$110 million dollar basquiat

how do you collect art without making jews rich

It's just a vehicle for money laundering and you know it.

doesn't mean it's not art though

Buy Chinese art

That's not limited to modern art

>heh I can consider anything I want to be art except other people can't

give an objective definition of art that excludes the thing in the OP

Can one of you cunts actually explain for once (with evidence please) the mechanism by which art you dislike is more vulnerable to money laundering than art you like or are neutral about? Because problems with secrecy and non disclosure with art auctions and auction houses are not actually compartmentalised to icky non-realistic art.

Not all investment in art is money laundering.

It is a nice painting.

The qualification of 'art' generally falls to the art world not some random Joe, i.e. it still needs a 'gallery'. The qualification is not subjective but the response to the work is.

>"anonymous" by user (2017) is a seminal post-representationalistic work emphasising the disenfranchisement of modern man (the category of "man" itself being dissolved in the milieu of contemporaneous gender theory in which user himself was immersed, if not only by his futile adversariality towards it) and the traumatic realisation that the progression of aesthetic expression has reach an insurmountable wall, a wall built upon Warhol’s Brillo boxes and which has not yet been breached, and perhaps will never be breached, hence the unexpected use of enjambment by the artist which severs the last letter from the rest of his desperate iteration (much in the same way that the artist himself, and by extension we ourselves, are severed from the communitas of shared humanity which is no longer possible in this age of impossible representations, of art without form, of man without gender, of life without meaning.

Apparently because it's easier to make and then some person writes some word salad about how it's good and it gets sold. There's no evidence of this actually happening though, just a feeling

Words are representational, user.

It´s big city popular art; I like it

I like the painting desu

>jews of the orient
still jews

It's pretty good. Not worth the price but I guess they're paying for the historical value.

"I mean, yeah, any retarded chimpanzee COULD have made this 'art', but WHY DIDN'T THEY?!?!?"

Literally the only defense modern art shills have, and it's still shit.

There are actual tax reasons that art is a good investment under certain circumstances. The money laundering angle is mostly promotional hype from a documentary that came out a couple years ago.

>he says, but can't even get on a chimpanzee's level

>Dr. Doom Warns of Art-World Money Laundering in Davos

>What to make of the $70-billion business that is today’s art world? According to experts including economist Nouriel Roubini, speaking at a luncheon held last week in Davos, Switzerland, during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the unregulated art market is susceptible to money laundering and other economic crimes.

>“Anybody can walk into a gallery and spend half a million dollars and nobody is going to ask any questions,” NYU professor Roubini said during the lunch, reported Swiss Info. Well known for predicting the 2008 financial crash, earning him the nickname “Dr. Doom,” Roubini now fears that price manipulations, money laundering, and colluding auction houses could be tainting the art market.

news.artnet.com/market/dr-doom-warns-of-art-world-money-laundering-in-davos-232958

>The money laundering angle is mostly promotional hype
That's correct goyim. We appreciate your support.

Auctioneers must hate this one weird professor

Post evidence, sweetie. ( is speculation)

That's great buddy but I won't be holding my breath for something that answers me here

>Instead of a beautiful, inspiring, historical painting that took a master years to complete, expressing deep themes and emotions
>Spend $100 million dollars, more money than 99.9% people will see in their life, that could have been spent in a 100 million different ways on worthy causes
>On some shitty, messy modern fart piece that looks like something you see spray painted on the side of train

"Modern Art" apologists can say whatever they want, the guy who bought this is a fucking idiot and the "artist" is a conman

>Trying to smugly imply that these billionaires are all genuine art fanatics and not trying to legally bury 50 million.

Do you read any news? Do you ever go outside? Who's our president?

Ironically enough, you not reading the news has allowed you to formulate the opinion that the buyer of this Basquiat is not a fan. Thinking about it rationally it would make much more sense to buy multiple paintings rather than sink an unprecedented amount into a single Basquiat, more liquidity, less risk, (though admittedly more taxation on sale), a pure investor would have to hope that the immense sum that they paid would lead to a recalibration of value for the artist's work.

Thank the CIA

So the CIA has access to time travel and used it to travel back to the 1860s to invent modern art?

Oh bullshit. New age culture has deluded you to the point that you believe people sincerely enjoy this kind of stuff to the point of paying 100 million. People aren't crazy, random vessels of creativity like blue-haired self-identifying tumblrites want you to think. We're all extremely similar.

