"art" gone mad : $4.3million photo!!

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:41 AM, Cryptowen said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

My personal stance on art is that personal interpretation is just as important as whatever the original creator thought while making it. That's why people can be moved by recordings of birds & stuff.

Exactly!

but i guess these folks are just a bit narrow-minded and easily driven by aesthetics

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:39 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:17 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

whether you like the picture or not, and think the price is justified or not, it's fun to see that most people think they know what this picture deals with. i personnally like it in terms of aesthetics but i won't pretend i know what it's about and what's going on around it. it's not like we average people are supposed to understand what this whole thing means.

 

those thinking they know what this picture deals with, including myself, just happen to be people searching for a meaning in art works, which isn't necessarilly a meaning valid to everyone or even a forced meaning, and isn't a demonstration of some kind of attitude, but a natural behaviour, if you ask me.

if you aren't brave enough to come up with an interpreation for something, even being the most stupid idea ever thought, then you don't really understand why you are living and how useful you are. just like aesthetics. you can't just appreciate the aesthetics as aesthetics, and if you do so, then you understood nothing about it, because there is a value beyond the superficial side. the same thing happens with music. the aesthetics of a musical piece are the result of an intention and an idea.

don't be afraid of coming up with your own interpretations. if you stick with the aesthetics, then you are being pretentious.

i think this photograph, or rather its context, is beyond your understanding. i could be wrong, but i'm never wrong. lol

i was going to ask about this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i think this photograph, or rather its context, is beyond your understanding

and then i read this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i could be wrong, but i'm never wrong. lol

seriously, people like you really are a waste of precious earth space

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:41 AM, Cryptowen said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

My personal stance on art is that personal interpretation is just as important as whatever the original creator thought while making it. That's why people can be moved by recordings of birds & stuff.

Yep, and that interpretation is the lens through which you then go and create your own art. Agrees, shame though, given that being the case, that no one can ever truly, deeply understand where you are coming from with your art. eh.

;-]

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, delet... said:

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

you didn't understand my point.

aesthetics are essential to art, but they are simply the cladding applied to an idea

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:50 AM, ruiagnelo said:

i was going to ask about this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i think this photograph, or rather its context, is beyond your understanding

 

and then i read this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i could be wrong, but i'm never wrong. lol

 

seriously, people like you really are a waste of precious earth space

He's joking man. It's a speculative faint.

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:52 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:50 AM, ruiagnelo said:

i was going to ask about this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i think this photograph, or rather its context, is beyond your understanding

 

and then i read this:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i could be wrong, but i'm never wrong. lol

 

seriously, people like you really are a waste of precious earth space

 

He's joking man. It's a speculative faint.

i know man, and i am having fun reading his comments. but i prefer when people actually believe in their arguments!

edit: i guess i just take these questions to seriously

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, delet... said:

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

 

you didn't understand my point.

aesthetics are essential to art, but they are simply the cladding applied to an idea

i think the aesthetics are the value in the art. The idea is the sales pitch for those whose minds don't feed purely on the aesthetics, but need language and human countenance to help guide them into understanding the value of the piece.

It's like how some people need singing to be able to get music. When there is no singing they are lost. And when you ask them about a piece of music they remember the words correctly but couldn't give you the same detail when describing the musical passages.

Whoever paid all that money must be kicking themselves. There's loads of better photos in google images, for fuckall.

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:59 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, delet... said:

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

 

you didn't understand my point.

aesthetics are essential to art, but they are simply the cladding applied to an idea

 

i think the aesthetics are the value in the art. The idea is the sales pitch for those whose minds don't feed purely on the aesthetics, but need language and human countenance to help guide them into understanding the value of the piece.

 

i understand your point of view. but i would add that for me, the value in art (whatever that word really means) is a combination of aesthetics + ideas. ideas are the structure and aesthetics are the way the are presented

Now if we were talking about satirical imagery, or strip comics or a no dogs on beach sign, my point wouldn't stand. There is a message being delivered that the art is being devised around. I would still prefer that it be aesthetically pleasing to view, but it isn't as important a thing to worry about.

But that first photograph was purely aesthetic. And should stand on that merit only.

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:02 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:59 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, delet... said:

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

 

you didn't understand my point.

aesthetics are essential to art, but they are simply the cladding applied to an idea

 

i think the aesthetics are the value in the art. The idea is the sales pitch for those whose minds don't feed purely on the aesthetics, but need language and human countenance to help guide them into understanding the value of the piece.

 

 

i understand your point of view. but i would add that for me, the value in art (whatever that word really means) is a combination of aesthetics + ideas. ideas are the structure and aesthetics are the way the are presented

I think this way of approaching art is what has caused it's fatal disconnection from the purpose of striving for greatness. People can photograph any old crap and societies time and money is wasted.

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:41 AM, Cryptowen said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

My personal stance on art is that personal interpretation is just as important as whatever the original creator thought while making it. That's why people can be moved by recordings of birds & stuff.

i agree man and my personal interpolation of this picture is its just wrong. nothing gaarg created ever could be more wrong then this pic picture. if i had a hounted house i would display this picture in it

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:05 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Aesthetics

Do we need an appendix to define our use of aesthetic, for the purpose of continuing this particular conversation? I think people generally know what's being discussed here.

in this respect i feel it it a sucessful picture

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:09 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:02 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:59 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:48 AM, delet... said:

indeed. I should have realised that aesthetics weren't of any value to art anymore. haha, you like what you like it's all good.

 

you didn't understand my point.

aesthetics are essential to art, but they are simply the cladding applied to an idea

 

i think the aesthetics are the value in the art. The idea is the sales pitch for those whose minds don't feed purely on the aesthetics, but need language and human countenance to help guide them into understanding the value of the piece.

 

 

i understand your point of view. but i would add that for me, the value in art (whatever that word really means) is a combination of aesthetics + ideas. ideas are the structure and aesthetics are the way the are presented

 

 

I think this way of approaching art is what has caused it's fatal disconnection from the purpose of striving for greatness. People can photograph any old crap and societies time and money is wasted.

we are clearly talking about different things here

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:10 AM, sup said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:41 AM, Cryptowen said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

My personal stance on art is that personal interpretation is just as important as whatever the original creator thought while making it. That's why people can be moved by recordings of birds & stuff.

i agree man and my personal interpolation of this picture is its just wrong. nothing gaarg created ever could be more wrong then this pic picture. if i had a hounted house i would display this picture in it

gaarg he's calling you out

gaarg can you do something, something that is just plain more wrong then this pic picture?

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:11 AM, delet... said:

  On 11/12/2011 at 1:05 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Aesthetics

 

Do we need an appendix to define our use of aesthetic, for the purpose of continuing this particular conversation? I think people generally know what's being discussed here.

did you read the article? you obviously didn't.

lol just kidding, i was trolling away. yet i think it can be an interesting read!

I actually bookmarked it. heh

OH I GET IT, the picture must have been printed on diamonds or something.

In my opinion, its actually a great photo but no one should be able to spend that much money on something like that

I wonder why people with serious money these days don't build decent palaces. Modern mansions are either kitsch piles without the timeless and detailed craftsmanship, or worthless modern lumps. Why don't they build things like Neuschwanstein?

My theory is that they are too paranoid to build something too iconic, lest it draw attention to their stupendous wealth.

now my desktop. for freeeee