Wow...........


I don't get art.

Oh well.:D


I'm drunk and I still don't get art. oh wello.

I think people that pay that much for something so ridicules has never worked hard enough to truly understand the value of money they are spending. Easy come easy go. The only good part about then throwing away there money like that is someone else will get that money and just maybe do something more productive with it. After all I wouldn’t want someone who wastes money so frivolously owning a large cooperation, could you picture how fast they would destroy it and cause all sorts of problems for who ever would be working for them.

I didn't read your whole post cause it was just too long,
But anyway, I am an artist and I've listend to people go on about why Pollock's work has value and it truly makes no sense.
But I wouldn't say that it's a deliberate "scam."
It's more just a status symbol to make the own feel more welthy, powerfull and pretentious.
Not all art in that style is completely worthless but IMO, Pollock's is.
Now, Picasso's work, that's a different story but I don't feel like typing that much.

That's a Jackson Pollock.

Kinda normal it sells for high... but 140M$ might be a bit high, even for his art.

Insane.  I'm much more into photographic art (Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Besson), and in paintings generally I prefer still-life paintings to anything abstract, so I really can't see anything of value in Pollock's work in general.  To me it looks like someone spilled paint on a canvas - which is apparently exactly what he did.  Even I could do that

It's hard to believe Pollack works go for such insane prices.

I have a simple rule about art:  "If I can do it, it's not art."

Art is subjective.  That's why it's art.

At least it's better than dance or poetry.  I don't consider those as art at all.

The idea isn't because Jackson Pollock made something everybody can do that his art sell high.
But because he did something nobody did before.
When you buy one of his art, you buy his name. And his name is expensive.

Exactaly,when it's regarded more for the artist than the art itself, for me, that looses it's qualification as "art."
Art is subjective but it should be able to stand by itself without knowing who created it.

You know, there's really only 1 piece of "modern" art that I really want; several years ago, some charity wanted to auction off "celebrity" paintings, so David Duchovny (with help from his wife, Tea Leoni) made an "a$$ painting".  I found an interview with his wife where she talks about it here.  Another piece I read some time ago indicated it basically consisted of Tea putting paint on David's butt cheeks and her either smacking him with a canvas or him falling on the canvas in interesting ways.

Don't know why, just the concept of "a$$ painting" generally has a somewhat naughty appeal, I guess