Skip to content
 
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.

(Hyperallergic)   Art fakes are inevitable. Why not think of that picture as the sublime masterwork "that Rothko happened not to have got around to?"   (hyperallergic.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

589 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 10 Apr 2021 at 9:41 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



34 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-04-10 8:09:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Dear Leo. Sorry to have missed you. Hope you're well. Sorry about the mess on the panels. Just paint over, there's a good chap. See you earlier. Love, the Doctor.
 
2021-04-10 8:18:12 PM  
Take a pic of it, slap on an NFT, it's worth $398 million dollars.
 
2021-04-10 8:54:39 PM  
My art can't be faked if the only information a fraudster has is 1 photograph.
 
2021-04-10 9:55:40 PM  
I'd like to have a few big and well done fakes. I'd want it marked as such and credited to the artist who reproduced it. Otw, I'm down with some more affordable art from folks I love and know, or good prints. Even if I had the cash, owning 6, 7 or 8 figure art wouldn't hold as much interest to me as funding some artists, some arts education, that kind of art shiat.
 
2021-04-10 10:11:42 PM  
I hate Rothko.
 
2021-04-10 10:18:26 PM  

JammerJim: I hate Rothko.


You sound like fun.
 
2021-04-10 10:28:17 PM  

Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.


Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.
 
2021-04-10 10:47:33 PM  
The funniest thing was hearing about wealthy folks buying expensive works of art and commissioning their own fakes so that they could put the original in a bank safe and still have something at home to look at for which they can pat themselves on the back. Baudrillard would be proud.
 
2021-04-10 11:27:19 PM  
I think the state should pay artists to fake paintings and then sell the fakes to everyone for a reasonable rate.
 
2021-04-10 11:48:49 PM  

Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.


I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?
 
2021-04-10 11:51:25 PM  

JammerJim: I hate Rothko.


Why?
 
2021-04-11 12:02:30 AM  
I'm okay with Rothko. There's a spiritual quality there. Who I don't get is Pollock. Intellectually I get why he's important, but it looks like lazy show. He's supposed to be improvizational, like jazz. But we already have jazz.
 
2021-04-11 12:29:05 AM  
Fellow massholes,a documentary series about the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum is now on netflix.
 
2021-04-11 12:54:30 AM  

seelorq: Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.

I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?


I can see what you're saying about Rothko. Sorry to bash him. Abstract art has rarely appealed to me.
Speaking of glowy- Van Gogh is a favorite. Gustav Klimt. His portraits of women were ethereal, incandescent, and their clothing decorative (if they were clothed), particularly with his use of gold leaf.

Alphonse Mucha- for similar reasons- his work appeals as it is illustrative and decorative. His ability to paint and illustrate is something I've always admired. And I enjoy the Art Nouveau period.
 
2021-04-11 1:01:29 AM  
I love the mindfarking abstractionism of Norman Rockwell.
 
2021-04-11 1:31:28 AM  

Wendigogo: seelorq: Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.

I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?

I can see what you're saying about Rothko. Sorry to bash him. Abstract art has rarely appealed to me.
Speaking of glowy- Van Gogh is a favorite. Gustav Klimt. His portraits of women were ethereal, incandescent, and their clothing decorative (if they were clothed), particularly with his use of gold leaf.

Alphonse Mucha- for similar reasons- his work appeals as it is illustrative and decorative. His ability to paint and illustrate is something I've always admired. And I enjoy the Art Nouveau period.


I'm a big fan of those artists, too. And I'm an art historian...and curious...have you ever studied abstract art, as in a class?

One of my pet peeves with the art world (especially private galleries and some museums) is how (relatively) unsuccessful it's been at winning over fans from outside the art world to Modern art. I get that, if you haven't studied why they do it, it looks strange and unfamiliar and hard to appreciate. And the "Well, my kid could have done that" or even "I could've done that" responses.

Thing is, the famous Modernists were the ones to do it first, bucking convention and tradition. We take it for granted now, but abstract art was once really upsetting to polite society. Shocking, even. In his early career, Monet wasn't given the time of day by the academic art world or mainstream society. The term "Impressionism" is derived from an insult an art critic levied at him. Van Gogh was ignored his entire life. Picasso freaked people the fark out...and he was classically trained to draw in the traditional way, which is one reason why his abstraction is so compelling. He knew how the render the body naturalistically, which helped him to fark it up so well in his later abstract works. And he was inspired to do it by the abstraction in African art that he saw in museums. Now cheap, framed Monet and Picasso prints are in thousands of hotels and restaurants around the world. They are ubiquitous and, for better or worse, have lost their bite because of it.

On the other hand, there is a lot of bad abstract art out there, too, so I see why many folks are turned off by it. It can be very conceptual, and if you are not cognizant of the concept, the final product doesn't easily connect.

Anyway...I'll step off of the soapbox. Thanks for replying.
 
amb
2021-04-11 1:44:29 AM  
Interesting article. Now I want a Qian fake.
 
2021-04-11 2:18:58 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm okay with Rothko. There's a spiritual quality there. Who I don't get is Pollock. Intellectually I get why he's important, but it looks like lazy show. He's supposed to be improvizational, like jazz. But we already have jazz.


