£50m on a painting

[ogden]

Originally Posted by hob

The problem with conceptual art is that most is not self explanatory, the focus is on the explanation as to the "why" rather than the merits of the art.

While I can agree that often explanatory notes are required, once that information is acquired the piece is usually allowed to stand on its own merits.

For example, I thought this...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Q4NlrQmF96Y/Rj...g/DSC00651.JPG

...looked like absolute ******** until I read the explanatory note. And then I was able to look at it and appreciate the artist's vision and execution. It's great!

damn it, i agree with ogden.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by sarah

damn it, i agree with ogden.

It happens to everyone occasionally.

Originally Posted by ogden

For example, I thought this...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Q4NlrQmF96Y/Rj...g/DSC00651.JPG

...looked like absolute ******** until I read the explanatory note. And then I was able to look at it and appreciate the artist's vision and execution. It's great!

Linky no worky worky

[ogden]

It worky when I clicky.

Managed to find the picture, what was the explanation for it?

[ogden]

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewW...8&tabview=work

It makes more sense when you see it in the flesh.

Which I suppose is often the way. I never really saw the appeal of Monet's lilies until I paid a visit to the Musée d'Orsay and saw some in the flesh. Likewise, nothing quite prepares you for seeing Van Eyck's The Madonna with Canon van der Paele in the flesh. Unless you have a reproduction six feet high, anyway.

[flymo]

Nah, I guess this is a matter of taste and personal preference.

I visited the Tate Modern last year when I was in London and I tried real hard to read the notes and understand the point of some of the work.

At the end of the day though I just thought, this is tosh. It obviously means something to somebody or the place wouldnt be there.

£50m though is alot of cash and I dont personally think that a single painting should ever be worth that much.