Explain this to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter heel79
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 71
  • Views: 1K
  • Off-Topic 
Why does a family consisting of a husband, wife, and two kids need a 10,000 square foot house?
 
heel79 said:
Others were bidding as well. Think what good that money could do.
Click to expand...
Think about the hundreds of millions spent on America's Cup sailboat racing each year.

No one (or almost no one) would argue that Oracle’s Larry Ellison is stupid or myopic; yet, Ellison has spent hundreds of millions on increasingly esoteric forms of racing sailboats and super yachts.

Hell, if I had Larry Ellison’s money, some Internet moron would wonder why an Internet gahbillionaire was spending billions on athletics at a Southern university (“How did they get Nick Saban to come out of retirement?” “Why does UNC field hockey/lacrosse/soccer/women’s basketball have so many luxury boxes at its ridiculously regal stadiums?” “That’s a really nice HEATED outdoor swimming facility UNC has.” “Why does UNC have ANOTHER new basketball arena?”

“UNC has a wonderful privately funded Board of Governors and Board of Trustees.”

“Someone paid tens of millions $$$$$ to tear down and replace numerous buildings at UNC/in Chapel Hill/Carrboro (Hamilton Hall/Davie Hall/Greenlaw/Undergrad Library/Student Union/Chapel Hill Police Department/Chapel Hill Municipal Building.”
 
Zoo_View said:
Think about the hundreds of millions spent on America's Cup sailboat racing each year.

No one (or almost no one) would argue that Oracle’s Larry Ellison is stupid or myopic; yet, Ellison has spent hundreds of millions on increasingly esoteric forms of racing sailboats and super yachts.

Hell, if I had Larry Ellison’s money, some Internet moron would wonder why an Internet gahbillionaire was spending billions on athletics at a Southern university (“How did they get Nick Saban to come out of retirement?” “Why does UNC field hockey/lacrosse/soccer/women’s basketball have so many luxury boxes at its ridiculously regal stadiums?” “That’s a really nice HEATED outdoor swimming facility UNC has.” “Why does UNC have ANOTHER new basketball arena?”

“UNC has a wonderful privately funded Board of Governors and Board of Trustees.”

“Someone paid tens of millions $$$$$ to tear down and replace numerous buildings at UNC/in Chapel Hill/Carrboro (Hamilton Hall/Davie Hall/Greenlaw/Undergrad Library/Student Union/Chapel Hill Police Department/Chapel Hill Municipal Building.”
Click to expand...
I get that. But those are indulgent behaviors that a person can drive pleasure from. Not seeing it with a rotten banana and duct tape.
 
The long and the short of it is that a few people have a lot of money and they pay for things like this because they can. With that in mind, the larger issue at play, and why this particular moment is significant, is because it plays into a larger - and ongoing - conversation about what is art.

Think of it this way - the key goal of the arts is the conversations that arise from it, not the piece of art itself. Most of those conversations center around the themes or ideas presented in the piece. But, one of the central goals of all art over the last century is the dialogue of what is and is not art. Generally, said conversations remain in the world of the arts and that of academia. Occasionally, however, a piece of art shocks the senses enough to enter the realm of pop culture.

As has already been pointed out, this is really the most significant moment in the conversation since Warhol's Campbell's Soup cans were (except, maybe, for Banksy's piece shredded at the time of auction). No one doubts the significance of that cultural moment any more and, I suspect, a few decades from now, the banana will a) be completely forgotten, or b) valued in the way the soup cans are. If you have an ungodly amount of money, why not make that wager?

At the least, it's a topic of conversation.

But - to a larger the degree - true art collectors are art collectors because they value the piece they are buying, but also because they are supporters of the arts. The wealthy have long been patrons of the arts. It's how artists are able to scrap together enough money to keep doing art. Spending this much money, on a piece like this, increases the value of other works of art - because it brings the conversation not only about "what is art?", but also "what is the value of art?" to the public sphere.

So my answer is this - the value of buying this piece of art for that ungodly sum is that we are talking about it on this board. Because maybe, just maybe, it will lead a few of you to invest more money in arts and artists. Essentially, you are buying the concept, and the dialogue that arises from the concept, and not the piece itself.

And, ultimately, that's a good thing.
 
heel79 said:
Ok. Some good attempts to explain why the guy paid $6.2 million for a rotten banana and 39 cents worth of flduct tape. My favorite was for the publicity on the crypto currency but I would be hesitant to invest with what I consider an idiot. So my other question. Why is this art?
Click to expand...
In order for me to answer that question fully for you (or more fully than I just did), I'd need to start with how you define what is, and is not, art at this time. A good way to do so is to build parameters around related fields. What is the difference between art and propaganda? Art and entertainment? Art and craft (not as in the crafts that you do as a small child in summer camp, but instead professional craftsmen. What is the difference between a craftsmen, an artisan, and an artist? Where do we draw those lines?
 
sringwal said:
The long and the short of it is that a few people have a lot of money and they pay for things like this because they can. With that in mind, the larger issue at play, and why this particular moment is significant, is because it plays into a larger - and ongoing - conversation about what is art.

Think of it this way - the key goal of the arts is the conversations that arise from it, not the piece of art itself. Most of those conversations center around the themes or ideas presented in the piece. But, one of the central goals of all art over the last century is the dialogue of what is and is not art. Generally, said conversations remain in the world of the arts and that of academia. Occasionally, however, a piece of art shocks the senses enough to enter the realm of pop culture.

