Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
well worth the money, i'm sure we'd all agree.
what a fucking painter that guy was
but Mark Rothko was a goodgoodguyyyy who did some amazing stuff.
IM A HIPSTIE!!!!1 iPodS!
it's really really shit
let's just post pictures of our favourite paintings
Difficult to comment on the supposed value of it but, like most Rothko stuff, I really like it.
i really don't believe that you (or anyone) can say that is a good piece of art, I don't care how much it costs or who painted it. Its really bland and doesnt stir anything in me whatsoever.
trying to work out what the artist was thinking and feeling are complete noobs too.
I love abstract art, but wtf. In fact it has stirred something in me. Im furious.
You don't believe I can look at that and go:
`D'you know what? I think that looks quite nice. I like the colours and the way they merge into one another and I think it creates a nice serene and interesting image. There's not a lot going on, sure, but I just like looking at it. It'd be nice in my living room`.
I don't give a fuck who painted it, and how much it's worth, I just like looking at it. And I'm not saying whether or not it's a GOOD piece of art... I just like looking at it. Nothing more, nothing less.
i would never try to sway anyone from what interests them. I get that people like different things.
But this, i just don't get. I find it offensive to art. IMO
...and art said it wasn't really that offended by it. So I guess you shouldn't be too.
Good old art.
im a sensitive soul.
ahahahahahaha, what a prat
just because this thread isn't about you....or cardigans. DULL
it's a ridiculous statement regardless
what's wrong with saying that?
Look at it ffs, this is what's wrong with people these days. Everyone thinking that this is edgy and oh, i better like this because its cool
Why dont you all go off to a corner and sniff your own farts
that my appreciation for Rothko's paintings have nothing to with their (to me, and many others) obvious beauty but because apparently I want indie brownie points.
This is first class bollocks. Matey that shelled out $87million must be an indie bellsniff of the highest order
Bellsniffs with money are the worst kind.
i'm just pointing out that saying something is offensive to art is ridiculous. it's beyond abstract. absolute nonsense
calling someone a prat, for having a differing opinion from yours is a little over the top too.
So dry your tears.
that's me convinced that an abstract concept is capable of being offended
and being frankly insulting.
you're the one most guilty of your own charge here http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4358560#r6882934
It was painted over half a century ago.
what's your point?
7 out of the 10 most expensive paintings were bought privately. I have an issue with this, but that's for another time
as Rothko's tend to be. However, $87million is er, excessive shall we say
I loved all his photography based stuff, but his big canvas pieces like the one in the OP I found really unimaginative and very dull
Seriously, where can I buy this? I will pay $87,000,000.50 for it.
any further revelations? other than calling me a cunt, that is. standard
don't lash out man
i was just quoting, for those of you without a knowledge of Roman wit/many wasted hours spent playing Civilization IV
i am totally bored of the conversation but what you said is right and if anyone thinks otherwise then they are wrong
my overwhelming emotion regarding it is that i couldn't give a monkeys
"no" where the alternative is based on an actual argument involving the history and evolution of money and cash. it's like, what the hell? please explain to me what makes you so sure that it isn't true. i genuinely am open minded but i've just never seen a case to the contrary
like what is the alternative? the abstract concept of money actually has some fixed relationship to goods and commodities? it just isn't true. the entire history and evolution of money is based on a starting point where two people were happy to trade a cow for 16 hours labour because they both felt that was a fair deal. nothing has changed really it's just money allows you to store value rather than having to trade goods and services at the same time.
is probably slightly more accurate although really it's somewhere between the two
I also like Edward Hopper.
(Something about loneliness and isolation I'm not eloquent enough to explain)
Nothing is worth 87 million, however.
the start of another conversation about worth and value
for like £3000 about two months before patrick caufield died. it looks absolutely amazing in the flesh though. still, bit crazy
and i know that seeing a small jpeg on a computer screen is completely different to seeing it in the flesh.
also, as an investment, it's probably a good one.
so yeah, totally get it.
that have been there for the last million years
I thought you were saying since you could see some for free there was no point in buying one
people are always like "look at it, it's shit" but have never seen one in the flesh. they change so much. like i say, i'm not a fan, but give them a chance as they were supposed to be seen. not on a screen being affected by everyone's weird brightness settings etc
and not exactly handy to pop into
Yeah, but you didn't, did you?
can someone please tell me if i should like this picture, and give a couple of reasons why which I can regurgitate if necessary. feel free to tell me why I shouldn't either, I just need to know what I should think about it.
It's terribly hard to keep up with what's cool and not, and what makes me hip or not.
Thanks in advance.
thought you were ultra cool! what's up bruv, mum shrink one of your cardi's?
you seem like a really lovely guy and all but seriously, go and reply to my actual posts that are on topic up there ^^^ rather than getting involed while i'm talking to my good friend moff.
