Ya gotta be kidding!
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
OK, I admit I don't understand why some people find jokes about killing people funny.

Here's something else I don't understand. Why on earth is something like Warhol's "200 one dollar bills" worth $43.8 million? Or even 0.8 million for that matter? I mean, look at the thing...

http://www.artdaily.org/...new=34124

Can anyone explain why an expert at Sotheby's would describe this bad photograph as "a hugely important work for American art history"?

Or is this just another joke that I don't understand?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 12 years ago
I'm with you on this one.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
My art appreciation has limits as well. I never understood the fascination with Warhol. I think the guy who throws paint at the canvas comes up with better stuff.

I read somewhere once that people would go to Picasso's house and line up to shove $100 bills under the door because sometimes he would autograph one and shove it back out.

I think I'd rather spend the money on Powerball.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Maybe if you smoke some "glaucoma meds" this becomes "art".

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/12/2009)]
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 12 years ago
Art is worth what someone will pay for it. If an artist or a style of art is in and several people with the money want it, it becomes very valuable. When a style or an artist is out of fashion, their work is worth much less. This is why it makes a bad investment. You can never be sure what price it will bring in the future. Warhol is hot now and being dead there are limited pieces for sale. Two people with more money then brains what to say they have a Warhol start bidding and a piece becomes, at least temporarily, worth an ungodly amount of money.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
I don't think the exhibition is ever referred to as "art" in the article...

Here is the response I gave to Nancy (Kailley) Thorne when she asked us how to define art vs pornography:

"One naked lady on a couch: Art. Two naked ladies making out on a couch: Pornography... unless they're doing it in an artistic manner."
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Can anyone explain why an expert at Sotheby's would describe this bad photograph as "a hugely important work for American art history"?

I can give you approx. 43.8 million reasons.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Gaer-Barlow (+474) 12 years ago
The irregular and intimate quality of a work conceived by the human mind and made entirely from the human hand is, in my opinion, far closer to artwork than a silkscreened repetitious piece. I commend Andy Worhol for marketing his works in a highly profitable way, however.
I have seen the most profound works of the highest quality given little worth while the most simple, primative, slapped together work receives high raves.
What does it matter? Yesterday an egg, tomorrow a feather duster.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
Excellent point, Cheryl. And you know what - Eggs are nourishing and feather dusters are useful, and because of that both have more intrinsic worth than Warhol's piece of ... art. But like the gentleman said, there are plenty of people out there like Rick with more money than brains.
Top
Posted by Christen LeBlanc Ramsey (+271) 12 years ago
in regards to bodies:

it is the art of preservation.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Kyle wrote:
How is this art?

The human form has always been a subject of art. This is just another interpretation of the theme, Kyle.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
This is just another interpretation of the theme, Kyle.


Perhaps Brian, but harvesting corpses from questionable sources shouldn't be shown, much less considered "Art".
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
WHY shouldn't they be shown?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Brian,

I guess this is why I object to the exhibit so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...#Criticism
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Fair enough. But unethical acquisition of cadavers for the display doesn't necessarily disqualify the exhibit as being "art."

It makes it unethical, but not unartistic.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Kyle,

Please don't confuse BODIES with Body Worlds which also exhibits plasticized bodies. It has an impeccable ethical record as is shown below. I took my daughter to the exhibit and it was fantastic. It really gives you a new appreciation for the human body.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w...troversies

All whole body plastinates exhibited in Body Worlds come from donors who gave informed consent via a unique body donation program. Only adults over eighteen years of age can sign up to the programme.[36] The pre-natal and infant specimens in the exhibitions are obtained from morphological collections previously held by universities and medical institutions.

Bodies from deceased persons who did not give consent - such as deceased hospital patients from Kyrgyzstan[37] and executed prisoners from China - have never been used in a Body Worlds exhibition. In January 2004, the German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that von Hagens had acquired corpses of executed prisoners in China; he countered that he did not know the origin of the bodies, and returned seven disputed cadavers to China [38]. In 2004, von Hagens obtained an injunction against Der Spiegel for making the claims.[39]

A commission set up by the California Science Center in Los Angeles in 2004 confirmed von Hagens' commitment to ethical practices, and published its Summary of Ethical Review.[40] The commission matched death certificates and body donation forms, and verified informed legal consent of the bodies in the exhibitions. However, to ensure the privacy and anonymity promised to body donors, Von Hagens' Institute for Plastination maintains a firewall between body donors' documentation and finished plastinated bodies. To date, more than 9,000 individuals have pledged to donate their bodies to the Institute for Plastination in Heidelberg, in Germany.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Umm Wendy, I never did. Where did you get the idea that I had?

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (11/13/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Sorry, Kyle, I didn't mean to say that you did. I just didn't want people to confuse the two so I felt the need to differentiate them.
Top
Posted by Christen LeBlanc Ramsey (+271) 12 years ago
the 'bodies' exhibit is a modern marvel of embalming and preservation, an anatomists dream. i would love to learn how they do it...legally of course!
Top