Explain this to me

[superrific]

Right in any form that you care to project. Imagine alll the good that could be done with that 6 million dollars. Imagine instead of "investing" 6 million dollars into a banana, put it into a local community Art School, or fund several high school art departments for a few years. The purchaser could and would receive 100s if not 1000s of pieces of art that would be more representational of art and do more good. And still get the publicity that would last much longer. It is just wasteful and elitist.
As to the blank canvases, I don´t know what they are as I can´t make out the color that well, but I have seen empty canvases on walls being called art. Or one with just a dot of paint. I don´t care what it is, but IMO, art should take a little effort and feeling. Empty canvas, a dot, or a banana taped to a wall is not art. An especially not worth $6,000,000.

You've expressed here for what conservative economists call the "Juncker fallacy." I won't get into the derivation of the phrase, but the idea is this: inflated asset prices are not actually costly unless they divert real resources. The 6 million dollars doesn't just disappear. It goes into the artist's account, and then he spends it, and it circulates. Or he doesn't spend it, but invests it, and then it circulates.

Since the artwork is almost free to create, it means that it's considerably less wasteful than other art forms. Some movie studio dumped $200M into a Joker movie that I've seen commonly described as unwatchable. That $200M is, for the most part, real -- for instance, the video editors or special effects artists who worked on that film could have been doing something else productive, instead of slaving away on a vanity project that should have been killed early in the process.

I don't disagree with your characterization of this banana art, or some of the other minimalist trends (which are largely in the past). I don't think it's question of effort, though. Who cares if Leonardo spent a year on the Last Supper or gulped down some espressos and did it in an all-nighter? The point is the feeling or effect it has on the viewer. I'm with you, in that chromatically ordered monochrome canvases bore me -- I'm a Jackson Pollock guy, not an Ad Reinhardt guy. But is it worth getting worked up about it?

If the guy made his money in crypto, then even better. Worthless data table entries traded for ephemeral banana art. Seems fitting to me.

 

[Enigma94]

Worthless data table entries traded for ephemeral banana art.

Perfect description.

 

[GeeWhy]

If you guys don't get, I can't help you. Unfortunately, the banana didn't taste like it was worth a penny over 5 mil.

 

[ChileG]

it needs a nice frame

 

[Bobfripp]

If you guys don't get, I can't help you. Unfortunately, the banana didn't taste like it was worth a penny over 5 mil.

Did you eat the duct tape too, or just the banana?

 

[ChileG]

I am genuinely trying to understand it. You have helped a lot. Thanks.

You should watch the documentary called, “Exit through the Gift Shop.” Deals with the themes you seem to be interested in. And it’s really good (imo).

 

[GeeWhy]

Did you eat the duct tape too, or just the banana?

That was duct tape? Explains a lot. The peel seemed tougher and chewier than normal.

 

[hereiam39]

cares

You've expressed here for what conservative economists call the "Juncker fallacy." I won't get into the derivation of the phrase, but the idea is this: inflated asset prices are not actually costly unless they divert real resources. The 6 million dollars doesn't just disappear. It goes into the artist's account, and then he spends it, and it circulates. Or he doesn't spend it, but invests it, and then it circulates.

Since the artwork is almost free to create, it means that it's considerably less wasteful than other art forms. Some movie studio dumped $200M into a Joker movie that I've seen commonly described as unwatchable. That $200M is, for the most part, real -- for instance, the video editors or special effects artists who worked on that film could have been doing something else productive, instead of slaving away on a vanity project that should have been killed early in the process.

I don't disagree with your characterization of this banana art, or some of the other minimalist trends (which are largely in the past). I don't think it's question of effort, though. Who cares if Leonardo spent a year on the Last Supper or gulped down some espressos and did it in an all-nighter? The point is the feeling or effect it has on the viewer. I'm with you, in that chromatically ordered monochrome canvases bore me -- I'm a Jackson Pollock guy, not an Ad Reinhardt guy. But is it worth getting worked up about it?

If the guy made his money in crypto, then even better. Worthless data table entries traded for ephemeral banana art. Seems fitting to me.

You are basically saying the same thing that I am but adding a banana. Instead of spending 6 mill on this, he could have invested the money immediately into art production, employing 100s of people and enriching 1000s and produced many more significant pieces of art.
Your Joker example did exactly that. That $200 mill went to employ 100s to 1000s of people. Even though the "art" sucks, it still took effort and passion. And enriched many lives.
Sticking a banana on the wall takes 30 seconds, enriches no one, and is a waste of 6 mill. Yes, it will trickle down some, but we know how well that works in the long run. Sorry, but to me, my choice is more sensible.

 

[sringwal]

And rather than smugly complaining about the cost of the banana, you and every other person who has posted that meme over the last several months could go out and buy a piece of art that you enjoy by a local artist.

Or, if you are in North Carolina, drive to Seagrove and buy a few pieces of pottery from one of the last true artisan communities in the South East.

 

[LeoBloom]

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.

I didn’t think I was getting my panties in a wad. I was just pointing out where I thought the joke fell flat. I also didn’t comment on the quality of the art work in question.

 

[superrific]

You are basically saying the same thing that I am but adding a banana. Instead of spending 6 mill on this, he could have invested the money immediately into art production, employing 100s of people and enriching 1000s and produced many more significant pieces of art.
Your Joker example did exactly that. That $200 mill went to employ 100s to 1000s of people. Even though the "art" sucks, it still took effort and passion. And enriched many lives.
Sticking a banana on the wall takes 30 seconds, enriches no one, and is a waste of 6 mill. Yes, it will trickle down some, but we know how well that works in the long run. Sorry, but to me, my choice is more sensible.