As has already been pointed out, this is really the most significant moment in the conversation since Warhol's Campbell's Soup cans were (except, maybe, for Banksy's piece shredded at the time of auction). No one doubts the significance of that cultural moment any more and, I suspect, a few decades from now, the banana will a) be completely forgotten, or b) valued in the way the soup cans are. If you have an ungodly amount of money, why not make that wager?

At the least, it's a topic of conversation.

But - to a larger the degree - true art collectors are art collectors because they value the piece they are buying, but also because they are supporters of the arts. The wealthy have long been patrons of the arts. It's how artists are able to scrap together enough money to keep doing art. Spending this much money, on a piece like this, increases the value of other works of art - because it brings the conversation not only about "what is art?", but also "what is the value of art?" to the public sphere.

So my answer is this - the value of buying this piece of art for that ungodly sum is that we are talking about it on this board. Because maybe, just maybe, it will lead a few of you to invest more money in arts and artists. Essentially, you are buying the concept, and the dialogue that arises from the concept, and not the piece itself.

And, ultimately, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that thoughtful response. I guess I am stuck on the notion that good art should be difficult to create. That not anyone can create it. I could create this art although I doubt I would conceive that it would have a value. Truthfully, I think calling this art diminishes the work of what I would consider "real" artists, which I know would be in the beholder's eye.
 
heel79 said:
Thanks for that thoughtful response. I guess I am stuck on the notion that good art should be difficult to create. That not anyone can create it. I could create this art although I doubt I would conceive that it would have a value. Truthfully, I think calling this art diminishes the work of what I would consider "real" artists, which I know would be in the beholder's eye.
Click to expand...
Well, to answer that, the artist was already a significant player in the field (see below link) and the piece was labelled "Comedian" which gives you the sense that he is in on the joke (as was Warhol, as is Banksy).

www.mariangoodman.com

Maurizio Cattelan - Marian Goodman Gallery

Maurizio Cattelan has been internationally recognized for his humorous and ironic works which provoke and challenge the limits of contemporary value systems.
www.mariangoodman.com www.mariangoodman.com

Could anybody just stick a banana on the wall and have it be viewed as an act of art and not one of vandalism? Probably not. Could anyone draw a Soup Can and make prints of it and have that be considered art? Also probably not.

Which brings up a new question - does the quality of the piece of art matter more, or the name of the artist? And how much does fame play into the name (either before or after death). Many great artists have to wait until they are long gone to be valued. Others use the cult of personality (in its myriad forms) to build value while they were alive. I'm not sure that anyone got this as much as Dali, who was a brilliant artist, but also was a shamelessly successful self-promoter with some pretty awful tendencies. But, in comparison to most artists, he lived like a king. Was that because of his art or because of his ability to sell it, and himself? I don't know .

But, back to this piece, I think this only diminishes art in the eyes of people who aren't interested in understanding art in the first the place, but instead are interested in pretty pictures. Keep in mind, the same people who are complaining about this particular piece of art are also often the ones sharing AI "art" images online. And taping a banana to the wall of an art gallery, while it may take minimal effort, does take more effort than typing some words into an AI creator.

And that opens up another can of worms. While there is no doubt that the people creating the AI images themselves are not artists, can artists use AI created pieces of art within other mediums to create art? Are the creators of the code used to make AI art themselves a form of artist? I think both answers are critical at this moment in time, as they will shape the conversation about art in the decades to come.
 
Last edited:
sringwal said:
Well, to answer that, the artist was already a significant player in the field (see below link) and the piece was labelled "Comedian" which gives you the sense that he is in on the joke (as was Warhol, as is Banksy).

www.mariangoodman.com

Maurizio Cattelan - Marian Goodman Gallery

Maurizio Cattelan has been internationally recognized for his humorous and ironic works which provoke and challenge the limits of contemporary value systems.
www.mariangoodman.com www.mariangoodman.com

Could anybody just stick a banana on the wall and have it be viewed as an act of art and not one of vandalism? Probably not. Could anyone draw a Soup Can and make prints of it and have that be considered art? Also probably not.

Which brings up a new question - does the quality of the piece of art matter more, or the name of the artist? And how much does fame play into the name (either before or after death). Many great artists have to wait until they are long gone to be valued. Others use the cult of personality (in its myriad forms) to build value while they were alive. I'm not sure that anyone got this as much as Dali, who was a brilliant artist, but also was a shamelessly successful self-promoter with some pretty awful tendencies. But, in comparison to most artists, he lived like a king. Was that because of his art or because of his ability to sell it, and himself? I don't know.

But, back to this piece, I think this only diminishes art in the eyes of people who aren't interested in understanding art in the first the place, but instead are interested in pretty pictures. Keep in mind, the same people who are complaining about this particular piece of art are also often the ones sharing AI art images online.

And that opens up another can of worms.
Click to expand...
I am genuinely trying to understand it. You have helped a lot. Thanks.
 
The other part of the conversation, of course, is the Banana for Scale bit.



The joke arises from that.
 
sringwal said:
And you can fuck right off to whatever hole you came from.
Click to expand...
To You and LeoBloom, I believe your panties are wound just a little too tightly. It was a JOKE! And no amount of discourse that you want to throw out about this piece being worth the amount of money paid is going to make it right. It takes 3 seconds to recreate, is only showable for about a week until the banana is too rotten, and the materials cost about 80 cents tops. I am sorry about the degree part being in the picture, but I did´t create the image. I do understand that the masters studied art forever. What I was showing is the total difference in the art that exists and what is being created now and called art. 3 blanks canvases hanging on a wall is not art either, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top