posted on June 6, 2001 04:04:18 PM new
I'm not sure what posessed me to go and take a look at oldandsold.com, partly it was curiosity to see if they were still there. I nearly fell off my computer chair when I saw the infamous Yellow Roses back on their homepage. Holy moly. Does this puzzle anyone else? Is this new, or has it been clinging there all along, since last fall???
posted on June 7, 2001 03:07:45 AM new
It is a Van Gough painting of which all the art snobs have a prissy fit over the authenticity. I have never understood why a good painting by an unknown is not valued and a piece of crap by someone who eventually achieves fame for a new style or technique is valued.
Bottom line - I would not want it hanging in my lliving room.
posted on June 7, 2001 10:12:44 AM new
It is a Van Gough painting of which all the art snobs have a prissy fit over the authenticity. I have never understood why a good painting by an unknown is not valued and a piece of crap by someone who eventually achieves fame for a new style or technique is valued.
Bottom line - I would not want it hanging in my lliving room
>>>>>>
I guess I am one of the Art snobs(Just look at my name). The reason new style's are valued so much is because it opens new doors for the next new style. If not for people like Van Gogh, people like Pollock would not have been accepted(No, I dont like Pollock, but I do respect him because he opened a new style and doors for artists I DO like). I respect anyone who can do that. Having said that I don't think that a piece of art should be judged by who did it. Example: The toilet sets that De Kooning splattered with paint as a joke for a party he was having later sold for more money than I will probably ever make in my life. I realize that art is not important to everyone and I can respect that. I was one of those people until just last fall, when I had my first Art History class that is a requirement. That was first day when I began to learn how important art is TO history and how almost every piece of art tells a story. If feeling that way makes me an "art snob" , then I am an art snob. I always thought that an art snob was someone who went with the latest trands and didnt study Art history at all.
posted on June 9, 2001 11:43:07 AM new
I guess I can not imaigine valuing a single painting at millions of dollars even if it is a second rate work just because it has a certain signature on it. But then I have never been one to pay for designer clothing or furniture.
I have some original art on my walls and a few wood turnings. The amazing thing to me is how much really nice work is available for modest prices. I have never paid a $1,000 for a painting or print and am actually embarrassed that the artist had to sell something that took so much thought and talant at such a low price because they were not "famous". But I am grateful I could afford a few pieces. I have tried my hand at water color and ceramics and it just makes one realize how difficult some subtle things are to render. I have a print of a snow scene that almost chills you to see how the shadows look the way snow really does appear late in a winter day, and if you keep looking at it you find details like fox tracks in the snow
both sharp and obscured the way wind will soften a track in one place and miss it another. I only paid $600 for this print and would never take it off the wall for that
floral nightmare we are talking about.
I've seen slipcovers on old ladies furniture I liked better than that.
I can see why museams and students of art would want these works of artists that were pioneers in some technique or style but the dollar value they assign seems irrational.
posted on June 9, 2001 01:39:46 PM new
I've seen slipcovers on old ladies furniture I liked better than that.
I can see why museams and students of art would want these works of artists that were pioneers in some technique or style but the dollar value they assign seems irrational.
>>>>
Gravid,
To me it is highly irrational to pay an outrageous amount for an original Pollock because I dont like his work, but I do respect him. I can give other examples: Paintings thought to be Rembrandt for years dropped in value about ten minutes after some group of people said they were not Rembradnts. That to me makes no sense, same painting, just as beautiful but when they were thought to be by an unknown their value dropped like a hot potato. A cupid like statue that was used basically as a coatrack until some Art Historian thought it might have been a Michelangelo. That little coatrack was put behind velvet ropes. I think a work of art should be valued for it's beauty and not because someone great created it. I would love to see a picture of the snow print you spoke of!
[ edited by caravaggio on Jun 9, 2001 01:40 PM ]
