Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Picasso's "Nude, Green Leaves and Bust" went for $106.5 million. This is an example of something that has amused me for some time. People decide that the "enlightened" understand that junk is really outstanding and that most people just don't understand it. But you know what? Like a lot of Picasso's stuff, that painting is junk. Here it is:



Just amazing that people who want to be perceived as "sophisticated" will actually say that such a painting is worth a crap. Of course, I guess the person who paid $106.5 million realizes it's crap but thinks maybe they can turn a profit by selling it later for even more. I doubt it though.

Talk about a waste of $106.5 million.

How about the person that dropped $140 million on Jackson Pollock's No. 5?

I actually really like both of those pieces...
I'm not sure "junk" is a fair description but I understand if you don't like them, they are difficult pieces

John we spend hundreds of billions on aircraft that have never even left the flight hangar... so what if some guy with a couple extra billion in his personal checking account want's a piece of immortality..?

Chizzang wrote:they are difficult pieces

I just left a difficult piece in my toilet. How much money you got?

Just out of curiosity, this ended up in the poli lounge because...?

Grizalltheway wrote:Just out of curiosity, this ended up in the poli lounge because...?

I think JSO realizes that everything he posts will eventually end up in the poli wing, even if it's just a picture of his sister.

I mean have you ever seen a better rack on a Republican in your life?

Chizzang wrote:I actually really like both of those pieces...
I'm not sure "junk" is a fair description but I understand if you don't like them, they are difficult pieces

John we spend hundreds of billions on aircraft that have never even left the flight hangar... so what if some guy with a couple extra billion in his personal checking account want's a piece of immortality..?

I created a masterpiece that looked exactly like Jackson Pollock's No. 5 in elementary school when we were told to paint whatever we felt like. I got an F and had to stay after class and talk to the art teacher about it. I then had to write 100 times that "Throwing paint randomly on the canvas is not art"♦

93henfan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Just out of curiosity, this ended up in the poli lounge because...?

I think JSO realizes that everything he posts will eventually end up in the poli wing, even if it's just a picture of his sister.

I mean have you ever seen a better rack on a Republican in your life?

That is a nice set of knockers.

Chizzang wrote:I actually really like both of those pieces...
I'm not sure "junk" is a fair description but I understand if you don't like them, they are difficult pieces

John we spend hundreds of billions on aircraft that have never even left the flight hangar... so what if some guy with a couple extra billion in his personal checking account want's a piece of immortality..?

On a serious note, what do you enjoy about the Pollock piece? I'm by no means an art aficionado. I've never taken an art class in high school or college. I have visited the major museums in DC, Philly, NYC and Chicago and have developed some self-taught appreciation of a fairly wide range of paintings, particularly those of the French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, but I've never been able to grasp or enjoy the more modern abstracts. Help me (and many of us) out. What are we missing?

My favorite painting always has been, and always will be Van Gogh's "Irises"!


The above holds true until a Dutch post-Impressionist paints a picture of the App State/Griz game from last season!

93henfan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I actually really like both of those pieces...
I'm not sure "junk" is a fair description but I understand if you don't like them, they are difficult pieces

John we spend hundreds of billions on aircraft that have never even left the flight hangar... so what if some guy with a couple extra billion in his personal checking account want's a piece of immortality..?

On a serious note, what do you enjoy about the Pollock piece? I'm by no means an art aficionado. I've never taken an art class in high school or college. I have visited the major museums in DC, Philly, NYC and Chicago and have developed some self-taught appreciation of a fairly wide range of paintings, particularly those of the French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists, but I've never been able to grasp or enjoy the more modern abstracts. Help me (and many of us) out. What are we missing?

Here's some of the highlights from the modern art museum that I went to in Berlin a couple of years ago: a wool blanket hanging on the wall. A fluorescent light bulb hanging on the wall. And, I shit you not, a blank canvas.

Grizalltheway wrote: Here's some of the highlights from the modern art museum that I went to in Berlin a couple of years ago: a wool blanket hanging on the wall. A fluorescent light bulb hanging on the wall. And, I **** you not, a blank canvas.

I was with my wife in the Philadelphia Museum of Art a few years ago and I had to laugh at the stupidity of the museum for paying several hundred thousand dollars for what amounted to a bunch of paper mache blobs on poles. Even my wife, who is finishing her MFA, had to concede defeat on that one.