It's not an investment, it's an object that he will forever be able to say is worth exactly what he paid. He'll never have to pay taxes on it nor will its value be appropriately included in his worth. It'll stay in his possession until he wants to liquidate upon which he passes it on to another rich scumbag who wants an asset to bury their money inside of.

I can't believe someone is proud of having this opinion. Baffling.

kek, it looks like a Pollock.

If only we could be so lucky as to have the bubble pop and all these paintings be acknowledged as worthless, so these assholes are stuck with a useless painting they sank $110 million dollars into while other rich cunts use better things as assets.

>deep themes and emotions

You mean Guy In Armour Stands Near Big Planks Of Wood Near The Sea With Ships. Face it, you may defend pre-modern art but you don't appreciate it beyond a surface level of "it's not modern"

It's a piece of art history. Doesn't come along that often.

It's preferable to the pretentious idiots who use modern art as an excuse to act as if they "get it" and behave condescendingly to anyone who "just doesn't understand."

If
A) You need a plaque under it explaining what it means to you
or
B) "it means whatever you want it to mean ;)"

That probably means it's there so stuck up hipsters can fellate each other over how in-the-know they are. There's a place for that sort of art, but the fact that people actually think it's worth millions of dollars is what's baffling. I care less about the people cynically buying it to launder money or store value, I mean the people who ACTUALLY think the ART is valuable as anything more than the canvas it was painted on.

>Oh bullshit. New age culture has deluded you to the point that you believe people sincerely enjoy this kind of stuff to the point of paying 100 million.
Autism has deluded you to the point that you think that people can't like art that isn't strictly realistic and anybody that does is only pretending. Why else would somebody dump a huge amount of money significantly over the then current value for the artist, it's either a very large investment gamble or they have the money and want the object.
>It's not an investment, it's an object that he will forever be able to say is worth exactly what he paid.
So if people aren't "crazy random vessels" of bullshit hyperbole that doean't actually address my issues with your opinion then why not dump money into an object that is also a rational investment and not just a money sink?

Who cares about them? Talk about the art itself.

it's funny that you think painting is even that popular anymore you're so out of touch with what art is these days. next you'll start complaining about hippies

It could come along every day if you set the standard so low that it requires nearly no skill to manufacture it.

At least when value was placed on high-skill masterworks that took a long time to produce you had something of an inherent scarcity. If you owned an original painting by a man who spent his life mastering his craft, he only manufactured so many in a lifetime and it took time to make each one. Someone could shit out a couple of the OP image a day and just get some dude to tell you how valuable it is.

That's where the social effect of art plays into its worth. You speak as though there haven't been any gains in aesthetic theory since Greenberg and Fried.

>it's funny that you think painting is even that popular anymore you're so out of touch with what art is these days.

The kind of painting that's popular (and it is still popular) tends to be mass media shit, usually done digitally and generally not abstract. Modern art is for a pretentious niche of smug suckers in the first place.

19th century painting is popular too, that doesn't matter. do you really think modern art is that homogeneous?

>Someone could shit out a couple of the OP image a day and just get some dude to tell you how valuable it is.
Except that someone would still have to agree with that value and purchase it. Let's face it, if contemporary art was such an easy scam we'd all give it a go.

The thing about producing works in high volume is you tend to develop a distinct style that is recognisable. This is something people value in the work. Owning a Basquiat is like owning a piece of authentic 'radical street culture' that happened to make its way into the high art scene because it coincided with other artistic and social developments at the time. I don't understand how it's so hard to figure this kind of thing out.

Depends. I'm aware that 'modern' art as in stuff made contemporary to us is incredibly varied. We still produce tons of good art, probably more good art than ever in history given the volume of artists who have the time to devote to the craft and the ability to get it out there. I'm talking about abstract art in the vein of OP, which is regrettably the place where absurd amounts of money are made and tend to cater to a very, very pretentious group of people who care more about being in a small circle who 'get it' than actually appreciating what they see.

One of my favorite stories is when a guy got a bunch of students together to discuss a Pollock painting, and after a few hours of heated interpretation of his genius he let them know it was his old painting apron.