The point is that the banana art is so cheap that it doesn't matter. All that happened was a wealth transfer. There was a guy with a banana, and another guy with no banana and $6M. They swapped positions, that's all. If the banana had been specially grown from elite banana DNA hybridized just for this purpose, and grown in a high-tech facility, and then gilded, it would have been a huge waste. All of that tech could have gone to another purpose. But here it was just a banana. Economic loss to society = about 35 cents.

 

[sringwal]

I didn’t think I was getting my panties in a wad. I was just pointing out where I thought the joke fell flat. I also didn’t comment on the quality of the art work in question.

Neither of us us did. He is strawmanning all over this thread.

But none of what he has talked about even remotely gets at why my response was that he can fuck off.

The purpose of the meme is to attack liberal arts colleges and pretty much all artists today - those who are academically trained, and those who are not. It’s Propaganda 101. And anyone new to the group should strive to be better than that.

 

[hereiam39]

And rather than smugly complaining about the cost of the banana, you and every other person who has posted that meme over the last several months could go out and buy a piece of art that you enjoy by a local artist.

Or, if you are in North Carolina, drive to Seagrove and buy a few pieces of pottery from one of the last true artisan communities in the South East.

I buy local art wherever I am if it strikes my eye and my wallet. I have been to Seagrove and have purchased items from there. I am currently in Portugal and have several local artisan pieces. I have pieces from Morocco, Spain, France, and many others. So please don't preach to me.

Plain and simple, and these are hills that I will die on:
1. A banana ducktaped to a wall is not art.
2. A banana ducktaped to a wall is not worth $6 let alone $6,000,000+
3. If I had $6mill to invest in art, and am basically throwing away the money since it's not s piece of art that lasts, I could think of zillions of better ways to spend that money on art that would be both more beneficial to me and others.

Think of me what you will. I apologize for offending anyone with a simple little joke of a post. I didn't realize that people were so sensitive. Feel free to buy Trump's NFTs, they are worth more and closer to art than the banana. And just as wasteful.

My last post on this subject, especially when comparisons of Michelangelo's work get compared to a ducktaped banana.

 

[SmilingJack]

Dick eating a dick?
How much explanation does it really need!

 

[sringwal]

It’s a duck, not a dick.

 

[sringwal]

Think of me what you will. I apologize for offending anyone with a simple little joke of a post. I didn't realize that people were so sensitive. Feel free to buy Trump's NFTs, they are worth more and closer to art than the banana. And just as wasteful.

My last post on this subject, especially when comparisons of Michelangelo's work get compared to a ducktaped banana.

1) Nobody is offended.

2) Leonardo. Unless I missed a conversation about the Sistine Chapel later in the thread.

 

[hereiam39]

Neither of us us did. He is strawmanning all over this thread.

But none of what he has talked about even remotely gets at why my response was that he can fuck off.

The purpose of the meme is to attack liberal arts colleges and pretty much all artists today - those who are academically trained, and those who are not. It’s Propaganda 101. And anyone new to the group should strive to be better than that.

Sorry, had to reply.
Not my intention at all, nor how I would even begin to take this meme. Just calm down people. I apologize for posting a simple little inference that a banana ducktaped to a wall is not a $6 million dollar piece of art and should not be considered as such. You win. I have learned to not post my option of a banana not being art here again.

 

[superrific]

I buy local art wherever I am if it strikes my eye and my wallet. I have been to Seagrove and have purchased items from there. I am currently in Portugal and have several local artisan pieces. I have pieces from Morocco, Spain, France, and many others. So please don't preach to me.

Plain and simple, and these are hills that I will die on:
1. A banana ducktaped to a wall is not art.
2. A banana ducktaped to a wall is not worth $6 let alone $6,000,000+
3. If I had $6mill to invest in art, and am basically throwing away the money since it's not s piece of art that lasts, I could think of zillions of better ways to spend that money on art that would be both more beneficial to me and others.

1. Maybe. That's something of a complicated question to answer if you want something more than personal preference. But I wouldn't say you were wrong.
2. Eh. Lots of art is completely overvalued. People who buy $100M paintings never look at them, because they never leave storage. Basically the only thing that happens is the title changes. People have a lot of different motivations for paying for art. A common one is "what else am I going to do with this ridiculous amount of money I find myself with."
3. I agree with that. My point earlier was that the banana isn't waste, and is basically the same as just keeping the money in cash. But there are lots of ways of spending cash that are more productive than just cash.

 

[hereiam39]

1) Nobody is offended.

2) Leonardo. Unless I missed a conversation about the Sistine Chapel later in the thread.

Sorry, Leonardo. Wrong person.
And yes, several are offended. I was told to fuck off by at least one person, and others to a less extent. I made a mistake on Leonardo, you made a mistake on people being offended.

Good night and good bye people. It's 1:10am local time and I am done on this subject.

 

[sringwal]

Sorry, had to reply.
Not my intention at all, nor how I would even begin to take this meme. Just calm down people. I apologize for posting a simple little inference that a banana ducktaped to a wall is not a $6 million dollar piece of art and should not be considered as such. You win. I have learned to not post my option of a banana not being art here again.

Well that is how you should take the meme because that was the reason the meme was created. This is not genius level stuff.

But, then, I probably shouldn’t be surprised, given that you can’t even distinguish between Ninja Turtles. Hint. Leonardo is the one with the blue bandana.