Dubstepforum.com

the real money is spent outside auctions

adjusted for relative value the rothco is 23rd in the list of most expensive paintings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... _paintings

All that money wasted on that piece of shit

it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

exfox wrote:it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

No, it's a piece of shit

exfox wrote:it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

Subjectivity is a new word for you to learn.

ofcourse, judging a painting from a jpeg is like judging a tune thru laptop speakers

arktrix wrote:

exfox wrote:it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

Subjectivity is a new word for you to learn.

calling something a "piece of shit" is a judgement that claims to be objective though. i don't mean to say everyone must like rothko, but calling a painting a piece of shit is considering shitness as an attribute of this painting - ie not a subjective opinion.

I only have an issue with the ludicrous amount of money spent.
Art is all subjective, no point in debating it.

exfox wrote:

arktrix wrote:

exfox wrote:it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

Subjectivity is a new word for you to learn.

calling something a "piece of shit" is a judgement that claims to be objective though. i don't mean to say everyone must like rothko, but calling a painting a piece of shit is considering shitness as an attribute of this painting - ie not a subjective opinion.

Tell me why you like it, what is so inspiring about it.

kirky wrote:

exfox wrote:

arktrix wrote:

exfox wrote:it's NOT a piece of shit ffs. YES the amount of money is ridiculous, YES it should have been used for other causes, YES a painting should not be that expensive, but NO it's not a piece of shit

Subjectivity is a new word for you to learn.

calling something a "piece of shit" is a judgement that claims to be objective though. i don't mean to say everyone must like rothko, but calling a painting a piece of shit is considering shitness as an attribute of this painting - ie not a subjective opinion.

Tell me why you like it, what is so inspiring about it.

i'd have trouble putting it to words tbh, but i find rothko's paintings quite fascinating, i always feel like i can drown in them. seeing some of them in reality helped me getting this feeling though.
now again, i can totally understand why one would not like it, even hate it - but saying "it's shit" is a bit much.

this is retarded.

wasnt this painting in Mad Men? In Coopers office?

it is shit though. art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching. i could draw 3 rectangles and paint them at the end of the day. (''then why didnt you'') because theres no skill in that and if i wanted to paint something it'd be more intricate.

Gewze wrote:art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching.

why?

anyone else seen who the buyer is?

capo ultra wrote:

Gewze wrote:art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching.

why?

because its art, its interesting and different and shows feelings. i wouldnt want to look at something i could paint/sculp/draw nor would i want to listen to something with a kick, a snare and 1 symbol through out.

kids on an electronic music forum complaining about the aesthetic value of art...

lol

I actually like most of Rothko's work. Ok, it doesnt exactly look like anything Rubens would've made but atleast Rothko made something I'd actually want in my house.
And I honestly don't care if wealthy people like to buy something like that for that amount of money. If people think they can make profit of it or if they think it is worth that amount of money, then why not?

noam wrote:kids on an electronic music forum complaining about the aesthetic value of art...

lol

And I was about to suggest thinking of it as really good really deep dub-techno in visual form...

Gewze wrote:it is shit though. art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching. i could draw 3 rectangles and paint them at the end of the day. (''then why didnt you'') because theres no skill in that and if i wanted to paint something it'd be more intricate.

Important business trick is to essentially copyright fundamentals - something anyone can do. Why? Because then no one can technically do it. Sure it's simple, but the moulded world of acceptance will not recieve it. Therefore it's something nobody other than Rothko can do. Also - a lot of the value is in the kind of pyschology of the piece: the way in which it is imbued not only with his feelings and desire to communicate, but the passive dandruff from the other arty stnuc he knocked about with.

Not saying I like it, tbh I think it's quite dump, like a diluted feeling you get waking up in a sunlit tent. Though I do like some of Rothko's approaches/attitudes... He had some recipe basically paraphrasing sex and death.

Also worth thinking about how power comes by offering chances to polarise beliefs. This work is prime example! It really walks the fine line between, thus amplifying cost. Pissy Snowballs