Jump to content
Chilly

The Price Of Art

Recommended Posts

I had very little experience with any type of art until I was in my mid-40s. Having grown up in a house where Picasso was laughed at because 'any 5 year old can paint better', I stayed away from any expression through art because I was taught that it wasn't a valid profession, more of a luxury for the well-off. Being much older now having left those notions behind, I try and stay open about any work I see until I've learned all of the details in its creation or historical context. In the example you provided, Klein invented a resin medium that retained the shimmer of the ultramarine pigment, whereas linseed tended to turn it dull on canvas. Interesting enough in a historical context to entice collectors to invest in the work. At a recent trip to the RISD museum with my husband, he chuckled at a Rothko and it made me sad for him. It almost guts me to see art mocked, any art. Every piece was/is worthwhile to someone, even if it was only for the release of the energy that brought the work forward.

Sputty and Johnmicheal like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike some, I was brought up to value the Arts, my Dad was in the Air Force always flying away to destinations unknown til he got back with some Japanese print. a Polynesian carving, a hummel doll, or an English cottage miniature. Perfume from Spain, or Jewelry from France, or Some knick knack from Germany or even a recipe from Fuji or Okinawa. We were 4 kids, a stay at home Mom, and a Sargent, so you know we were not wealthy, but by all means we were pretty rich as they made certain that no matter where ever we were we went to museums, zoos, and parks. All the rest of my life, I have had that heritage with me, and the arts have been so much a part of it that even though I have not had much, I have shared my riches of good art, music, theatre, food and books with my students and family, enriching their lives and my own.

 

 

best always,

Pres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always torn between the necessity of knowing the art history, as well as the socio-economic/political context and culture surrounding an artists work in order to understand and appreciate the work, vs. just taking it at face and eye-value and knowing nothing other than what I can discern with my senses and my own perspective. Contemporary art in particular seems to be less and less meanngful, or accessible, to the average bear. Art history education is sorely lacking in secondary schools and yet is imperative for helping people to see the value of art in our culture...in all cultures, for all times.

 

Edit 7/17--did a bit of research after reading more about Klein's piece-pretty interesting, actually. /lu  When it comes to fetching millions of dollars for a square of high-tech blue pigment though, to me that may be is just largely an investment/status deal, and perhaps falls into the realm of the Emperor's new clothes.  

 

 

Even when a piece may seem to be a no-brainer-the 5YO could do it-it is still imperative that art exists and someone is willing to pay to have it. I absolutely love Jackson Pollack's genius paint splatters, which are similary created on my glazing table by the time I'm done with a bunch of pieces. But he was "doing something" important, and I get that. As for subway muscians, I've never heard a bad one yet, and it would be wonderful to know that the 2 quarters I threw in the case were going to increase the fortunes of such as Mr. Bell!  

Edited by LeeU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What on earth makes a piece of blue paper/canvas worth that much.  We should get some hospital patients painting their walls and selling them to fund the NHS.

 

If I remember right there is a whole philosophy of monochrome that Klein believed in.

 

i also think this isnt 'just about blue' but a specific blue that Klein searched for which he called the colour of pure space and more. its a kind of ultramarine that he patented. he spent quite a few years experimenting and trying to find the right colour he wanted. So in that one painting we see years of work and a whole bunch of paintings - maybe 200 of that.

 

to me the price is the recognition of that journey that was deemed precious enough by those who bought it.

 

having worked in advertising for 10 years till i got sick of it - it was always so hard to see the best work canned and rejected.  and awful asinine ones win and go to to become big campaigns. if the intent was to use asinine to reach the masses because they knew it would win then that was a success in my books. but most of the time people were struggling to figure out what would work.

 

i always hear paper does not bring in much money as it does not survive. i'd like to take those people to our museum and show them their paper collection from the 1400s. 

LeeU likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What on earth makes a piece of blue paper/canvas worth that much. We should get some hospital patients painting their walls and selling them to fund the NHS.

If I remember right there is a whole philosophy of monochrome that Klein believed in.

 

i also think this isnt 'just about blue' but a specific blue that Klein searched for which he called the colour of pure space and more. its a kind of ultramarine that he patented. he spent quite a few years experimenting and trying to find the right colour he wanted. So in that one painting we see years of work and a whole bunch of paintings - maybe 200 of that.

 

to me the price is the recognition of that journey that was deemed precious enough by those who bought it.

 

having worked in advertising for 10 years till i got sick of it - it was always so hard to see the best work canned and rejected. and awful asinine ones win and go to to become big campaigns. if the intent was to use asinine to reach the masses because they knew it would win then that was a success in my books. but most of the time people were struggling to figure out what would work.

 

i always hear paper does not bring in much money as it does not survive. i'd like to take those people to our museum and show them their paper collection from the 1400s.

That is a very good viewpoint on the ' value' of a work of art. The value inclusive of the years of trial and error.

 

I have difficulty even setting a price for my work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in the stained glass area. It happens that the stained glass, like a ray penetrates into a person. And if this beam does not depend on the weather, on the time of day or on the quality of light, then it means that the stained-glass window has taken place. In this case, no public opinion can convince the viewer. I also support the view on investment. But, it seems to me that investments in works of art will decline in the future. And soon they will end completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently at the Bray event which is an annual fundraiser. There was an auction for cups, and auction of residents' work, a silent auction of past residents and the live auction of about 15-20 pieces...none of which sold for less than $4000. Artists in that auction included Patty Warashina, Josh deweese, Kurt Weiser, a  Beth Lo and Stephen Lee collaborative piece. The highest was about $12,000. It was amazing.

Marcia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×