If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Painting that appears to be the work of a meth-addicted chimp sells at Sotheby's for record $17.4 million   (money.cnn.com) divider line 298
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

32095 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2004 at 4:56 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-11-11 04:06:54 AM
I could totally do that.
The money will roll right in!
 
2004-11-11 05:00:38 AM
Let me be the first to say WTF?!?!?!?! I should barf on a canvas after a long night of heavy drinking and sell it. I'd make a killing.
 
2004-11-11 05:01:22 AM
The importance of your art is directly proportional to the amount some retard is willing to pay for it.

It's only "art" in the first place because you say it is.
 
2004-11-11 05:01:33 AM
Submitter is the bastard offspring of Ghengis Kahn
 
2004-11-11 05:05:27 AM


Appropriately titled "Yellow, White, Blue Over Yellow on Gray"
 
2004-11-11 05:08:10 AM
That chimp isn't addicted, it can quit whenever it wants. Just right now it doesn't want to. But it can quit... anytime.
 
2004-11-11 05:09:17 AM
Fireproof, prime, greycoat, white rock outlines, black primary shadow, grey secondary shadow, final texture.
/Boooooooooth
 
2004-11-11 05:10:22 AM
I am so disappointed. I actually thought there was a meth-addicted chimp painter. Cuz y'know you always see those circus chimps addicted to cigarettes...

Then I clicked the link and realized the headline was teh funnay.

/furious george what have they done to you?
 
2004-11-11 05:11:15 AM
good for the chimp
 
2004-11-11 05:16:14 AM
I call this one "random letters on white page"

sdakljhfwaiuedblksjdrhgwoaiuehtew
saidufhywetrlqwemnxzcvositqwnxbze
asdlkjhcvuiwebxzbiwzxoershkjxczvn

Now where's my 17 million dollars?
 
2004-11-11 05:16:40 AM
Damnass... We are all in the wrong line of work.

/ I actually typed "long wine of lork" the first time around.
 
2004-11-11 05:24:17 AM
Jackson Pollack: Damn, my paint shelf broke and spilled all my paint buckets on this nice new canvas!

Art Twit: Mr. Pollack! You're a genius! This is the work of a complicated, tortured soul!

Jackson Pollack: Uh, yeah, yeah, I'm a complicated, tortured artiste'

Art Twit: Here's a check for 5 million dollars!

Jackson Pollack: Call me Sir, Goddammit!
 
2004-11-11 05:25:16 AM
That painting is far too clean and ordered for meth to be involved in any way whatsoever.

(just saying)
 
2004-11-11 05:25:42 AM
At least it's not "performance art".
 
2004-11-11 05:26:07 AM
This is a prime example of why there's nothing wrong from "liberating" really rich people's stuff. If someone can piss away 17 million bucks on what looks like a dirty napkin odds are they are not going to miss their (whatever is shiny and small enough to carry)
 
2004-11-11 05:27:55 AM
Wow, am I the only one here who appreciates this as a revolutionary piece of art? and as a beautiful painting?
 
sec
2004-11-11 05:30:36 AM
This piece of art was inspired by the thought of a simple doodle that an 8-year old could do fetched over 15 million dollars. This masterpiece took longer and required more creativity, and it touches on our world's fight with man and his pollution. The bidding will start at the rock bottom price of $.50. A frame will be included.

 
2004-11-11 05:30:37 AM
Q. Steltanus

Man, I'm as socially liberal, educated, and appreciative of the arts as they come and I think this shiat licks my balls. And shiat doesn't lick balls often... because when you think about it shiat really doesn't have the anatomy to lick. Yet somehow my balls are now covered in shiat and I can't think of any other way that could have happened oher than from this painting.

Wait... what?
 
2004-11-11 05:33:10 AM
steltanus: it's two rectangles on a yellow backgeound. yes. you are the only one here who appreciates it as a revolutionary piece of art. it's a revolutionary piece of shiat is what it is.
 
2004-11-11 05:34:20 AM
This painting is already a success because it manages to upset so many people. To the buyer: money well spent.
 
2004-11-11 05:34:44 AM
Q. Steltanus

If you're being serious, then yeah, I think you probably are. However, I'm always interested in hearing a different perspective about things like this. Why do you think that?
 
