N
Nufocus
This wonderful masterpiece 194X240 cm, house paint, graphite and ball point ink, sold at Christie’s last week for $38,685,000. I was NOT the buyer! I can reveal it now.
Opinions please.
Opinions please.
Claude J Greengrass
Well-known member
- Messages
- 268
I'm in the Philistine camp if that is 'art'. Full disclosure: I have never seen a Cy Twombley painting/sketch/drawing that I liked.
Iain
2 eyes.
- Messages
- 2,847
I happened to see the auction. I expected the Klee and the Van Gogh (although early) would have gone for more, considering their prestige in modern art history. but I know zilch about the art market. From what I have picked up, Twombly's star has been on the ascendancy while the Abstract Expressionists were de rigueur. It is his turn. Who would have had the audacity to scrawl Classical allusions in the style of your "four year old"? A madman? Certainly someone who didn't need validation to earn his bread-and-butter, that's for sure. His art is questionable, but that could be the point.
I do love John Waters' take.
I do love John Waters' take.
laf.art
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,464
Thanks for this. I really enjoyed his upbeat fun style. He actually made me think more about the art which is always a good thing
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,440
I don't have that kind of money to spend on any art, but it doesn't stop me from liking it. It's not one of my favorites from him, but I'm not in the camp of the people that like to keep calling him invalid. I enjoy his work no matter how easy it seemed to have been executed. Obviously the person who purchased it felt that way too to some extent, even if it was a financial investment. I've seen his work, some of the largest ones, in real life and I was taken with it. This argument has been gone over many times--where I was questioned multiple times about why I like it, or what about it I liked, which seems unusual to ask. Who gives the third degree to someone who enjoys van Gogh? I don't care if others hate Twombly. Why do haters care that I love him? I'm also not here to come to his defense, but I see nothing wrong with this painting selling for a huge amount along with other high-market artists.
OliveOyl
Well-known member
- Messages
- 265
I love John Waters...one of my very favorite public people. And that's an entertaining clip, so thanks for posting it, Iain.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Cy Twombly but then again, I’m not a big fan of many artists. But I always feel the need to defend contemporary artists that everybody else seems to hate, so here I am. It’s the contrarian in me, I suppose. I think maybe it’s hard to immediately embrace “the scribbles” because we think it’s too easy, sloppy, and dumb. It’s that old, “My 5 Year Old Can Do That” trope. And it seems that most people prefer art to be something recognizable or if not, at least...”pretty.” I can’t claim to know what his art means (because I never cared that much to explore), but I can’t seem to shake the idea that there’s something I’m a little intrigued with. I mean, when I look at his work, I get pleasure in certain bits and pieces as my eye moves around. But then, you hit a snag and that irritates. Like a rose with a thorn. There was a series he did (paintings, not drawings), that I think was Mediterranean-related. I don’t remember what they’re called, but I saw the high-quality reproductions in some nice art book, and surprisingly, I fell into looking at them for a long time. What caught me was that the surface - with the embedded markings in white paint - was so beautifully creamy and sensual. And they felt...ancient (the best word I can think of to describe them). So in that way, he left his “mark” on me.
Maybe an experience of his work is closer to how we feel when we read difficult writing, or try to understand a new language, or are confronted by somebody else’s...id. The pleasure isn’t necessarily immediate. Maybe we’re suppose to “read” his work in some non-traditional way and if so, that seems similar to what we do whenever we look at any other “classic” abstraction.
I don’t know.
But I do know I like to be challenged by art. It’s fun.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Cy Twombly but then again, I’m not a big fan of many artists. But I always feel the need to defend contemporary artists that everybody else seems to hate, so here I am. It’s the contrarian in me, I suppose. I think maybe it’s hard to immediately embrace “the scribbles” because we think it’s too easy, sloppy, and dumb. It’s that old, “My 5 Year Old Can Do That” trope. And it seems that most people prefer art to be something recognizable or if not, at least...”pretty.” I can’t claim to know what his art means (because I never cared that much to explore), but I can’t seem to shake the idea that there’s something I’m a little intrigued with. I mean, when I look at his work, I get pleasure in certain bits and pieces as my eye moves around. But then, you hit a snag and that irritates. Like a rose with a thorn. There was a series he did (paintings, not drawings), that I think was Mediterranean-related. I don’t remember what they’re called, but I saw the high-quality reproductions in some nice art book, and surprisingly, I fell into looking at them for a long time. What caught me was that the surface - with the embedded markings in white paint - was so beautifully creamy and sensual. And they felt...ancient (the best word I can think of to describe them). So in that way, he left his “mark” on me.
Maybe an experience of his work is closer to how we feel when we read difficult writing, or try to understand a new language, or are confronted by somebody else’s...id. The pleasure isn’t necessarily immediate. Maybe we’re suppose to “read” his work in some non-traditional way and if so, that seems similar to what we do whenever we look at any other “classic” abstraction.
I don’t know.
