I don't know if you or I created it would it still sell for as much? If art is art, it should sell for the same amount. But, art isn't art. Art is about who's who and what they do, not just if you are good or not.
I don't know if you or I created it would it still sell for as much? If art is art, it should sell for the same amount. But, art isn't art. Art is about who's who and what they do, not just if you are good or not.
With food, the atmosphere, the reputation of the chef, your mood, and your preconceptions all play into how much you enjoy your meal. Is it strange that art would be more enjoyable and thereby more valuable based upon it's rarity, it's artist, public opinion, and the history surrounding it?
Art is a form of communication, I'm sure if you or I created that piece it'd sell (probably for thousands (large and bronze = expensive)) , but the millions come who the artist is, and the context of the piece.
The responses in this thread are a bit surprising.
If you want to appreciate Giacometti's work, then you kind of need to understand the history and significance of his work, and the contributions it made to modern art.
Its kind of disheartening the closed minded views I read in this thread. I can understand not liking the piece individually. But to use it as a basis to judge the entire field without knowing the history or experiencing it yourself...
The supposed uppity people you all think look down at you for being a game artist? Your doing the same thing as them. And what I cant stand more than anything are..
I think people are just annoyed that it's not their work going for $65,000,000
People debating the "artistic quality" of this in relation to realism or classicism or whatever are kind of missing the point, I think, and have had their perspective skewed by the huge price tag, which actually has nothing at all to do with the artistic merit.
People can buy amazing works of art for next to nothing, or they can spend millions and get utter rubbish. The trick is to split the two...
Wow, I'm surprised by the amount of people here that don't think its worth 65 million pounds, or even a piece of art for that matter. Alberto Giacometti has a place in art history. So for (rich) collectors its also about being a piece of history, and modern movements in the art world. It could be the collectors favorite piece, who knows (the piece was valued at 10 million pounds). But anyway
initially you did open this topic being somewhat surprised an artwork like that can go for so much money, so i don`t get it why you would be surprised if other people thought the same thing but in a more extreme way .
anyway, i don`t mind art like that and you won`t see me diminish modern art in any way but i just prefer art that is clear in it`s message, i don`t need realism but readability and sometimes a few strokes can give you that.
I also think that's the great thing about the term art, you define it for yourself.
For some it's beautiful, for others it's not. It evokes a different emotion for me.
To be honest, that sculpture freaks me out. That's a powerful and personal enough message to me. If I was lost in a forest lit only by moonlight and I found this thing in the middle of nowhere, I would probably piss myself.
Buying art is not so much about the art itself but the ego or story or reasoning that goes along with it and then being able to perpetuate that value further with some obscene price point or some intellectual response. Thats what makes this thing so amazing. Not because it actually is some stellar work of art but because enough peoples egos, doubts and pride have made purchasing this thing or even looking at it a worthwhile commodity.
I personally dont like the sculpture for all of the reasons stated, but I can definitely admire the fact that it took a lot of people, artist included, to want to find value in it and do whatever it takes to make that a reality.
You can look at it from a religious standpoint, if you want to go there. The fact that people go apeshit and batshit insane for words in a book is tantamount to the desire to want more and to satisfy the need to justify and be justified in this world. Word of mouth, hearsay and enforcement gets the point across. Giacometti managed to do so with his work and had connections with people in the right circles; those able to disseminate his works upon the world, and it garnered him relative success.
And for a more contemporary view, just take a look at Apple and Steve Jobs specifically. Despite the amazingly obvious technological shortcomings of the Iphone and the Ipad, Jobs continues to slam the importance of his companys technology into the minds of many just because he can because he has the ego and will to instill pride and doubt with his products. Anyone else in league with the man will only help further his own ideals and vision, increasing any value in his technology even more so.
As for the Giacometti art, you gotta understand though that this work did take decades and the luck of the draw to demand that auction price plus whatever else the artist and his friends and patrons did to elevate the seemingly worthwhile nature of this artwork.
