Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Pollock update - part 2.; ...what say you?
Topic Started: Dec 5 2005, 09:36 AM (706 Views)
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 5 2005, 07:57 PM
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 02:54 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 5 2005, 07:52 PM
It *is* if someone is willing to pay millions.

Well, yes, but they are idiots so we don't include them

x

Are they idiots if they buy a painting for 1 million, and sell it 10 years later for 100 million?

People are willing to pay 50 dollars for a bill, only because they know they can palm it off on some other poor fool for the same amount. Art is often a great investment.

No. I think they are idiots for paying a million in the first place for something that a three year old could do. Or even themselves if they really wanted the art. Would have saved them alot of money.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 02:58 PM
No. I think they are idiots for paying a million in the first place for something that a three year old could do. Or even themselves if they really wanted the art. Would have saved them alot of money.

x

Would you consider someone who paid a million bucks for an original Beethoven manuscript an idiot? Much easier to read versions are easily obtainable at a greatly reduced cost, and you can even listen to someone playing the thing for about $20.

The manuscript has no objective value, but personally I'd love to have one.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 5 2005, 08:01 PM
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 02:58 PM
No. I think they are idiots for paying a million in the first place for something that a three year old could do. Or even themselves if they really wanted the art. Would have saved them alot of money.

x

Would you consider someone who paid a million bucks for an original Beethoven manuscript an idiot? Much easier to read versions are easily obtainable at a greatly reduced cost, and you can even listen to someone playing the thing for about $20.

The manuscript has no objective value, but personally I'd love to have one.

Exactly, as would i. Because that took real talent.

Splashing some paint in some random squiggles doesn't take talent. It takes balls. To be able to stand up and actually say your creation is worth £/$1,000,000, you really need to be pretty full of yourself.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 01:05 PM
John D'Oh
Dec 5 2005, 08:01 PM
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 02:58 PM
No. I think they are idiots for paying a million in the first place for something that a three year old could do. Or even themselves if they really wanted the art. Would have saved them alot of money.

x

Would you consider someone who paid a million bucks for an original Beethoven manuscript an idiot? Much easier to read versions are easily obtainable at a greatly reduced cost, and you can even listen to someone playing the thing for about $20.

The manuscript has no objective value, but personally I'd love to have one.

Exactly, as would i. Because that took real talent.

Splashing some paint in some random squiggles doesn't take talent. It takes balls. To be able to stand up and actually say your creation is worth £/$1,000,000, you really need to be pretty full of yourself.

x

Pollack didn't think his art was worth millions -- other people (critics, gallery owners, museums, collectors) did.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well then back to what i said originally. They're idiots.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
And this goes back to the original argument. How do we spot what takes talent? If the only art requiring talent is considered representational, is Picasso, say worthless? At what point do you say 'that's easy', and what makes us so sure that it is?

Talent is subjective, and often not immediately obvious. J.S. Bach was long considered inferior in talent to his sons before he was 'rediscovered'. Saxophonist Charlie Parker was originally dismissed as talentless by many, and even today some claim that modern jazz is garbage.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Oh art definitely is a great investment, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

Also, I don't talent is subjective.

I believe talent is an abnormal gift, that enables you to do something that most other people couldn't do.

Pollock, for example, was NOT talented.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 03:18 PM
Oh art definitely is a great investment, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

Also, I don't talent is subjective.

I believe talent is an abnormal gift, that enables you to do something that most other people couldn't do.

Pollock, for example, was NOT talented.

How do you explain so many people saying that Charlie Parker was talentless if it isn't subjective?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I agree.

I don't think Talent is subjective.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a few splashes of paint requires and displays talent.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I could (and have) argued that, but I really don't feel like starting from scratch with this one. I'll just say that the argument could be made that Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionism does require talent.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 12:29 PM
I agree.

I don't think Talent is subjective.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a few splashes of paint requires and displays talent.

x

But what about John's example, of music? Can't you see how that could be subjective?

some people think Celine Dion is a talented singer. I think she's horrid. Who's right?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
***musical princess***
Dec 5 2005, 01:29 PM
I agree.

I don't think Talent is subjective.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a few splashes of paint requires and displays talent.

x

The man studied under Thomas Hart Benton for three years, and his early work is excellent figuration. He was no luckly talentless schlep.

Posted Image
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
89th,

The is sthe second post of yours, and drawing it out is getting very tired, rehashing the same arguments.

If there is a point to these posts, let's get there quickly.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Regarding talent, I think the difference is that the interpretation of talent is subjective...Aqua thinks that pollock's stuff requires talent, and I don't.

But whether or not someone has talent, is NOT subjective. That is, sure people can debate it, but when you bring stats and facts in and show that one person can do something that 90% of the world can do (such as throw paint at a canvas), then that's not talent and you have stats to back it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Mikhailoh
Dec 5 2005, 03:37 PM
89th,

The is sthe second post of yours, and drawing it out is getting very tired, rehashing the same arguments.

