Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 15:57:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cerulean on May 29, 2015 16:50:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 29, 2015 16:55:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 17:05:07 GMT
But in lots of ways that is the art its not the base picture.
In that the pics are available as are millions of other pics on IGram. But he used some to create something that had a form of narrative and as a famous artist he set his price for one of his works.
Don't get me wrong I do think it's daft but I also think there is an element that is the essence of art. Eg the concept/vision has a greater value than the actual.
He probably new he would get this reaction and that's part of it. That's his work. Although different Gavin Turk uses similar techniques by signing objects turning them supposedly into art.
A lot of Warhol's work used started this concept and it's still being used.
So think there is an element that puts a block on just shutting this type of art down as it has both a point and a place.
If Zi had a 100 k would I buy one know but then again is a Banksy simple stencil on canvas worth a 100K...no but him and the concept of his work are hence people buy it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 17:37:55 GMT
And I get that johnnyh; yours is a compelling argument. But to me, the bottom line is who's doing the appropriation. In this case Mr. Prince is a famous *artist,* whose goal may be to provoke thought/discussion (if that is the case, he's successful). But the adding of a comment to these images??? This type of art makes me wonder how hungry some us must be to own some of ______ (insert hyped-artist's name)... However, Mr. Prince does not win the prize (in this person's opinion) as the most outrageous art; that belongs to I-forget-his-name who had a ~45x45x45 cm^3 concrete cube... with a fetus inside at an exhibition at the Reina Sofia Museum (WTF was that?). You mention Warhol as an example, and many moons ago I did not appreciate his art; now I do. Especially when I had the opportunity to see some of his mixed media works recently (Krakow Museum of Modern Art); they were brilliant! Warhol was/is not only about his Marilyn silkscreens... He was an innovator in the truest sense of the word. I am not so sure Mr. Prince gets any close to it though. Carry on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:53:49 GMT
@ninthson I am not a lover of Richard Prince but be ause you and me can't understand it does not make it worthless.
Re the fetus piece maybe you should have asked sure the artist had a reason maybe it was to cause a reaction of disgust which has stayed with you....when in fact it was just a block of concrete. But because they told you (A) it caused a reaction...I have no idea just saying.
Appropriation too often fall into a daft copyright type of argument. Eg Prince could have just created these pieces himself not hard but he did not. He knew this would happen. He has been accused etc of it before so it was no surprise so there is a reason.
It's not about the cost $100k a lot but too some it's nothing. Likewise a $100k is a lot but in comparrison to Emmin's bed or a pile of bricks etc etc is it.
No idea!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:27:54 GMT
Just to give you an idea of how my mind works, I was not disgusted with the concrete block. I was thinking more along the lines: I can't see what's inside... It can be ALL concrete for all I know, or it can be a doll... Perhaps, that was the point of his work of art, to keep the viewer gussing. Now, if it had been a block of resin, where one could clearly see the fetus... Then I pro'bly would have been disgusted; but that is just me  |
|