Anyhow, I'm sure there are people who genuinely do appreciate the aesthetics. I can look at some of these paintings and go 'that looks nice', it just boggles my mind that anyone would spend millions of dollars on something like pic related (this one grinds my gears since it was my tax dollars, too). Any competent designer with a basic knowledge of composition and color theory can throw together something that 'looks nice', and maybe if they're smart they'll throw a story about the subjective and chaotic meaning of human nature into it and get lucky.

tbqh it's much closer to a Joan Mitchel or a Jules Olitski than a Pollock. Pollock would thwhip the paint at the surface from above it, which resulted in these very delicate lines.

>Be billionair.
>Have to pay tax over the money I make on stocks.
>Have to pay tax for the money I have in my savings account.
>Could buy real estate but have to pay taxes on that as well.
>I'll just buy three $100 million paintings fuck it.
>I can always sell it again to retards later
>Even better it will probably make more since it previously sold for $100 million at auction.

Do you really think Malevich was trying to cater to pretentious snobs? The art you're describing is more like the international trend of abstraction that was popular 40 or so years later than him. And 'getting' the art does require an appreciation, especially a close look where you can distinguish between the works of different artists despite generally just being 'abstract'. You can tell a Pollock from a Newman from a Rothko. Other abstract artists of the time don't get nearly as much money or attention.

Does the painting seem more impressive if you learn it was painted in 1967? It was fairly advanced art at the time (though photography, minimalism, conceptualism, etc. were becoming the new major forms of art) and it doesn't rely on something like 'chaotic human nature' to sell its aesthetics. Sure it looks nice but consider its scale, for example. Consider Greenberg's formalist theory where he claims purist art like abstraction is the highest form of painting because it uses the materials of painting itself rather than illusion. These aren't ideas that the everyday consumer has about art, i.e. 'the red represents anger'

In any case the art world had the same reaction to abstraction at the time hence the move away from commodifiable objects. But still these paintings represent a different time where it was thought that there was such thing as transcendental aesthetics that could improve a person.

It seems strange to me that a board of people who enjoy history can't appreciate the history of a work or works like it.

...

>a board of people who enjoy history
Are you a traveller from bizarro Veeky Forums?

Some people don't like certain art if they worry they will look stupid to others trying to appreciate it. They don't really care about art itself.

Thought I was in the other art thread.

>gains in aesthetic theory

Art is an ivory tower where something like this could be said with a straight face.

>gains in aesthetic theory
>Not genetics producing various types of neurological mechanisms which assign different rates to different strata of stimuli

If it requires vast amounts of faggotry to justify, it's "art" nowadays.

The really slimy thing about all this?

The cognition of so many people is wasted on vague ambiguous bullshit but the one who reaps the benefit of this shame of a game are the auctioneers and the buyer.

Everyone else is condemned to years of mental labor and social appeasing and gymnastics to reconcile the dollar value of the art and its actual worth to the vast majority of mankind.

In justifying modern art, you're justifying the vast squandering of millions of cognitive hours for something that only benefits a fraction of a fraction of the population.

At least a mugger only robs one person at a time. A band of academics can enmesh millions of people in mental labyrinths that they feel they must solve to "understand" what is clearly robbery and deceit.

>2017
>Not embracing Dada

impressionism and early modernism is the high point of art, prove me wrong
(you cant)

The people in mental labyrinths are the autistics who go through spectacular mental gymnastics to try and formulate why people don't geninely like the sort of art (and food, literature, film, other entertainment) the autist hates, but are actually only pretending to like art that isn't epic and manly 19th century depictions of battles for whatever absurd reason (social signalling, CIA psyops).

It's almost a brilliant strategy. Even nominally intelligent people get stuck in signaling that they like "jar of shit" and trying to figure out the meaning after the fact.

Art is the decoration of the ivory tower yes, as it has been always, but modernism was a distinct phase where they tried to take art out of that tower and have it revolutionise everyday society. This literally isn't an argument.

Ok you don't like art at all, why are you in this thread?

>reconcile the dollar value of the art and its actual worth

No one does this actually.

The fact you see engaging with art as signalling says more for you than it does for other people. See:

"revolutionise everyday society"

ha ha ha ha

You expect nobleman to bow to your novelty and the lower class to vow to your vast imagination. To the middle class you give some weird revenge against both strata, where their appreciation of modern art is some secular catechism in the vast cathedral of modern society.

revolutionize though? Ha ha ha. Art? revolutionize? ha ha ha

Nobody in the modern world looks to you for succor or for validation. In fact their lives have been so "revolutionized" that art is behind advertising and entertainment in the expression of imaginary spaces.

