You have to be educated in Art or know much about Art to understand that the quality of an Artpiece is NOT subjective ! It is objective ! A good piece is a good piece for everybody.
The same goes with other artforms, everybody knows and accepts that Mozart, Hemmingway, Pavarotti, Rembrandt were very good artists and it has become an Objectif fact.
If you personally like it or not is subjective.
The value of an Artpiece is just what the Market wants to give for it, offer and demand...
No your basically saying then a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals buy awful drawings for ridicolous prices because someone in history has said their good. These drawings are shit.
Am I the only one who thinks that the Mona Lisa might be just a tad... overrated? Don't get me wrong.. It's beautiful... I just don't get all the hype about it. That's all. Price of the Mona Lisa and Starry Night? Priceless....
Many would argue that art can't be defined. If that's the case, why even place a value on it? If the qualities of art are subjective, then a shit-smear on a public restroom wall could be worth $150 million.
Clearly, some art has more value than other art. If it has a value, then it also in some form has a definition.
@yumichan180backup its kinda like music. some songs, or music genre, are'nt complicated. but they had to think of it first and master it. Pollock had an incredible sense of composition, and i dare anyone to make a painting with what you call "random lines and splotches" and to make it look as stong as any pollock's works.
He knew what he was doing, even if it was automatic work. he was part of a pictural revolution (with de kooning, motherwell, kline ect) and they established standarts.
Was that a joke? There's a reason most people involved are usually not academic, it's linked to why your all being taken for a ride if you think any of those shitty drawings are anything special...
Lol, this has nothing to with culture whatsoever. Just a bunch of extremely rich people wanting to appear intullectual. The fatc is all these drawings are shit.
I like how all of you connect this with starving people, when probably 99% of you all never donate shit to help the situation. I understand your point thougt but still if you really care about it start to donate some money yourself.
i dont get y ppl spend so much money on paintings, there are soooo many poor ppl and ppl starving afriend and lives in tents, some ppl call this fancy but i call this cruel
at 0:12 how come this sh!t worth $137.5 million? were in fact even a 5 yr. old kid can paint it better.. damn i don't wanna imagine how rich mans maintains his/her level of sanity to own these things ..their is nothing special rather than to donate even a price of toothpaste on orphans to make the children life better in the future...
i cannot understand why the heck do these paintings cost sooo much like seriously they are STUPID there is nothing special about these paintings who cares about who made them they suck....and yeah there is a lot of people on the planet that are starving and rich people waste their money on this?.....thats ridiculous
People you have to understand that these paintings are extremely old! Over 100 years old!
In the old days people would never dare to paint all random colors anyways on paper. Instead they painted perfect. Ex..real life people. Still life ..landscapes..As time changed long ago people got bored and started to create abstract paintings. abstract+100 year old painting= Millions of Dollars!l
Ps.....the reason why the mona Lisa is so expensive is because in those times their were no paint...instead
@geniusjas87 picasso once remark: by my mid teens i can draw like raphael, but it tooks me many years to learn how to draw like childrens.....To draw like a 4 years old put forth a new perspective in art..something adults wouldnt be able to do easily.
if i got the money i will buy SEYBURN COLCLOUGH, the best art i have see.
did you see the video?
The0001laryssa 3 weeks ago
No. 5 is an example of buying for a name not real art
iamcow41 1 month ago
No.5 is just a piece of shit compared to the rest.
Fo3fan97 1 month ago
no. 5 looks like an effortless way to get rich
wokeupthismorning100 2 months ago
You have to be educated in Art or know much about Art to understand that the quality of an Artpiece is NOT subjective ! It is objective ! A good piece is a good piece for everybody.
The same goes with other artforms, everybody knows and accepts that Mozart, Hemmingway, Pavarotti, Rembrandt were very good artists and it has become an Objectif fact.
If you personally like it or not is subjective.
The value of an Artpiece is just what the Market wants to give for it, offer and demand...
ALLDALI 4 months ago
@ALLDALI
No your basically saying then a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals buy awful drawings for ridicolous prices because someone in history has said their good. These drawings are shit.
403766 1 month ago in playlist More videos from instablogs
these all look crap
asiq1987 4 months ago
Am I the only one who thinks that the Mona Lisa might be just a tad... overrated? Don't get me wrong.. It's beautiful... I just don't get all the hype about it. That's all. Price of the Mona Lisa and Starry Night? Priceless....
admx94 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many would argue that art can't be defined. If that's the case, why even place a value on it? If the qualities of art are subjective, then a shit-smear on a public restroom wall could be worth $150 million.
Clearly, some art has more value than other art. If it has a value, then it also in some form has a definition.
