Dubstepforum.com

I'm not going to wade in on what is art/what isn't art, but I will say this:

These kind of ridiculously over-priced auctions represent everything wrong with the world. If you can afford $40million on a blue square, why not give that cash to some people/organisations who need it?

It's opulence and greed in it's most grotesque form, veiled in cultural snobbery. Fucking makes me sick. That's not accessible culture, it's just elitism in all it's forms, culturally, economically and socially.

karmacazee wrote:I'm not going to wade in on what is art/what isn't art, but I will say this:

These kind of ridiculously over-priced auctions represent everything wrong with the world. If you can afford $40million on a blue square, why not give that cash to some people/organisations who need it?

It's opulence and greed in it's most grotesque form, veiled in cultural snobbery. Fucking makes me sick. That's not accessible culture, it's just elitism in all it's forms, culturally, economically and socially.

Art Garfunkel

wolf89 wrote:Well if the cash value was judged based on its artistic value my point would still be exactly the same (regarldess of the fact I don't believe this painting would be worth that much, I just mean as a general way of viewing this). However why it's worth that much is not likely to be that simple. Again I would say that the problem would lie in the commercial side of the art world not with the piece itself. Regardless a copy of something isn't going to be the same. Just because I can play a song on the guitar doesn't mean I won't buy the cd of the original

I agree with all that but for the fact that a copy (of the op piece) is going to evoke the same emotion as the original therefore, for all in tents and porpoises, it is the same.

I also agree with karmacazee. It's especially galling to think that (even though I don't like it) it may just end up in some stnuc office or even a vault somewhere in Tokyo where the general public wont have a chance to enjoy it (even though it's gash ).

What if something similar to this was done in any other art form?
Like, what if someone made a 9 hour "song" where it's just a sine wave staying at the same frequency. (shit example, can't think of anything atm but hopefully it gets my point accross) Or even that John Cage 4'33?

Would this have the same outcome/impact/outrage?

it's a lovely new addition to the emperor's wardrobe

OttoMatik wrote:What if something similar to this was done in any other art form?
Like, what if someone made a 9 hour "song" where it's just a sine wave staying at the same frequency. (shit example, can't think of anything atm but hopefully it gets my point accross) Or even that John Cage 4'33?

Would this have the same outcome/impact/outrage?

A sine wave at the same frequency isn't the same as this just look at it.

Secondly you have COMPLETELY missed the point 4'33 is making

what an absolute fucking bargain

wolf89 wrote:

OttoMatik wrote:What if something similar to this was done in any other art form?
Like, what if someone made a 9 hour "song" where it's just a sine wave staying at the same frequency. (shit example, can't think of anything atm but hopefully it gets my point accross) Or even that John Cage 4'33?

Would this have the same outcome/impact/outrage?

A sine wave at the same frequency isn't the same as this just look at it.

Secondly you have COMPLETELY missed the point 4'33 is making

Yeah tbh I have no idea why I included 4'33.

A sine wave at the same frequency isn't the same as this just look at it.

Well then would 2 detuned sine wave playing alongside white noise be closer to this? I can't think up of a valid example atm, but maybe someone else can. I was just wondering if this would happen in any other art form with the same reaction.

no because no one in high society gives a fuck about abstract music, and no one in normal society gives a fuck about high-society abstract visual art
and only poor kids in New York and beard strokers on the internets care about abstract film
it's weird... I've never heard of a sound recording being sold for any price... save some collectors item vinyls and such. Maybe bc the concept of "the original" doesn't carry over to sound recordings... No one would pay that much for a pint of the painting, but to own the real canvass with paint on it is something else

I don't know why. These ideas are so weird. Noise artists can't get the attention of big brokerages and auction houses etc. who knows if they even try
we've got the record industry, whose parallel i guess would be the mid-range graphical industry. rich people do strange things with their riches

someone should start doin abstract music installations

just a dark room with crazy sounds, but in an art exhibition

Has been done many a time

Yeah that's already happened

EDIT: somehow replied at the same time

dont understand the line of thought where people remove paintings like these from their contexts, as if painting this in the early 50s is the same thing as painting it in 2013. aesthetic value is subjective but an artist's importance can be sort-of-quantified by looking at their influence on what came next. that's where the value of a piece like this comes from - it's real estate on the art history timeline. but then you could always argue that timeline itself is just based around what wealthy Westerners like to buy

Yeah good point

Words wrote:dont understand the line of thought where people remove paintings like these from their contexts, as if painting this in the early 50s is the same thing as painting it in 2013. aesthetic value is subjective but an artist's importance can be sort-of-quantified by looking at their influence on what came next. that's where the value of a piece like this comes from - it's real estate on the art history timeline. but then you could always argue that timeline itself is just based around what wealthy Westerners like to buy

I can appreciate this but for me, personally, if a piece of art does not stand up to scrutiny after being (completely, in an ideal world) removed from context then it's not very good (or at least not as good as people make it out to be).

karmacazee wrote:I'm not going to wade in on what is art/what isn't art, but I will say this:

These kind of ridiculously over-priced auctions represent everything wrong with the world. If you can afford $40million on a blue square, why not give that cash to some people/organisations who need it?

It's opulence and greed in it's most grotesque form, veiled in cultural snobbery. Fucking makes me sick. That's not accessible culture, it's just elitism in all it's forms, culturally, economically and socially.

if you can afford enough to pay for whatever luxuries you possess in your life why not give that money to the people/organisations that need it?[/genevieve]

So if you make lots of money you automatically aren't allowed the freedom to do whatever you want with what you earned?

wolf89 wrote:So if you make lots of money you automatically aren't allowed the freedom to do whatever you want with what you earned?

Exactly my point, i find it very hypocritical when people have a go at the rich for buying outlandish things instead of donating to charity when they themselves give nothing or only a small proportion of their earnings to charity.

Unless youve seen it as it is and not just a picture theres no point saying what you think of it cos 'it' is yet to be beheld by you and you of it.