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.

(Daily Mail)   $155M, highest price ever paid for an artwork by a U.S. collector paid for Picasso's "Fat Chick With a Penis Growing Out of Her Chin Playing With Herself"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 102
    More: Interesting, Picasso, U.S., SAC Capital Advisors, Francis Bacon, Damien Hirst, Bellagio, asking prices  
•       •       •

19654 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 12:15:59 PM

midigod: So Steve Wynn made $60 million extra by putting his elbow through a painting.

That's how rich people roll, I guess.


$45 mil insurance payout.  I wonder what it cost to repair the thing.
 
2013-03-27 12:16:25 PM
Does it bother anyone else that this piece of shiat, picasso, is considered a great painter?

Goya.. now HE was a painter.
 
2013-03-27 12:20:41 PM
www.oddpic.com

Reminded me of the Shatner pic
 
2013-03-27 12:26:14 PM

dragonchild: IIRC he actually said something to that effect. My sister seriously studied art for a while (she actually made some pretty good shiat that got offers n' stuff) and she assures me Picasso was damn good, but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader's. The most I gathered from my sister's explanation of cubism is that it's not the aesthetics so much as deconstructing art itself. Artists first learn how to paint or sculpt as realistically as possible and Picasso would make a mockery of it, but not by just smearing paint on a canvas.

The best analogy I can think of is challenging a mechanical engineer to design the worst possible car that was street-legal and actually functioned reliably enough to sell (a.k.a. the Homer). You're working within strict constraints you've honed to optimize for all while making a mockery of them in every way your imagination can think of. For example, you'd have to find the worst possible injection & ignition timing that didn't kill the engine at a certain rpm. You'd have to find ghastly trim materials that aged rapidly but don't degrade structurally. The seat would have to be as ugly and uncomfortable as possible without endangering the occupant in a crash. At first it's difficult, but the variations are limitless. It actually wouldn't be any easier than designing a good car but it would take another engineer to actually see what the point was, so it doesn't surprise me that it would take a serious artist to understand what Picasso was doing. Thing is, most people who can afford to buy Picasso's works aren't artists.


So what you're saying is that Picasso paintings should play 'La Cucaracha' when you honk the horn?
 
2013-03-27 12:30:57 PM
ITT: Troglodytes living by the credo "I don't understand it, so that means it sucks."
 
2013-03-27 12:43:16 PM

StrikitRich: [www.oddpic.com image 550x417]

Reminded me of the Shatner pic

 
2013-03-27 12:45:19 PM
Damn, wrong thread and then the iPad hiccuped.
 
2013-03-27 12:50:55 PM
Steve Wynn is legally blind. I wonder if he knows what that painting looks like. I don't know about the hedge fund manager, though.
 
2013-03-27 01:09:38 PM

hitlersbrain: Art is good for separating idiots from their money. Actually... I think that's ALL it's good for.


C'mon now. I need something to cover the holes in the wall from when I smashed my head into it while in a drunken stupor. This was 30 buck well spent.
spacebison.com
 
2013-03-27 01:10:35 PM
Picasso is easy to make fun of, until you look at his realistic drawings and understand that he could draw as well as you can take a photograph. What you see in his wierd stuff is exactly what he wants you to see, and whether you choose to try to understand what he is showing you is up to you.
 
2013-03-27 01:18:06 PM

rainbowbutter: shiat like this is why the rich hire the conservatives to perpetuate the notion of religious morals.  because people who love Jesus don't riot with torches and pitchforks.


You must not be very familiar with European history.
 
2013-03-27 01:27:23 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Picasso is easy to make fun of, until you look at his realistic drawings and understand that he could draw as well as you can take a photograph. What you see in his wierd stuff is exactly what he wants you to see, and whether you choose to try to understand what he is showing you is up to you.


I think at the time that Picasso was first becoming successful, the prevailing idea was still that this newfangled "photography" thing had pretty much made realistic, representational art unnecessary, so human artists might as well go wild and paint pictures that cameras couldn't make.
 
