this is to comment on kcantor's comment on the email conversation that David Thorne had about the drawings. this is a piece that speaks to the very soul on the topic of how can one price art. the worth of this piece to begin with is about 27 million or something. it has diamonds all over it. the point trying to be made by the artist is art has an imaginary number on it. the amount of art is never specified to something like the tools used or how much paint was used but rather it just had a random number placed on it, and yes people thought about the time and effort placed onto their piece and gage that for the amount. however with this piece there is automatically a price tag on the piece, without time placed on making it and the effort of the artist. so as you can see art is less of substance anymore its more about the name behind the piece of late. so what is the true problem today. society or one's self as an artist?
2 comments:
Damien Hirst is this year's most expensive artist. He did that famous phermeldahyde shark. All of his pieces go for thousands upon thousands of dollars and they also cost that much to make. It's ridiculous. Hirst is including this skull piece in a show he is puting on in Amsterdam discussing the "momento mori" (remember that you are mortal) theme in art. It is to be shown with 17th century Dutch vanitas still lifes. I sort of like his stuff.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/hirst/hirst_impossibility.jpg
Well I'm sure y'all are familiar with Gregory Crewdson's outrageous print prices. However, he also uses an entire film crew just to make one photograph so he certainly spends a ton of money to make each piece. "An image will end up selling for $80,000 to $100,000 per print, in editions of 10, so essentially it's a million dollar shoot every time he decides to compose an image." Read this article for photos and information: http://www.jpgmag.com/stories/1194.
Post a Comment