Joseph Beuys ... Well, he didn't have much time for Beuys.

It was as if the BBC had commissioned the 18th-century satirist Jonathan Swift to make a documentary about modern life.

Hughes makes his anger with the depths that art has sunk to even clearer in the essays gathered in Nothing If Not Critical. For the best part of his career as a critic, he lived in New York. It was the decline he perceived there, from Robert Rauschenberg to Robert Mapplethorpe, that so disgusted him with the fall of modern art. This was a political and ethical judgment, as well as artistic. Art had become the plaything of the market, he believed. It was getting too expensive as it turned into the sport of 1980s investors. Artists like Jeff Koons and – he later added – Damien Hirst were barely real artists at all, but grotesque market manipulators.

If he was right, God help us all, for the conquest of art by money and the proliferation of celebrity artists that he condemned continues to multiply. The art world of today might be mistaken for an apocalyptic vision dredged from his darkest satirical imaginings.
User avatar
By BigSteve
I recently sold a photograph of Ted Nugent I took for $375. I think it cost me four bucks to have it printed, and the frame and matte I had for some time; probably worth about thirty bucks.

It was a good photo, but almost $400? It wasn't even like it was a portrait shot or anything. It was a shot of him on stage.

I'm often astounded at what some folks will pay for art.

I read an article which talked about what happened with a pair of eyeglasses on the floor in an art gallery in, I think, New York. People were buzzing and the excitement was building about this surely very important art piece. People speculated about what it could mean. People wondered aloud what it was trying to say.

That is until someone walked up and picked up the pair of eyeglasses they dropped...

User avatar
By BigSteve
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:@BigSteve, Ted Nugent fans do tend towards the brain-damaged, so I guess your luck in finding one of those is just more evidence of that.

That's a profoundly ignorant comment...

Europeans treated Jews in Europe like racist cr[…]

Syrian war thread[…]

Precisely, both Iran and Russia are natural enemi[…][…]