2013-03-27 01:38:24 PM

Publikwerks: "farkface"


considering she's masturbating? Quite fitting.

dragonchild: but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader'


www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net

Picasso painted that when he was 14 or 15. Not much more to do with traditional art when you can do that at 14 or 15. Sure Picasso could've kept doing it, but he wasn't the type to do that. To him that's not being an artist. And once he changed things a little, he then changed them more and more. Also he just kept on creating, one thing after another, he didn't worry about something being good or not, he just went and made it. And eventually he jump around between styles, because why not? There's the old story of the woman who saw one of his paintings and said "Since you can paint so beautifully why do you paint such queer things?" to which Picasso replied "That is why".
 
2013-03-27 01:44:56 PM

dragonchild: farkeruk: The stupidity of the art world. If Picasso had made a dirty protest on a canvas, it would be worth thousands.

IIRC he actually said something to that effect.  My sister seriously studied art for a while (she actually made some pretty good shiat that got offers n' stuff) and she assures me Picasso was damn good, but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader's.  The most I gathered from my sister's explanation of cubism is that it's not the aesthetics so much as deconstructing art itself.  Artists first learn how to paint or sculpt as realistically as possible and Picasso would make a mockery of it, but not by just smearing paint on a canvas.

The best analogy I can think of is challenging a mechanical engineer to design the worst possible car that was street-legal and actually functioned reliably enough to sell (a.k.a. the Homer).  You're working within strict constraints you've honed to optimize for all while making a mockery of them in every way your imagination can think of.  For example, you'd have to find the worst possible injection & ignition timing that didn't kill the engine at a certain rpm.  You'd have to find ghastly trim materials that aged rapidly but don't degrade structurally.  The seat would have to be as ugly and uncomfortable as possible without endangering the occupant in a crash.  At first it's difficult, but the variations are limitless.  It actually wouldn't be any easier than designing a good car but it would take another engineer to actually see what the point was, so it doesn't surprise me that it would take a serious artist to understand what Picasso was doing.  Thing is, most people who can afford to buy Picasso's works aren't artists.


I appreciate this, but it makes my brain cry.

/owns no art
//does have a couple nice framed prints though
 
2013-03-27 01:48:03 PM

WhyteRaven74: Publikwerks: "farkface"

considering she's masturbating? Quite fitting.

dragonchild: but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader'

[www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net image 550x792]

Picasso painted that when he was 14 or 15. Not much more to do with traditional art when you can do that at 14 or 15. Sure Picasso could've kept doing it, but he wasn't the type to do that. To him that's not being an artist. And once he changed things a little, he then changed them more and more. Also he just kept on creating, one thing after another, he didn't worry about something being good or not, he just went and made it. And eventually he jump around between styles, because why not? There's the old story of the woman who saw one of his paintings and said "Since you can paint so beautifully why do you paint such queer things?" to which Picasso replied "That is why".


Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.

Imagine if Freddy Mercury, instead of singing Bohemian Rhapsody had instead, screamed into the microphone which he thing placed in proximity to his buttocks for a profound bout of bean and cheese powered flatulence. That's what Picasso gave the art world.
 
2013-03-27 01:48:55 PM
Holy carp that was typo-laden.. sorry guys.. I rue the lack of an edit button...
 
2013-03-27 01:53:48 PM

Pixiest:
Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.

Imagine if Freddy Mercury, instead of singing Bohemian Rhapsody had instead, screamed into the microphone which he thing placed in proximity to his buttocks for a profound bout of bean and cheese powered flatulence. That's what Picasso gave the art world.


not even f*cking close.

Isaac Asimov quote goes here.
 
2013-03-27 01:54:18 PM

pciszek: newfangled "photography" thing had pretty much made realistic, representational art unnecessary, s


It was on the way out photography or no photography. JMW Turner was doing stuff that wouldn't even make it as impressionism 40 years before Picasso was born. And it wasn't like impressionism came out of nowhere, Turner wasn't the first, artists for decades before him were already getting away from showing things the way they really looked. Already Titian got away from overly precise representation. And then are painters like el Greco.
 
2013-03-27 01:55:37 PM

mekki: Glancing Blow: His "Choices in bar after 10 pm"


I prefer "YMCA's women's locker room"


I believe that's called the YWCA...
 
2013-03-27 02:05:30 PM

Pixiest: Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.