We then walked into a large room with several stones randomly placed on the floor, a couple of circles drawn on the floor, and a few normal items on the wall. I took my jacket off, threw it on the floor near the corner, and started my "critique" pointing out the difference between the softness of the fleece versus the hardness of the floor, the stark, straight lines of the wood versus the curves of the "folds" of the jacket...the shadows were sharply cut on the rolling surface...and topped it off with the contrast between the quiet safety, orderliness, and the desired coziness of the warm, indoor room versus the viewers knowledge that the jacket represented humanity's need and yearning to be outdoors in the cold, and often "dangerous" environment. Where is the jacket's owner? What was he doing outdoors before he rested his jacket here?

A crowd gathered and listened and some people were nodding their heads. After several minutes, I walked over and picked up my jacket while several people almost had a heart attack thinking I was destroying one of the artists works.

Modern artists...convincing people the Emporer's clothes are beautiful.

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Here's some of the highlights from the modern art museum that I went to in Berlin a couple of years ago: a wool blanket hanging on the wall. A fluorescent light bulb hanging on the wall. And, I **** you not, a blank canvas.

I was with my wife in the Philadelphia Museum of Art a few years ago and I had to laugh at the stupidity of the museum for paying several hundred thousand dollars for what amounted to a bunch of paper mache blobs on poles. Even my wife, who is finishing her MFA, had to concede defeat on that one.

We then walked into a large room with several stones randomly placed on the floor, a couple of circles drawn on the floor, and a few normal items on the wall. I took my jacket off, threw it on the floor near the corner, and started my "critique" pointing out the difference between the softness of the fleece versus the hardness of the floor, the stark, straight lines of the wood versus the curves of the "folds" of the jacket...the shadows were sharply cut on the rolling surface...and topped it off with the contrast between the quiet safety, orderliness, and the desired coziness of the warm, indoor room versus the viewers knowledge that the jacket represented humanity's need and yearning to be outdoors in the cold, and often "dangerous" environment. Where is the jacket's owner? What was he doing outdoors before he rested his jacket here?

A crowd gathered and listened and some people were nodding their heads. After several minutes, I walked over and picked up my jacket while several people almost had a heart attack thinking I was destroying one of the artists works.

Modern artists...convincing people the Emporer's clothes are beautiful.

Speaking of the Philly Art Museum, here's some damn art:

People that don't have the collecting mind set usually look at these things as junk. I wheel and deal primarily in sports collectible, but also dabble in antiques and americana. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Popularity is what drives prices up, and I have no problem with the prices people get for rare art. All you need is two people that are dedicated collectors to drive a price up. I would love when I find a rare item in a thrift store or at an antique show. It's great fun, a form of education, and a way to earn money. Knowledge is the key, just watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars, two different ways of picking. I once bought a 1932 World Series Program with 2 ticket stubs from the game with the Babe Ruth called shot. Paid $250, sold for $3000. Some call it junk, I call it fun.

Gil Dobie wrote:People that don't have the collecting mind set usually look at these things as junk. I wheel and deal primarily in sports collectible, but also dabble in antiques and americana. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Popularity is what drives prices up, and I have no problem with the prices people get for rare art. All you need is two people that are dedicated collectors to drive a price up. I would love when I find a rare item in a thrift store or at an antique show. It's great fun, a form of education, and a way to earn money. Knowledge is the key, just watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars, two different ways of picking. I once bought a 1932 World Series Program with 2 ticket stubs from the game with the Babe Ruth called shot. Paid $250, sold for $3000. Some call it junk, I call it fun.

Totally agree with that Gil, but I'm still waiting for Chizzang to answer what about the Pollock painting is "good".

I mean, if I had one of those Honus Wagner baseball cards that brings a ton of money at auction, I'd be happy to have been the owner of the card, but I would have never once taken a look at it and said "God, that is one beautiful, complex photograph of Honus Wgner. It's a difficult piece." No, it's a fucking rare baseball card and that's about it.

I understand the market for rare art, but that doesn't necessarily means it's good art. IMHO, that Pollock piece looks very similar to some spin painting I did at a state fair when I was three. I'm sure if I ever became famous or considered really chic by some snobs in NY, then my mom could dig the piece out of the basement and auction it for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Gil Dobie wrote:People that don't have the collecting mind set usually look at these things as junk. I wheel and deal primarily in sports collectible, but also dabble in antiques and americana. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Popularity is what drives prices up, and I have no problem with the prices people get for rare art. All you need is two people that are dedicated collectors to drive a price up. I would love when I find a rare item in a thrift store or at an antique show. It's great fun, a form of education, and a way to earn money. Knowledge is the key, just watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars, two different ways of picking. I once bought a 1932 World Series Program with 2 ticket stubs from the game with the Babe Ruth called shot. Paid $250, sold for $3000. Some call it junk, I call it fun.

