41–50 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t mean that it is written in contrived manner. I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title.
> I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title. If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.
That's the free market pressure. The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. And it is by many believed to be a good thing, because it's very meritocratic. But it has downsides, too. People are human, not machines, and sometimes need to rest too. That's why we shouldn't leave everything up to the free market (not even the one that works in liberal theory and is perfectly meritocrat…
> The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. That's blatantly not true in art, if it's true at all. If the art market agrees that some random sketch was by Da Vinci, it's not valued on merit.
So if you're an artist and people value your name, regardless of the product it's written on, you don't have the OP's problem. The problem described only applies if the consumer can get some other art that gives them equivalent satisfaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's simply not true. Almost all the value will be because it's attributed to da Vinci. You simply won't get the same valuation if it's attributed to a lesser known contemporary. And you don't need to go historical. I just picked da Vinci as an example. If you or I made a balloon dog sculpture, it won't be valued the same as a Jeff Koons one [0]. Even if it's essentially identical. There's a whole subset of the art…
Well, the balloon dog example simply boils down to the fact that your work will only be seen as a rip-off. > There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object. Subset? I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. Duchamp's urinal neatly exemplifies this.
Or to put it another way, most art sold isn't in urinal form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t mean that it is written in contrived manner. I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title.
> I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title. If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.
Do you not see the irony here? Commenters, too, should be allowed to have bad takes
Scientists, too. Anyone, really; fail faster, people! Celebrate the process of trial and error.
Engineers and doctors and nurses... Eh... Maybe not so fast...
"Must be allowed to” sounds like a weasel word. It is not illegal to make bad work. I doubt any contract an artist signs usually has a clause against producing bad work either. That phrase may sound sophisticated and provocative but it means nothing, at least to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's simply not true. Almost all the value will be because it's attributed to da Vinci. You simply won't get the same valuation if it's attributed to a lesser known contemporary. And you don't need to go historical. I just picked da Vinci as an example. If you or I made a balloon dog sculpture, it won't be valued the same as a Jeff Koons one [0]. Even if it's essentially identical. There's a whole subset of the art…
Well, the balloon dog example simply boils down to the fact that your work will only be seen as a rip-off. > There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object. Subset? I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. Duchamp's urinal neatly exemplifies this.
I've never "understood art", but when you phrased it like that it makes perfect sense. To me, provenance just isn't interesting. So I judge the pieces as they stand in front of me.