 Picasso never stopped creating beauty, he just had his own ideas of it. Also art isn't about beauty, oh sure you can portray beauty with it, but you don't have to.

www.ibiblio.org

Goya's Third of May, 1808. Not much beauty there. Though if you look at the faces, well people don't actually look like that do they? Clothes don't have flat color tones like that either. And those buildings in the background, just shapes with some vague hint of detail. It's pretty much impressionism. And as for beauty? There is no beauty in a massacre.
 
2013-03-27 02:08:31 PM
"The world doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?"Pablo Picasso
 
2013-03-27 02:11:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: Because People in power are Stupid: sopablo picasso was never called an asshole

came here for that, leaving satisfied


ditto
 
2013-03-27 02:24:22 PM
I like it when people complain about Picasso.  Let's me know not to spend any time trying to converse with them.
 
2013-03-27 02:30:06 PM

hartzdog: I like it when people complain about Picasso.  Let's me know not to spend any time trying to converse with them.


I should take notes and do this in the future.
 
2013-03-27 02:47:02 PM
Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids
 
2013-03-27 02:55:55 PM

WhyteRaven74: Pixiest: Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.

 Picasso never stopped creating beauty, he just had his own ideas of it. Also art isn't about beauty, oh sure you can portray beauty with it, but you don't have to.

[www.ibiblio.org image 850x643]

Goya's Third of May, 1808. Not much beauty there. Though if you look at the faces, well people don't actually look like that do they? Clothes don't have flat color tones like that either. And those buildings in the background, just shapes with some vague hint of detail. It's pretty much impressionism. And as for beauty? There is no beauty in a massacre.


Way to move the goalpost I was referencing your previous post which was well done and beautiful.

However, if you want to talk Goya, his most haunting work, and a better example of art not necessarily being beautiful, is Saturno devorando a su hijo from his Black period.

Neither example make Picasso suck less.
 
2013-03-27 02:57:30 PM
This is artwork people...

qph.is.quoracdn.net
 
2013-03-27 03:03:23 PM
I may be a Picasso complainer, although only because he fits into a large category of art I don't "get."

I want to, I try to think and try to feel when I look at art like that, but it does nothing for me.  I want to be able to feel something, I want art like that to move me, but it just doesn't.  I find Monet and Norman Rockwell beautiful and Pollock goes right over my head.

I have the same thing happen with regards to musical.  A lot of the music I like is what a lot of people call mechanical.  I love a lot of what Liszt wrote that he created in large part simply to show how ridiculous a pianist he was.  I'll always get Chopin and Debussy more than Ravel.  Beethoven- great, Sorabji... what the hell?

Perhaps my lot in life is with the Phillistines and the rubes.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:10 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids


What a talentless hack's work might look like:

talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com

talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com

He was a teenager when he painted these. If you consider this hackery, please feel free to post your work for comparison's sake. You must be breathtakingly accomplished! The comparison works don't even have to be from your teenaged years. Something from whenever the height of your skills would have been will be quite sufficient.

It takes great skill to "break the rules" effectively. It's nice and comfortable, though, to be dismissive of art you don't understand, so a lot of people do that instead of investing a little time to learn about what they're looking at. As a nice bonus, it gives them a nice, albeit illusory, sense of superiority over the artist. It's the art equivalent of pretending you can nail a famous supermodel because you've jacked it to one of her pictures before.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:32 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids


You spelled Pollock wrong.
 
2013-03-27 03:46:13 PM

Precision Boobery: Clemkadidlefark: Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids

You spelled Pollock wrong.


keybord you owe me one.

Nicely played Sir
 
2013-03-27 03:55:14 PM
This is actually one of my favorite works by Picasso - as it really makes the biggest "fark you" statement to the art world that I can imagine. Aside from what I see in it, the fact is - you didn't do it. He did. That is why he's such a badass in my opinion. He had balls bigger than the ones on the bull he rode in on.
tubulocity.com

/hot like a stolen Picasso
 
2013-03-27 03:55:55 PM

BKITU: ITT: Troglodytes living by the credo "I don't understand it, so that means it sucks."


Tell us the deep and spiritual meaning behind the painting in the link then.

Anyway, these paintings are just trading cards for rich farks. They have too much money to stockpile material goods, so they use small but expensive things.
Why is that painting worth $155m? Because rich people say it is. If it wasn't, they'd have a vault like Scrooge McDuck.
 