Still think the price some people pay for pieces is really extreme
how would you price it? and would you just sell it based on a first come/first served type system?
if i had my way, nothing would have a price.
how can you be sure that it's going to the right person? instead of some bellsniff, that wants it to be part of the ever changing collection that matches their Chaise lounge.
and then give it away for free?
When i am entitled to my own opinion, which is all this is, my personal opinion. The only person i see getting riled up in this thread, is you. Even better than that, the first post is you claiming you don't like the artist either.
I don't get what you're beef is. I think it's shit, i think people pay extortionate prices for art, some of which.. is really really shit.
A large portion of people that are into art and galleries, are indie bellends. This doesnt go for all people. I know a lot of people that actually enjoy art, enjoy looking at it and finding out about the artist and what they were thinking and feeling at the time of creating the piece. That's what interests me. I paint myself.
I just find this very very bland. That's my opinion.
i'm interested to know what you think is a reasonable alternative for people who actually want to own some art. i'm not interested in right and wrong, i would just prefer when you completely rubbish something to present an alternative. that's why i asked the question. if i can't ask you a question without you feeling attacked though then dunno
wasn't expecting it. If im making it look like im being the victim, im not meaning to, but you know, i was slating art, you slated me.
For such a happy go lucky fella, you sure are cuntish.
having to pussyfoot around people to have a conversation is also really boring. i'm still interested in the answer to the question i asked you by the way. people always think i'm cuntish. they're mostly boring. (mostly!!! before you set off)
whatever they want.
It's not really up to me to give people alternatives.
you don't even have opinions
time defending yourself over the stuff like the word 'prat'. i don't think i've heard anyone be offended by that since i was 6 years old
you haven't had too many birthdays since.
A while back Tate Britain did an exhibition of Rothko and Turner paintings, mainly comparing their use of light. It's one of the best exhibitions I've ever been to. The Rothko paintings are huge in real life, and are actually kinda intimidating.
except instead of a clean line between the two colours, there's a ragged blend - the tension between the vast and immanent monochrome and the potential for infinite intricacy in the rough join is what gives the piece its life
don't really like Rothko tho
all your own thoughts, bro?
the art market exists and things have some prices but whateverrrrr
but orange is a good colour... i like box shapes. B+
it's just that he did it first.
since a similar aesthetic was co-opted by buyers for the lobbies of corporate headquarters. They're paintings you just totally fall into. A lot of it is about your vision involuntarily supressing the details and creating movement within the canvas. It's great.
On a similar abstract-expressionist theme, Barnett Newman's Stations Of The Cross is probably the most awe-inspiring piece of work I've seen in the flesh. It's astonishing: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gT85jQXeXpk/TKto0XRyqcI/AAAAAAAAARs/5QGUBlSxqWo/s1600/W13-Barnett_Newman,_The_Stations_of_the_Cross-Lema_Sabachthani.jpg
was going to make up a poem
its ruined now
but without gettnig offended
people that cant accept a difference of opinion are the worst.
all i did was ask some questions about your attitude to art as a commodity and now all this. oh yeah, i did call you a prat as well. that was dead rude. i accept we're differing in opinion. i just asked a question
Aesthetically, ideologically and even morally. It's art in the same way that ritual sacrifice of animals or even people is.
BAMS HERE EVERYONE
art is not a democracy, it's not 'whatever you want it to be' art is a dictatorship, things like this have put the progress of art back at least 100 years.
just... spellbindingly idiotic.
I recommend him for you - think he articulates some of the sentiments you're expressing from a lifelong art critic's perspective
Art doesn't have a singular, normative purpose. At its most basic, art is the selective expression and interpretation of reality, a way of realising or crystallising (in some physical or musical form) abstractions.
Is that what you want art to be? Or what you think is the implicit aim of all artists?
feeling very cynical about it. But I came out understanding a little bit why he's so loved. There's something about the sheer size and the way he merges the colours that make the whole room's ambience change. It's quite incredible, the paintings are so dominant. Can't imagine them being in restaurants like some of them were commissioned for. They completely change how you think and feel.
There is a SECRET message hidden at the end of this post. FUCK YE! lmao
dvve | 13 Apr '16, 21:13 | ^ This | Reply
Icarus-Smicarus | 13 Apr '16, 22:15 | ^ This | Reply
ha! Sorry if you were hurt by my rude message. It was posted in jest. ☮
dvve | 13 Apr '16, 22:49 | ^ This | Reply
Icarus-Smicarus | 14 Apr '16, 00:20 | ^ This | Reply
What is this magic!?
ma0sm | 14 Apr '16, 01:59 | ^ This | Reply
Hello ma0sm! As a fellow TSTer i'll tell you. It's quite simple really, i have just been using this little keyboard trick and this is what the trick is .... NBSP! TTYS.
dvve | 14 Apr '16, 03:00 | ^ This | Reply
ma0sm | 14 Apr '16, 06:41 | ^ This | Reply