Talk about tiny details ...
- Thread starter Gern
- Start date
YEA Dave some people have too much money lol
chris
chris
Hi Dave
Amazing. I've come across this before. I find it is impossible to even imagine how he achieves what he does.
Jim
Amazing. I've come across this before. I find it is impossible to even imagine how he achieves what he does.
Jim
I saw this earlier... All credit to him.... Completely amazing!
Superb….the link is pretty good as well……
Incredible. I also like the sculptures made from pencil lead.
Cheaper than a shark in formaldehyde Alan. To be honest, that’s the collectible aspect. It is pretty much unique and easy to display in a really small flat….good luck to him I say…..
I just don't get it though Tim. Imho it's just wasting money that could be put to better use. I know people that collect (stupidly expensive) things is their bag/hobby/interest etc etc. But i just balk at the price of some things these days. Long dead painters works for starters. Paying millions for something like that is just a kick in the teeth for people on the breadline imho.
I understand where you are coming from Alan, but don’t necessarily agree with the breadline point. Someone that can afford that much for a collectible item probably contributes far more to their government coffers in the realms of purchase tax than I ever will, so redistribution of wealth occurs as a result of the purchase. As to long dead painters work, well they are the pinnacle of human achievement in that field, so in some cases are beyond price.
I have to disagree with that. Some of the 'works of art' i've seen are utter tripe. Not worth 5 quid in a cold open windswept market. I know art is a subjective thing. so one thing to one person is great, and yet to another it's rubbish.
As for the tax thing. Most of these people paying those millions are in fact offshore accounts. Therefore not contributing anything to the 'common folk'.
That's a good point Tim. You wouldn't need a lot of shelf space for a collection of those would you.
G
Almost by definition, actual art (as opposed to cheap prints etc. of it) is something only people with enough wealth can afford — it is now and it has always been. It serves no purpose that you can’t do without, so anyone who has to scrape to get by will not be buying art. Rather, it’s something for people who have enough money to spare, who can use it to show off that they have more money than they actually need. So in a sense, all art represents money that could be put to a different use that would benefit more people.
However, that completely ignores the fact that things can have value beyond a monetary one. For example, people derive pleasure from looking at art, which is a value quite distinct from how much it costs (or doesn’t). The vast majority of people, though, seem to think of “value” only in terms of money — good example: someone who’s bought a book that, as they’re reading it, they don’t enjoy. Chances are very good that they’ll read it until the end anyway “because I paid good money for this.” They could be doing something they actually like in the time it takes them to read the book they don’t enjoy, but no, they consider the book’s monetary value to be far more important than the value of that time, let alone the value of the enjoyment.
Anyway, the real problem with art is that it has gotten to be an investment for people with more wealth than they know what to do with. That leads to an industry developing for finding the best art to sell to such people, eventually regardless of whether it’s actually currently acclaimed or not — because “this will be the next great thing, excellent investment!” Couple that with one-upmanship and you get ridiculous prices that don’t reflect anything except, as the saying in the Netherlands goes, “what a fool will give for it.”
Art isn’t limited to pictures, but they are probably the easiest to monetise. As you say Jakko, there is an art industry designed to provide consumables for the mega rich. It’s an oft forgotten aspect of art. It is produced for a market, like any other construct. It is not created for the simple joy of creation, no matter how much we like to think it is.
However, sometimes a work of art can produce an emotional response that is not generated by any other means. For me, the recording of Elgar’s Cello concerto by Jacqueline Dupre makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck when I hear it Every. Single. Time. The first time I heard the piece I was moved so much that I literally thought ”how have I lived so long without hearing this before”.
If someone buys an overpriced piece of “utter tripe” and so preserves it for future generations then the first time it generates that response in an individual it will be worth the money paid.
However, sometimes a work of art can produce an emotional response that is not generated by any other means. For me, the recording of Elgar’s Cello concerto by Jacqueline Dupre makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck when I hear it Every. Single. Time. The first time I heard the piece I was moved so much that I literally thought ”how have I lived so long without hearing this before”.
If someone buys an overpriced piece of “utter tripe” and so preserves it for future generations then the first time it generates that response in an individual it will be worth the money paid.
G
And that is not new either. This little-known piece, for example:
was painted because the 16 people who are recognisably portrayed on it, paid 100 guilders each to the artist for the privilege.
Certainly isn’t…..Mozart produced pieces to order, very much like a cook in the employ of a prominent master……something that started to change as classical music moved from the Classical to the Romantic period. Tchaikovsky, for example, was patronised by a benefactor that he never met, which enabled him to compose without needing to earn money.
Rembrandt was masterful in his use of light and shadow wasn’t he….to bring this back to modelling, all you need to learn about shadows and highlights on figures is there in this painting!
Rembrandt was masterful in his use of light and shadow wasn’t he….to bring this back to modelling, all you need to learn about shadows and highlights on figures is there in this painting!
I'm no fan of the art world as such, but what really upsets me about it is the pretentious twaddle that artists and their critics come up with to justify the creation of said piece of art - and hence the enormous price tag attached to it.
If the artist has a message, he should use suitable language to pass that message to his audience. Artists shouldn't write the b****y thing in ancient Sanskrit and then expect an Englishman to understand it. I don't see the message in 99.9% of all the 'art' I come across in my day to day existence.
If only art experts can understand the message, then they're the only ones who should be paying for it. Don't take my tax money and use it to buy and display stuff that will never have any meaning for me.
OK, so I'm a Philistine. So what? I still shouldn't be made to pay for stuff that I will never see or use.
If the artist has a message, he should use suitable language to pass that message to his audience. Artists shouldn't write the b****y thing in ancient Sanskrit and then expect an Englishman to understand it. I don't see the message in 99.9% of all the 'art' I come across in my day to day existence.
If only art experts can understand the message, then they're the only ones who should be paying for it. Don't take my tax money and use it to buy and display stuff that will never have any meaning for me.
OK, so I'm a Philistine. So what? I still shouldn't be made to pay for stuff that I will never see or use.
Wasn't Tchaikovsky's music good enough for people to pay him for it - thereby enabling him to earn a living? If it wasn't, perhaps he should have picked another profession?
I agree that Rembrandt was a very skillful painter, and back in those times, a skillful artist was the only way you had to record images for posterity. But in this day and age, virtually anyone can get highly detailed images showing equally well how light and shadow work from their mobile phone. And an image created that way wouldn't be worth anything like the $900 000 price tag that's been given to Rembrandt's picture since its restoration. That's 10 times the value of the equally skillful pictures we started this thread with (OK. Different skills, but still requiring a great deal of expertise).
Well, that’s gynaecology shut down then Dave :tongue-out3:
Legal Notice
scalemodelling.co.uk is a privately operated online discussion forum. All content posted by members reflects their own views and opinions and does not necessarily represent those of the forum owners or administrators. While reasonable efforts are made to moderate content, no responsibility is accepted for user-generated material. By using this site, you agree to comply with UK law and the forum rules.