2013-03-27 03:57:11 PM

BarkingUnicorn: midigod: So Steve Wynn made $60 million extra by putting his elbow through a painting.

That's how rich people roll, I guess.

$45 mil insurance payout.  I wonder what it cost to repair the thing.


Yes, and $16 mil extra from the buyer over the original contracted amount.  That's $61 mil.  The restoration probably cost less than $1 mil.
 
2013-03-27 04:12:59 PM

Pixiest: Imagine if Freddy Mercury, instead of singing Bohemian Rhapsody had instead, screamed into the microphone which he thing placed in proximity to his buttocks for a profound bout of bean and cheese powered flatulence. That's what Picasso gave the art world.


And yet, some rich assed douchebag will buy it and some rich assed douchebag will sell it and keep the game going.
Wynn made his fortune the old fashioned way.
Mob connections.
 
2013-03-27 04:15:16 PM
Modern art is great. It just needs to be tidied up.
 
2013-03-27 04:35:59 PM
I never understood Mondrian art.  Bunch of squares and rectangles with a little color here and there.  OOOOkk....

I once called Matisse a scheister to my girlfriend and she didn't talk to me for 2 days.  I said come on. he had his his students cut out a bunch of shait and he glued them to a big piece of paper and called it art.  people oo and ahh over it and say how great it was.  I guess, if you say so.  I do love monet and Rodin is my absolute favorite.  I have pics of my kids sitting on the Thinker in paris and you could spend hours looking at the gates of hell and not see everything.  Truly a master.
 
2013-03-27 05:13:07 PM
Great, can never unsee that.
 
2013-03-27 05:25:16 PM

special20: This is actually one of my favorite works by Picasso - as it really makes the biggest "fark you" statement to the art world that I can imagine. Aside from what I see in it, the fact is - you didn't do it. He did. That is why he's such a badass in my opinion. He had balls bigger than the ones on the bull he rode in on.
[tubulocity.com image 786x800]

/hot like a stolen Picasso

 I am curious, would you mind elaborating what you mean by this piece being a "fark you" to the art world? I find it a fascinating piece, as I do with almost all of Picasso's work. Is there some outside context to this piece that I am ignorant of? Also, what exactly IS that thing, anyway? The best I could google-foo was a German translation to "Bull," which does resemble that shape.
 
2013-03-27 05:35:20 PM

God-is-a-Taco: BKITU: ITT: Troglodytes living by the credo "I don't understand it, so that means it sucks."

Tell us the deep and spiritual meaning behind the painting in the link then.


No particularly deep and spiritual meaning behind it; it's a lady dreaming of diddling herself, perhaps falling asleep while in the act itself. It's how the act is conveyed that's extraordinary.

For example:
Block out the phallus from her face. You now have a lovely profile of a woman, head lolled back while asleep. Her lips aren't smiling. It's just the blank expression of sleep.

Add the phallus back in, and you now have a cubist-like full face, seeing multiple angles at once. The full face is definitely smiling during the dream.

Notice that halfway through the entire image is a faint wavy line, and that there are hints of that wavy line all they way down to her lap. Everything on the left side of that is the real world. What's on the right is the erotic dream. No smile vs. smile. Dull wood walls vs. beautiful wallpaper. Fully-clothed vs. blouse hanging down and skirt riding up. Red beaded necklace vs. what may be pearls. The phallus is part of the dream, but penetrating the real side. It must be quite real to her at the moment.

Also notice that part of the "real" hand is on the other side of the dream-line -- the thumb and first finger, in particular. This adds some subtle symmetry to the picture. The fully-dreamlike hand that's doing the diddling has six fingers. The real hand is starting to match it as the line between what is dream and what is real is blurred. It's perhaps meaningful that the two places where this blending between real and dream take place are exactly where there is explicit male genitalia and hidden female genitalia.

These are just a few things I picked out in just a few minutes of looking at it. Think of how much subtle information is conveyed with such simplicity of form. That's what's incredible about this piece, and that's what's incredible about Picasso's skill.

Try this: Look at an image of Picasso's "Guernica." See what you can find in it. On the surface, it's a black-and-white jumble of some strange, unsettling images. Then, look into the history of it and some analysis of it, and find additional things that will blow your mind, like the hidden images that are made by combining the plain images on the piece.