But I do know I like to be challenged by art. It’s fun.
Desforges
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,295
I do like it a lot for many reasons. Love these elements. But, that is what I dislike about the art market. It is a world where I feel lost and don’t understand how it works. What makes an artist become a rock star and some other, just as interesting, remains in the dark. Is it the rich and famous buyer that makes the painter?
OliveOyl
Well-known member
- Messages
- 265
IMO...I don’t think you’re alone in feeling puzzled by how The Market works. Maybe we don’t need to concern ourselves too much about it because it has nothing to do with us “regular artists.” And it never will. Nor should it. It’s just some kind of rich person bubble of trading and commodities and collection and prestige and influence or whatever, which remains strange and inaccessible to 95% of the rest of the world. And I also think it’s probably “the middlemen” (like gallery dealers) who are the ones that deliver the artist to the buyer. Therefore, I personally don’t begrudge The Artist any “fame and fortune” that comes their way.
But back to Twombly...we can read that he received a “good” art education so can assume he was serious about this as a career. He travelled all over the world and lived abroad, so can assume those experiences deepened his work. He also worked in NYC and was close friends with Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns and so can assume he was certainly in the right place at the right time with the right people. In other (dumber) words, his success didn’t come willy nilly and out of the blue.
In fact, he was a cryptologist in the Army and if you read about THAT, then maybe his work makes more sense. Or does it?? Hmmmm. He cites it as a big influence and so I wonder if he enjoyed it, or hated it, or what about it captured his attention. Apparently, it was difficult and repetitive work, intersects the disciplines of mathematical theory and computer science, with systems of algorithms and all these other things that I don’t understand and made me stop reading. And apparently, there’s an “art” to encryption...which is taking a readable state and turning it into apparent nonsense. I assume he must have had some thoughts and ideas about inaccessibility, decoding, secrets, communications, etc. and apparently....it IS ancient.
So then...how would we (should we, could we) if that was part of our own experience, make art about something like THAT? And why not?
But back to Twombly...we can read that he received a “good” art education so can assume he was serious about this as a career. He travelled all over the world and lived abroad, so can assume those experiences deepened his work. He also worked in NYC and was close friends with Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns and so can assume he was certainly in the right place at the right time with the right people. In other (dumber) words, his success didn’t come willy nilly and out of the blue.
In fact, he was a cryptologist in the Army and if you read about THAT, then maybe his work makes more sense. Or does it?? Hmmmm. He cites it as a big influence and so I wonder if he enjoyed it, or hated it, or what about it captured his attention. Apparently, it was difficult and repetitive work, intersects the disciplines of mathematical theory and computer science, with systems of algorithms and all these other things that I don’t understand and made me stop reading. And apparently, there’s an “art” to encryption...which is taking a readable state and turning it into apparent nonsense. I assume he must have had some thoughts and ideas about inaccessibility, decoding, secrets, communications, etc. and apparently....it IS ancient.
So then...how would we (should we, could we) if that was part of our own experience, make art about something like THAT? And why not?
Desforges
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,295
Sure! Why not? But why?
I don’t concern myself with that but the arguments made do not explain that. Luck! Maybe in many cases.
We all travelled, we all suffered or did some extraordinary stuff and maybe not. We all feel illuminated at some point and may radiate neon colours from our ars.
Still!
I am happy for anyone who gets success. We need encouragement from time to time. But I don’t think that the art market reflects anything else but snobbishness.
I don’t concern myself with that but the arguments made do not explain that. Luck! Maybe in many cases.
We all travelled, we all suffered or did some extraordinary stuff and maybe not. We all feel illuminated at some point and may radiate neon colours from our ars.
Still!
I am happy for anyone who gets success. We need encouragement from time to time. But I don’t think that the art market reflects anything else but snobbishness.
Maybenartist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 547
I doubt the guy spending the money to purchase the work cares in the slightest what it looks like. In fact, the owner may never ever see the work. It might even be a source of laundering, who knows there's so many crooks out there!
His fund managers probably advised him to buy it for investment and tax reasons with no other motive whatsoever.
I'm thinking of doing a copy of it to stick on my wall as strangely enough, I quite like it.
His fund managers probably advised him to buy it for investment and tax reasons with no other motive whatsoever.
I'm thinking of doing a copy of it to stick on my wall as strangely enough, I quite like it.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,440
I want to know why some artists get so upset when other artists make a lot of money on their art. It's always, "they got lucky." Or, "they don't deserve it." There are musicians out there that make far more money than this for one hit song, and it continues to pay for years on end. The record companies and the producers make more at times than the songwriters and much of that world can be just as corrupt. There is corruption in just about every business imaginable. But when artists see other artists get successful like this, they make a lot of excuses about how this or that artist didn't merit their success, or the buyers don't even like the work they paid for. It's sad to me. There is little support in the fine art world from other artists. I see a a lot this, a lot of competition (for no reason), bitterness, and jealousy.
Just my observation.
Just my observation.