If there is a point to these posts, let's get there quickly.

You can choose not to read this thread. There are a few active threads right now I'm choosing not to read, because I'm not interested.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 03:50 PM
Regarding talent, I think the difference is that the interpretation of talent is subjective...Aqua thinks that pollock's stuff requires talent, and I don't.

But whether or not someone has talent, is NOT subjective. That is, sure people can debate it, but when you bring stats and facts in and show that one person can do something that 90% of the world can do (such as throw paint at a canvas), then that's not talent and you have stats to back it up.

See the above post from IT. Pollock objectively had talent, yes? This leaves the question, why did he choose to do what he did? I don't know the answer to that question.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Oh sure, Pollock might have talent...but he doesn't display talent, rather it didn't TAKE any special talent, to create some of his most famous paintings...if you can call them paintings. Some of the things he created, could have been done by jo jo the monkey, ruby the elephant, or mikey, the 3 year old. My point is that reputation in art is stupid. Two of the best paintings I've ever seen were done by people you've never heard of. I think Kenny's doorknob took 1,000,000 times more talent than anything Pollock has done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Polluck doesn't have talent. He has a good PR agent.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 03:57 PM
Oh sure, Pollock might have talent...but he doesn't display talent, rather it didn't TAKE any special talent, to create some of his most famous paintings...if you can call them paintings. Some of the things he created, could have been done by jo jo the monkey, ruby the elephant, or mikey, the 3 year old. My point is that reputation in art is stupid. Two of the best paintings I've ever seen were done by people you've never heard of. I think Kenny's doorknob took 1,000,000 times more talent than anything Pollock has done.

'Best', 'Good', 'artistic' - subjective words.

Intercourse - there's a good woody word. Oh sorry, that just slipped out.

I don't believe that I'm adequately qualified to determine who is talented or not. Of course, I am known for my excessive modesty.

I know what I like, though. :wink:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 12:52 PM
Mikhailoh
Dec 5 2005, 03:37 PM
89th,

The is sthe second post of yours, and drawing it out is getting very tired, rehashing the same arguments. 

If there is a point to these posts, let's get there quickly.

You can choose not to read this thread. There are a few active threads right now I'm choosing not to read, because I'm not interested.

This is pretty funny, considering the recent resurgence of the political 'list' thread. Seems we've heard that before as well.Speaking of tired, and rehashed arguments.

I think there's enough room here for all of us to play.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John D'Oh
Dec 5 2005, 04:05 PM
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 03:57 PM
Oh sure, Pollock might have talent...but he doesn't display talent, rather it didn't TAKE any special talent, to create some of his most famous paintings...if you can call them paintings. Some of the things he created, could have been done by jo jo the monkey, ruby the elephant, or mikey, the 3 year old. My point is that reputation in art is stupid. Two of the best paintings I've ever seen were done by people you've never heard of. I think Kenny's doorknob took 1,000,000 times more talent than anything Pollock has done.

'Best', 'Good', 'artistic' - subjective words.

Intercourse - there's a good woody word. Oh sorry, that just slipped out.

I don't believe that I'm adequately qualified to determine who is talented or not. Of course, I am known for my excessive modesty.

I know what I like, though. :wink:

I never said that "best" "good" etc...weren't subjective.

I said that having talent isn't subjective. When anyone can repeat what Pollock paints...that's not talent.

Again, I think every piece of art (music, paintings, etc.) should be judged subjectively. I think they should be ONLY judged by the opinion of the beholder. At least that goes with expressionism paintings. There are some realist or architectural paintings that need to be judged based on geometry, shadows, etc...but when it comes to Pollock-esque paintings, no outside standards should ever be applied.

That's what's so beautiful about art. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

sue
Dec 5 2005, 04:05 PM
The 89th Key
Dec 5 2005, 12:52 PM
Mikhailoh
Dec 5 2005, 03:37 PM
89th,

The is sthe second post of yours, and drawing it out is getting very tired, rehashing the same arguments. 

If there is a point to these posts, let's get there quickly.

You can choose not to read this thread. There are a few active threads right now I'm choosing not to read, because I'm not interested.

This is pretty funny, considering the recent resurgence of the political 'list' thread. Seems we've heard that before as well.Speaking of tired, and rehashed arguments.

I think there's enough room here for all of us to play.

Good post suzie Q! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Well, 89th, you seemed to imply that you had some point to the initial post. Evidently not.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tcmod
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
COME ON MAN Finish this!! Let's see the grand unveiling!!
Dead girls don't say no, but you still have to buy them flowers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Mikhailoh
Dec 5 2005, 04:20 PM
Well, 89th, you seemed to imply that you had some point to the initial post. Evidently not.

Ah, I see you are still reading this annoying thread. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2