2004-11-11 05:37:06 AM
For that much money he could have fed 100,000,000 kids for a month for just $0.17 a day.
 
2004-11-11 05:37:30 AM
well, at least it's not a coke-addicted "chimp"...
 
2004-11-11 05:39:02 AM
I can kick 10,000 people in the sack for free and piss off more people. It wouldn't cost me a dime!

I could slap my johnson into the queen's soup and piss off more people, and it would be for free!

My girlfriend's an artist, I'm a scientist. We obviously have different outlooks on life. This has resulted in many long conversations regarding post-modern art in particular. I understand the point behind why such art is made (and even that sometimes the point is there is no point)... that's all well and good and in the name of artistic expression. Good for Rothko.

I'm just amazed there are people out there willing to shell out millions for something that they themselves could produce if they'd stop fawing over other people's garbage for a moment and actually try.
 
2004-11-11 05:43:41 AM

Entrance to Subway, 1938.
Apparently he was fascinated by the NY subway. His later works dispensed of all figure-painting and suggestive titles thus granting limitless freedom for emotion.

Call me a cynic, but here is an example of a painter who can't paint figures but excells at out-of-center asymmetrical anomalies.

Ancient Greek classical form was our best stuff, IMHO.
 
2004-11-11 05:46:27 AM
For one thing, it's not two rectangles on a yellow background. There is incredible subtlety in this painting which is not immediately apparent and this makes the painting come alive.
Anyway that's my personal opinion and it may be a matter of taste. For example, some people like this



but I prefer this

 
2004-11-11 05:46:31 AM
People who cant appreciate modern art, normally like sports alot
 
2004-11-11 05:49:44 AM
They sold that for 17 million? You gotta be kidding me.
 
2004-11-11 05:50:47 AM
There's a Rothko room in the Tate Modern that I really like, it's quite contemplative... I don't think it's really all that fair to assess a work of art based on a tiny jpeg... And I don't think Rothko's benefitting amazingly from this sale, as he commited suicide in 1970...
 
2004-11-11 05:51:33 AM
In the words of Woody Allen(or pretty close)--"If there was a musical act in Carnegie Hall and one of the performers threw up, there will always one person in the audience that calls it art".

Future civilizations will look back and laugh at the hype surrounding and money spent on such infantile works. Modern contemporary and abstract impressionism are merely basic elements of graphic design. High art? No.

/art nazi
 
2004-11-11 05:52:30 AM
LazerBeems

I really could care less about sports, as it has no affect on my life whatsoever. I get to the Met or MoMa as often as possible, I just dont understand modern art. If a piece needs to be explained rather than just inducing raw emotion, I dont get it.
 
2004-11-11 05:52:55 AM
Q. Steltanus

To put this another way (and I know arguing over art is a fairly futile endeavor):

This summer we were in Amsterdam and we visit the Van Gogh Museum. There was an intense skill and devotion to the art that came through that man's work that I had never seen before. His work evoked emotion for the firgures it present, through perspective, form, and color. I "got it".

The above Rothko evokes anger from people, as you say. But that anger is not due to some aspect of the art itself but at the entire culture who worship this sort of post-modern art. The anger is due to the artistic masturbation over something that some people just do not understand, nor ever will. It's anger that so much money is spent on something so simplistic. It's not the art itself that evokes the emotion, it's the entire culture of post-modern art. Therefore the individual piece is meaningless and voided because it could have been any image that simplistic on that canvas and people would have been upset.

Few get that pissed if a Van Gogh, Renoir, Da Vinci, Picasso, etc. sells for $17million.
 
2004-11-11 05:57:12 AM
LazerBeems

People who make base assumptions like to build scultures out of the flesh of young boys.

As I believe is fairly evident from some of the posts on here, we who are less fans of the Rothko work are not so easily stereotyped. Lay off the arrogance.

I understand some people like this and was poking fun at it. Arguing art is futile since it is an emotional form.

BloodyPuppy

Word. It's modern graphic design with basic understanding of human sensation and perception. Interesting as a phenomenon, but dubious as an art.

In my opinion, of course.
 
2004-11-11 06:02:15 AM
First there was the 'Emperor with no clothes' and now this...
 
2004-11-11 06:02:40 AM
People buy paintings just so they can brag how much they spent on it...