If you do a little bit of reading about giacometti youll find out that he studied art most of his life, and began sculpture the traditional way, sculpting folks with normal roughly proportions. He knows his shit, but maybe he got bored, maybe he found more interest in elongating the limbs and making stuff razor thin - somewhere in his journey he found something in the morass or normality and went.... fuck yeah i like this and worked his way to achieving what he wanted.
Reading others 'artists' comments in this thread, about other pieces of artwork from different mediums & genres created by folks who studied art all their lives baffles me.
Your either unappreciative of their lifes work / meaning / purpose or simply too right ( or left cant remember ) brained to understand the process required to create this kind of movement in the art world as a whole.
Whether you like the art or not is irrelevant, its the journey of the artist your looking at in every finished (or unfinished ) piece. I say to you that this art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Whether or not they are art fans or investors, mad props to giacometti for creating such a stir in the modern day!
He did this sculpture, and so many more just like it, long ago and like all crazy rediculous artists that explore things above and beyond normality, its he who will earn his place in history or be remembered because he stuck to his guns did what he wanted to do and created a style that was striking and stuck out like a sore thumb.
For me personally it makes me feel inadequate to call myself an 'artist' when I see pieces like this.
haha Calabi, apparently she had a nervous breakdown on that bed and then won the turner prize, clearly she was rewarded for her moments of madness!
Here's another turner winning entry which was probably the most stupid idea, a video of some guy walking around a shopping centre wearing a bear costume.
Idea: Maybe If I wear a turtle neck sweater, beret and some of those freaky looking bookworm spectacles I could buy a tramp a special brew and have him piss through a chain link fence, take a picture and pocket 25 grand of turner prize money! Afterall it's never about the art, it's about desperation, lack of expertise and the will to make money.
The thing I dislike about modern art is also the same thing I love about it...freedom from constraints.
In many cases I do think it can allow some artists to sell an idea without much substance because so much of it is subjective.
However it can also give the viewer more connection to a piece because in some form they helped to create it, even if only for themselves.
I find it to be somewhat of an opposite issue for more traditional art.
Its technical limitations can constrict the artist creatively and yet it can also become an easy crutch for the viewer to understand the piece.
You don't really need to think about a lot of traditional art too deeply, you can just appreciate it by being there as much of it is delivered for you in a more literal fashion.
But then there is something beautiful about how a traditional artist can capture the love of a woman holding her child in stone for example.
Either way though, art is never truly good or bad, art just is.
I find both those condeming or championing any piece of art to be just as narrow minded as each other. All you are really trying to do is force your ideals onto someone else, "I think X of Y, so should you!".
Like it or leave it, just don't tell me I'm wrong either way.
Without reading too much about it or even expressing my opinion of whether it's "good" art or not, I can only imagine that if a handful of people with enough money want something bad enough... well there you go.
Replies
With food, the atmosphere, the reputation of the chef, your mood, and your preconceptions all play into how much you enjoy your meal. Is it strange that art would be more enjoyable and thereby more valuable based upon it's rarity, it's artist, public opinion, and the history surrounding it?
If you want to appreciate Giacometti's work, then you kind of need to understand the history and significance of his work, and the contributions it made to modern art.
The supposed uppity people you all think look down at you for being a game artist? Your doing the same thing as them. And what I cant stand more than anything are..
Hypocrites.
People debating the "artistic quality" of this in relation to realism or classicism or whatever are kind of missing the point, I think, and have had their perspective skewed by the huge price tag, which actually has nothing at all to do with the artistic merit.
People can buy amazing works of art for next to nothing, or they can spend millions and get utter rubbish. The trick is to split the two...
initially you did open this topic being somewhat surprised an artwork like that can go for so much money, so i don`t get it why you would be surprised if other people thought the same thing but in a more extreme way
anyway, i don`t mind art like that and you won`t see me diminish modern art in any way but i just prefer art that is clear in it`s message, i don`t need realism but readability and sometimes a few strokes can give you that.
I also think that's the great thing about the term art, you define it for yourself.