SamiasCaesar 5 months ago
i don't get it....how the fk do u price "art" :S seriously uuuuumm lol
DaHne3yoo0 5 months ago
What so special about the first one it looks like he just put random lines and splotches everywhere
yumichan180backup 6 months ago
@yumichan180backup its kinda like music. some songs, or music genre, are'nt complicated. but they had to think of it first and master it. Pollock had an incredible sense of composition, and i dare anyone to make a painting with what you call "random lines and splotches" and to make it look as stong as any pollock's works.
He knew what he was doing, even if it was automatic work. he was part of a pictural revolution (with de kooning, motherwell, kline ect) and they established standarts.
ChristianoBerg 5 months ago
@ChristianoBerg I'm sorry I bothered you.
yumichan180backup 5 months ago
@yumichan180backup i forgive you.
ChristianoBerg 5 months ago
@ChristianoBerg
Was that a joke? There's a reason most people involved are usually not academic, it's linked to why your all being taken for a ride if you think any of those shitty drawings are anything special...
403766 1 month ago in playlist More videos from instablogs
@403766 I am not arguing on youtube. Just get some culture.
ChristianoBerg 1 month ago
@ChristianoBerg
Lol, this has nothing to with culture whatsoever. Just a bunch of extremely rich people wanting to appear intullectual. The fatc is all these drawings are shit.
403766 3 weeks ago
i'll sell someone a macaroni painting hand made for 20 bucks
xAxBeVaNxBx 7 months ago
many years from now, those paintings will be worthless.
DeadIslandTrailers 7 months ago
So..how much is the Mona Lisa..worth then........got ya!...priceless.
378Daniel 7 months ago
"Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauser" is the most beautiful painting i've ever seen.
tool404 8 months ago
I like how all of you connect this with starving people, when probably 99% of you all never donate shit to help the situation. I understand your point thougt but still if you really care about it start to donate some money yourself.
M2SWEDEN 1 year ago 2
The person who bought Jackson Pollock's "painting" must have been the following:
Drunk
Stoned
Retarded
all of the above.
If you have selected "all of the above". You are correct.
macarthur19 1 year ago
i dont get y ppl spend so much money on paintings, there are soooo many poor ppl and ppl starving afriend and lives in tents, some ppl call this fancy but i call this cruel
BladeOfForsaken 1 year ago
shit! the most expensive painting that ever sold and also the most awful painting in the world too..(>~<)those painting should sell in 1$.
bunny2131 1 year ago
at 0:12 how come this sh!t worth $137.5 million? were in fact even a 5 yr. old kid can paint it better.. damn i don't wanna imagine how rich mans maintains his/her level of sanity to own these things ..their is nothing special rather than to donate even a price of toothpaste on orphans to make the children life better in the future...
jesushit 1 year ago
i cannot understand why the heck do these paintings cost sooo much like seriously they are STUPID there is nothing special about these paintings who cares about who made them they suck....and yeah there is a lot of people on the planet that are starving and rich people waste their money on this?.....thats ridiculous
DsketchAudio 1 year ago
People you have to understand that these paintings are extremely old! Over 100 years old!
In the old days people would never dare to paint all random colors anyways on paper. Instead they painted perfect. Ex..real life people. Still life ..landscapes..As time changed long ago people got bored and started to create abstract paintings. abstract+100 year old painting= Millions of Dollars!l
Ps.....the reason why the mona Lisa is so expensive is because in those times their were no paint...instead
krados916 1 year ago
the jackson pollock looks like Google earth
mrlondonlover 1 year ago
my dog can paint the first painting !
SHEEN0998777 1 year ago
@SHEEN0998777 I agree,where's the art in something anyone can do.
punchsnakeman 1 year ago
Im not going to comment on all, but the second one definately looks like it was created by a 4 year old blind kid with down syndrome
geniusjas87 1 year ago 12
@geniusjas87 hahahah Ur a llegg :L
xDeaDxLegacY 1 year ago
@xDeaDxLegacY I'm a what?
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 I meant to say Legend But am a little retarded At spelling lol :L
xDeaDxLegacY 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 picasso once remark: by my mid teens i can draw like raphael, but it tooks me many years to learn how to draw like childrens.....To draw like a 4 years old put forth a new perspective in art..something adults wouldnt be able to do easily.
gkcnae 1 year ago 3
the first painting is shit my little bro who is 1 year old can make it by throwing paint onto paper
lupinmodz 1 year ago
@lupinmodz Okay first of all, how do you have a 1 year old brother if ur 31 years old? Ur not a very smart kid are you?
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 im 19 u retard
lupinmodz 1 year ago
@lupinmodz You're obviously stupid enough to not even realize I was talkin about the age on your profile
geniusjas87 1 year ago
And there are people starving! wow, nice paintings.
gasttheplast 2 years ago 15
@gasttheplast
...they had their chance.....
mrKANYEwes 1 year ago
@gasttheplast lmao!!!!! Best comment I've seen in a while
onsproductionz 6 months ago