Bah. With today's call for graphic designers in the movie and videogame industry, all the people with ARTISTIC TALENT start aiming for those fields in their early teens. Thus, the aged medium of painting is left to hacks that are convinced slapping paint on a canvas and calling it "abstract" and "deeply metaphorical" will earn them big money.

They're also right... I've been in a real up-scale expensive painting store-type all of one time. In it, I saw what looked like a crayon drawing of people jumping out of a plane. It was priced at $2,000.

Yes, maybe it was a sureal depiction of the horrors of war, highlighter and satirized by using crayons, both for the sake of irony, and to make obvious the way our corrupt leaders trick the innocent youth into accept violance as a glorious thing. And maybe a well-known artist didn't even feel like coming up with something original enough to fool even his dim-witted possie that it had a deeper meaning, so he just stole a drawing from his son.
 
2004-11-11 06:03:41 AM
somebody got ripped off.
 
2004-11-11 06:08:04 AM
Ohhh, i see... so YOU think you could have made that huh?



then why didnt you?


thats right. you didnt, Rothko did. He's an artist, you are not.
 
2004-11-11 06:11:01 AM
For the record, hell yeah, the artists of, say, Blizzard, deserve a hell of a lot more respect than these "painters".
 
2004-11-11 06:12:37 AM
yeah great shiat licking ball points GooGooBunnySnax, seriously.

I definitly don't get this Rothko, or that square diamond thing Steltanus posted. I mean i appreciate some music that other people shudder when they listen to, and complain about coherency or call it sound but not music...they usually give up and stop listening before they can appreciate it

....but this painting, i've stared at, thought about, pondered a lot, and it still doesn't make sense...

explain what you see steltanus
 
2004-11-11 06:12:43 AM

Click Here
for a look at the craziness of paper boulder art.
Hurray! It POPS!
 
2004-11-11 06:18:19 AM
Does anybody remember the Beverly Hillbillies episode where Elly Mae's monkey painted some blue bananas on a yellow background and it turned out to be an exact replica of some insanely expensive piece of artwork that Mr. Drysdale had?

That's what this reminds me of.

/just an observation...that's all
 
2004-11-11 06:18:55 AM
You can't make judgements of this painting based on that small picture... The canvas is very, very large, and is meant to be viewed that way--or such is my experience of Rothko's pieces. Go to a gallery and see some of his pieces and think about it and see how it makes you feel, rather than ask for explanation from others.
 
2004-11-11 06:20:23 AM
i'm going to say this-

ROTHKO SUCKS.

there, i said it.

sorry, but i just don't understand how a canvas with orange and brown paint could 'evoke' feelings. at an exhibit, they actually put a BENCH IN FRONT OF THE PAINTING so people could sit and WEEP.

W. T. F?

something by raphael...i could see how that can evoke feelings. the masters painted realistically and with such vibrant color, you couldn't help but feel something for these pieces.

but orange and brown squares? get a farking life, folks.
 
2004-11-11 06:23:53 AM
Guess I might be throwing fuel on the fire rather than helping... but here
 
2004-11-11 06:24:18 AM
Q. Steltanus


This painting is already a success because it manages to upset so many people. To the buyer: money well spent.


I'm sure I could upset a lot more people for a lot less money.

... and maybe a little jail time.
 
2004-11-11 06:24:58 AM
the hypocrisy of both comments isn't lost on me.
 
2004-11-11 06:26:54 AM
For those people that think they "could do the same". Well first of all, you didn't. You didn't think about it. You didn't paint it. You didn't get gallery owners to support it. You didn't get the press to support it. You didn't get buyers to buy it. And you didn't do it 50 years ago.

Didn't do much did you?
 
2004-11-11 06:29:02 AM
I guess it's easy for people to say that it sucks and they could do it, becasue they don't have the slightest clue what it takes to come up with those textures, hues, and the subtle tones the artist achieved in that piece. I personally find Rothko's stuff to be quite stunning, and precise.

For those of you who say they could do the same thing, PROVE IT. Go buy a canvas, a set of oils and brushes, and prove it.

I bet they think Mondrian sucks too.

 
2004-11-11 06:30:12 AM
Alyosha-

Thanks! Those pieces are incredible.
 
2004-11-11 06:30:35 AM
i feel thats a large piece of expensive crap, in a museum full of even crappier ball licking crap

i prefer hundertwasser
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report