I wasn't talking literally. I was talking about how people see a bullshit linguistic game and begin to pile on word salad until the only experience one gets of "art" is the mystical. Mystical of the worst kind but mystical nonetheless.

I admire traditions of technique, in the same way I admire Indian music in the very cages they are constrained to play.

I don't admire people who have no care nor regard for the cognitive processing of individual agents. And that's what getting trapped in the labyrinth does. Once upon a CIA time, art was supposed to represent radical freedom. But secular holiness has turned that freedom into a fool's game of mental slavery.

>revolutionize though? Ha ha ha. Art? revolutionize? ha ha ha

Yes you laugh at it now because modernism and this idea of revolution through art is no longer that relevant. We are postmodern. You are not proving a point. Whether you agree or not that art can revolutionise is irrelevant because it is of historical relevance to art at the time that it was. This is a history forum yes?

>art is behind advertising and entertainment

This is what galvanised many postmodernists.

The fact of the matter is there is a social dimension to art. This is what theory after Greenberg would postulate. The art is not just the techniques by which it is made. It's not an ivory tower idea at all -- in fact formalism was the ivory tower idea of its time.

> I was talking about how people see a bullshit linguistic game and begin to pile on word salad until the only experience one gets of "art" is the mystical.

Who are these "people"?

>I don't admire people who have no care nor regard for the cognitive processing of individual agents.

How does modern art not have this regard?

For somebody decrying "word salad" you sure as shit aren't shying away from verbose, purple bullshit in your own posts.

Buy from local struggling artists

It's art so the pricing it's subjective, if the artist is what is important, it will cost 110m whether you like the painting or not.

The artist has been dead for a long time now.

>On some shitty, messy modern fart piece that looks like something you see spray painted on the side of train

Kind of the point my man. It was basically street art at a time street art was novel to the art world i.e. the 1980s.

That's what makes his review a work of art.

Except I can reduce each summation to a smaller simpler component.

Unlike the world of art review which has far too much of a similarity to the linguistic labyrinths of continental philosophy. Or at least the worst of it.

But please, tell me what is "verbose, purple bullshit" (that's an insult I've never heard. The addition of "purple" makes it a strange masterpiece) in my manner and I can actually unpack it. Not the same can be said for the fast and loose molestation of language practiced in most summaries you see in some place like the MOCA.

Why is it we have a bash on modern art thread filled with pieces meant to spoof it every day on Veeky Forums?

What does this have to do with Veeky Forums?

What do we do to encourage it?

Mods, move these threads to please.

>Why is it we have a bash on modern art thread filled with pieces meant to spoof it every day on Veeky Forums?
>
>What does this have to do with Veeky Forums?

Because artists are depicted as aesthetic saints, who produce mind shattering work, for a good deal of pedagogy in America. At least coastal America. Why dada and cubism and blah fucking blah was so important.

Very few people realize, consciously, that the procession of ugliness produces not respect but more desensitization to the ugliness of what is trotted out as art in the past century.

What linguistic labyrinths? Post an example.

>Mods, move these threads to please.

Please fucking don't. That board is enough of a shithole.

Purple prose, look it up; florid, overwrought. You write like a dorky early senior school student with a thesaurus trying too hard to impress his English teacher. Very ironic considering some of the complaints you level at the arts establishment.

You know, you honestly don't have any idea how many fucking times I've been accused of that shitty "thesaurus" ad hom.

According to my IQ test and standardized testing way back when I was still in high school, my vocabulary is on a 99%. Well the IQ nailed it down to 99.99%. But I'd give up that ability for better than average 3-D and 2-D modeling.

What can I do? Do I stop thinking in "purple prose"? Maybe my thinking is overwrought.

Don't you think the concept of synonym thoroughly ruin language?

A laziness maybe at trying to grab at the word's subtle variations... Romanticism finding its way to primitivism, soiling the human spirit in its reductions of everything else to it.

The problem is the words make sense on a surface level but don't really refer to anything specific. You've ignored my requests for you to elaborate on your points twice now, and I think it's because you've allowed your prose to carry the point based on what is expected of the prose, rather than following any reference to examples from the art world itself. Style not substance, essentially -- you let yourself get carried away.