I agree with JSO. It isn't so much that "I wouldn't want to buy it for that much, so therefore it was a stupid purchase". I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson's music but I could see why one of his favorite suits or hats would be valuable. What's stupid here is that pieces of modern and abstract art are usually considered good just because some people said it was and other people say they like it just so they do not appear like they are somehow too unrefined to see the beauty in it (it's like the Emperor's new clothes).

If you people that liked either of these paintings had never seen them before and I gave you them and three random pieces of abstract art made by middle schoolers for comparison, would you be able to tell which one was revered in the art world? Nope.

Pwns wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:People that don't have the collecting mind set usually look at these things as junk. I wheel and deal primarily in sports collectible, but also dabble in antiques and americana. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Popularity is what drives prices up, and I have no problem with the prices people get for rare art. All you need is two people that are dedicated collectors to drive a price up. I would love when I find a rare item in a thrift store or at an antique show. It's great fun, a form of education, and a way to earn money. Knowledge is the key, just watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars, two different ways of picking. I once bought a 1932 World Series Program with 2 ticket stubs from the game with the Babe Ruth called shot. Paid $250, sold for $3000. Some call it junk, I call it fun.

I agree with JSO. It isn't so much that "I wouldn't want to buy it for that much, so therefore it was a stupid purchase". I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson's music but I could see why one of his favorite suits or hats would be valuable. What's stupid here is that pieces of modern and abstract art are usually considered good just because some people said it was and other people say they like it just so they do not appear like they are somehow too unrefined to see the beauty in it (it's like the Emperor's new clothes).

If you people that liked either of these paintings had never seen them before and I gave you them and three random pieces of abstract art made by middle schoolers for comparison, would you be able to tell which one was revered in the art world? Nope.

The Picasso one - definately could tell.

dbackjon wrote:th

The Picasso one - definately could tell.

Well, I take part of it back. Picasso was famous and did some good non-abstract stuff and had a signature style for human figures in abstract art. It would make sense that a work by someone so famous would be a collectors item.

The other one, though - it looks like something that came out of a trash compactor.

I think JSO would be a big fan of dadaism.

93henfan wrote: Totally agree with that Gil, but I'm still waiting for Chizzang to answer what about the Pollock painting is "good".

Interesting twist on what I said...
I'm not sure I actually look at abstract art and think "That ones good" and "That ones bad" usually I try to figure out what the artists was going for and consider the time period in which it was done and the nature of the piece: is it revolutionary is it a product of a cultural shift or events is it a new medium or new technique is it spectacular in a certain way..?

I also consider how it makes me feel, and yes sometimes angry (as we've seen in this thread) is a legitimate reaction or sad or frustrated or whatever... those are important keys for me

but really none of this actually matters because guys like Clive Cussler write absolute garbage and make millions and millions of dollars selling third rate sh!t and that seems to be fine as long as you do it $12.00 at a time... so what if Jackson Pollack drizzled paint - it's all about perspective...

Art doesn't really have much to do with how "good" a painting really is.
It's more about the popularity/reputation of whatever name is scribbled in the corner.

JayJ79 wrote:Art doesn't really have much to do with how "good" a painting really is.
It's more about the popularity/reputation of whatever name is scribbled in the corner.

Yep. I haven't seen anything in this thread to refute that.

Grizalltheway wrote:I think JSO realizes that everything he posts will eventually end up in the poli wing, even if it's just a picture of his sister.

I mean have you ever seen a better rack on a Republican in your life?

You know, I'm glad you posted that because I'd forgotten that I'd put that out there and in another thread someone suggested that one of my sisters is ugly. Wasn't that sister, but the other sister I was talking about was probably better looking than that one when both were high school cheerleaders. Certainly more pursued by guys; partially because the one you see in that picture doesn't take any crap at all while the other one is very "soft" and nice.

they are difficult pieces

Difficult? I think the chances of you or me being able to paint something like either one of those pieces are a lot greater than the chances of you are me painting something like, say, the image below. The difference is that when you look at the image below you can tell that the artist achieved what he wanted to achieve. Either one of the two paintings your talking about could be total screw ups. A 5th grader with no artistic skill at all could come up with something like that Picasso painting and one could come up with something similar to that other Polluck painting by rubbing a piece of fresh cow crap ona piece of paper.