To be honest, that sculpture freaks me out. That's a powerful and personal enough message to me. If I was lost in a forest lit only by moonlight and I found this thing in the middle of nowhere, I would probably piss myself.
Would anyone buy it for 50 quid?
I personally dont like the sculpture for all of the reasons stated, but I can definitely admire the fact that it took a lot of people, artist included, to want to find value in it and do whatever it takes to make that a reality.
You can look at it from a religious standpoint, if you want to go there. The fact that people go apeshit and batshit insane for words in a book is tantamount to the desire to want more and to satisfy the need to justify and be justified in this world. Word of mouth, hearsay and enforcement gets the point across. Giacometti managed to do so with his work and had connections with people in the right circles; those able to disseminate his works upon the world, and it garnered him relative success.
And for a more contemporary view, just take a look at Apple and Steve Jobs specifically. Despite the amazingly obvious technological shortcomings of the Iphone and the Ipad, Jobs continues to slam the importance of his companys technology into the minds of many just because he can because he has the ego and will to instill pride and doubt with his products. Anyone else in league with the man will only help further his own ideals and vision, increasing any value in his technology even more so.
As for the Giacometti art, you gotta understand though that this work did take decades and the luck of the draw to demand that auction price plus whatever else the artist and his friends and patrons did to elevate the seemingly worthwhile nature of this artwork.
Reading others 'artists' comments in this thread, about other pieces of artwork from different mediums & genres created by folks who studied art all their lives baffles me.
Your either unappreciative of their lifes work / meaning / purpose or simply too right ( or left cant remember ) brained to understand the process required to create this kind of movement in the art world as a whole.
Whether you like the art or not is irrelevant, its the journey of the artist your looking at in every finished (or unfinished ) piece. I say to you that this art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Whether or not they are art fans or investors, mad props to giacometti for creating such a stir in the modern day!
He did this sculpture, and so many more just like it, long ago and like all crazy rediculous artists that explore things above and beyond normality, its he who will earn his place in history or be remembered because he stuck to his guns did what he wanted to do and created a style that was striking and stuck out like a sore thumb.
For me personally it makes me feel inadequate to call myself an 'artist' when I see pieces like this.
Here's another turner winning entry which was probably the most stupid idea, a video of some guy walking around a shopping centre wearing a bear costume.
Idea: Maybe If I wear a turtle neck sweater, beret and some of those freaky looking bookworm spectacles I could buy a tramp a special brew and have him piss through a chain link fence, take a picture and pocket 25 grand of turner prize money! Afterall it's never about the art, it's about desperation, lack of expertise and the will to make money.
... or not.
( and not on google image. go to an actual exhibit. ditto fer the sculpts )
When things get tough or are outside there reach, they back out.
Art is not just a way to express.. it is a way to grow.
And not all of us are feeling seekers.
I hate it when people moawn about how depressed they were and how they needed to tell the world.
Bring me story, "Dear cave, today we hunted deer, great succes! now we build fire and dance."
Art is now constructed by the mind not by hands.
In many cases I do think it can allow some artists to sell an idea without much substance because so much of it is subjective.
However it can also give the viewer more connection to a piece because in some form they helped to create it, even if only for themselves.
I find it to be somewhat of an opposite issue for more traditional art.
Its technical limitations can constrict the artist creatively and yet it can also become an easy crutch for the viewer to understand the piece.
You don't really need to think about a lot of traditional art too deeply, you can just appreciate it by being there as much of it is delivered for you in a more literal fashion.
But then there is something beautiful about how a traditional artist can capture the love of a woman holding her child in stone for example.
Either way though, art is never truly good or bad, art just is.
I find both those condeming or championing any piece of art to be just as narrow minded as each other. All you are really trying to do is force your ideals onto someone else, "I think X of Y, so should you!".
Like it or leave it, just don't tell me I'm wrong either way.
Art is a personal thing.
[ame]
I'm also gonna use this thread to post some modern art, that is a bit different from what people expect modern art to be like.
Done by an anonymous artist calling himself Banksy.