Basically, take the time to learn something rather than dismiss out-of-hand.
 
2013-03-27 06:11:42 PM
Still no Divinyls reference.  That's okay.
 
2013-03-27 07:19:54 PM
From the comments:

"Modern art is garbage and an excuse for those with no talent to feel special. Oh, and the idiot who spent that money on the painting, God is so proud of you for wasting his blessing's. All the starving children thank you.

- Roadblock, Charlotte, United States, 27/3/2013 18:46
"


So awesome.
 
2013-03-27 07:24:48 PM
Some people look with their eyes, some people see.
 
2013-03-27 07:37:03 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Picasso is easy to make fun of, until you look at his realistic drawings and understand that he could draw as well as you can take a photograph. What you see in his wierd stuff is exactly what he wants you to see, and whether you choose to try to understand what he is showing you is up to you.



Bullshiat. His most anatomically accurate stuff is still loose and sketchy with poor understanding of contrast or proportion. Just because he can paint better than you doesn't make him a genius.
 
2013-03-27 07:54:47 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Untitled erotic scene by Picasso, 1903. It hangs in Barcelona's Museum of Art. Most likely based on the Japanese painting from a century earlier "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"
 
2013-03-27 07:59:16 PM

BKITU: Clemkadidlefark: Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids

What a talentless hack's work might look like:

[talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com image 300x427]

[talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com image 450x356]

He was a teenager when he painted these. If you consider this hackery, please feel free to post your work for comparison's sake. You must be breathtakingly accomplished! The comparison works don't even have to be from your teenaged years. Something from whenever the height of your skills would have been will be quite sufficient.

It takes great skill to "break the rules" effectively. It's nice and comfortable, though, to be dismissive of art you don't understand, so a lot of people do that instead of investing a little time to learn about what they're looking at. As a nice bonus, it gives them a nice, albeit illusory, sense of superiority over the artist. It's the art equivalent of pretending you can nail a famous supermodel because you've jacked it to one of her pictures before.


Yep, hands, faces, and human anatomy are difficult to illustrate. That's why he's used every trick he could to not have to. Picasso is the Rob Leifeld of modern art. He didn't want to learn how to draw people so he just faked it.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:50 PM
I like Picasso, Rothko, Pollock, Kandinsky, I just do.

It's like the definition of obscenity: if it looks like art, it's art.

Photography: just found out about this guy Miroslav Tichy, an old weird Czech drunk who made homemade pinhole cameras and took pictures of women's legs. This stuff is awesome. Looks like art to me.

My city just put a statue of a fiberglass poodle on a 30 foot stick right down the street from me. Apparently I helped pay for it. It doesn't look like art to me. It looks like a fiberglass poodle on a stick. OH I GET IT. ITS SYMBOLIC. SYMBOLIC OF CRAP.
 
2013-03-27 09:03:33 PM
Oh yeah - Joseph Bueys. I knew some people who went to art school, and they learned about Mr. Bueys.

He used to make stuff out of tallow and felt. One of his sculptures was a 60 ton slab of lard. After the exhibition was over, they asked him to take it home, but he gave it to the museum instead. The guy was a riot.

One of his installations was a bunch of lard pushed into a corner of the museum, you could see the oil running up the wallpaper.

So a leader at this institution I worked at sent out an email one day, asking for ideas for an art display for the entrance to our cubicle farm. They wanted something that was "modern" and "cost effective".

My idea was to buy 24 cans of Crisco, smear all the Crisco into a corner of the room, and then stack the cans of Crisco in the other corner. It would've been a tribute to Bueys and Warhol, less than $50, still with the same "fark you I'm an artist" cachet.

/Philistines. It was a great idea.
 
2013-03-27 11:11:52 PM

Ablejack: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 212x320]
Untitled erotic scene by Picasso, 1903. It hangs in Barcelona's Museum of Art. Most likely based on the Japanese painting from a century earlier "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"


And people say Picasso had no talent. Dude brought tentacle porn to Western civilization!
 
2013-03-27 11:38:58 PM

BKITU: Basically, take the time to learn something rather than dismiss out-of-hand.


Good insights -- a lot of people including myself never saw that dividing line, but it seems obvious in retrospect.

So what's your take on 2001?
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report