Wat? He was literally improvisational, in that he had no plan for how this or that painting should turn out. He created them layer by layer of paint, making decisions on the fly, using a technique nobody had done before. Riffing, one might say. And he loved jazz and bebop. His work was often faked, but not often convincingly, because they're so complicated in their "flow" created by color and his judicious application of paint. He didn't just get hammered and fling paint at a canvas randomly. Although he did get hammered...his compositions--the way he arranged color and form--show that his sense of design was as balanced, one might say, as a good jazz song.

But you can't see music. Well, maybe some substances allow that...but Pollock's paintings are akin, metaphorically, to jazz music. Whereas Coltrane's art is aural jazz, Pollock's is visual.

His work, like jazz music, can be dissonant and hard to love at first, but spend some time learning about him and his technique and you might come  appreciate it a bit more. You may never love it, but you might think he wasn't so lazy after all. A fun intro into his work is the documentary film, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? (2006), about a retired trucker lady in California who bought a painting at a thrift store that might be a multi-million dollar Pollock. Or not. But it's a fun watch in any case. $2 to rent on Amazon. Youtube has it as well.
 
2021-04-11 3:13:01 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm okay with Rothko. There's a spiritual quality there. Who I don't get is Pollock. Intellectually I get why he's important, but it looks like lazy show. He's supposed to be improvizational, like jazz. But we already have jazz.


Pollock and Rothko were literally supported by the CIA, to counter more socially conscious art movements.
 
2021-04-11 4:48:10 AM  

seelorq: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm okay with Rothko. There's a spiritual quality there. Who I don't get is Pollock. Intellectually I get why he's important, but it looks like lazy show. He's supposed to be improvizational, like jazz. But we already have jazz.

Wat? He was literally improvisational, in that he had no plan for how this or that painting should turn out. He created them layer by layer of paint, making decisions on the fly, using a technique nobody had done before. Riffing, one might say. And he loved jazz and bebop. His work was often faked, but not often convincingly, because they're so complicated in their "flow" created by color and his judicious application of paint. He didn't just get hammered and fling paint at a canvas randomly. Although he did get hammered...his compositions--the way he arranged color and form--show that his sense of design was as balanced, one might say, as a good jazz song.

But you can't see music. Well, maybe some substances allow that...but Pollock's paintings are akin, metaphorically, to jazz music. Whereas Coltrane's art is aural jazz, Pollock's is visual.

His work, like jazz music, can be dissonant and hard to love at first, but spend some time learning about him and his technique and you might come  appreciate it a bit more. You may never love it, but you might think he wasn't so lazy after all. A fun intro into his work is the documentary film, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? (2006), about a retired trucker lady in California who bought a painting at a thrift store that might be a multi-million dollar Pollock. Or not. But it's a fun watch in any case. $2 to rent on Amazon. Youtube has it as well.


I appreciate the insight, as I'm sure many others do. You know your stuff and it's compelling reading.

However, when it comes to art most people (myself included) are uneducated simpletons that can't really appreciate the craft behind painting a monochrome square or splattering some paint in random patterns.
If you have to explain why the pretty colors should make you feel nice, I feel it becomes more about the craft than the result itself. In any good artwork, magic should reveal itself even to the unitiated viewer.

/Tl;dr: I knows what I likes
 
2021-04-11 7:51:25 AM  

bisi: However, when it comes to art most people (myself included) are uneducated simpletons that can't really appreciate the craft behind painting a monochrome square or splattering some paint in random patterns.
If you have to explain why the pretty colors should make you feel nice, I feel it becomes more about the craft than the result itself. In any good artwork, magic should reveal itself even to the unitiated viewer.


Why would you even paint a monochrome square, when a computer is going to paint it more accurately? And why would I pay for that when I can do my own in MS Paint in 5 minutes and send it off to someone to print for me for $50?

My take on this is that the modern art is cinema. That's where the best artists are working. And then advertising. The stuff on walls is for people with too much money who just want to show off how rich they are, that they can spend $50K on a painting that looks like something a child did (and in the case of some of Damian Hirst's spin paintings, were done by children).
 
2021-04-11 8:56:11 AM  

padraig: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm okay with Rothko. There's a spiritual quality there. Who I don't get is Pollock. Intellectually I get why he's important, but it looks like lazy show. He's supposed to be improvizational, like jazz. But we already have jazz.


Abstract Expressionism was a shameless, talentless, pretentious scam.  So they scammed the Agency as well as buyers and critics?

Pollock and Rothko were literally supported by the CIA, to counter more socially conscious art movements.

Nonsense. The CIA was countering the almost as dreadful crap the Soviet Union was pushing on the world.  Losers with neither taste in art nor the common sense to see that communism was a fraud were eating that pig shiate up and begging for more.
 
2021-04-11 9:39:50 AM  
trick question, rothko never made a sublime masterwork
 
2021-04-11 10:02:56 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size


/it is.
 
2021-04-11 1:06:00 PM  

seelorq: Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.

I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?


Fresh out of school I worked in a  museum.  They did a Rothko retrospective.  There were visitors who swooned in front of some of his paintings.  They literally got dizzy and lightheaded, overwhelmed by the work.  I never had a reaction like that to a Rothko, Kiefer maybe.  However, as a colorist in my own artwork, I rank Marcus Rothkowitz at the very top of artists who say the most with the least.
 
2021-04-11 1:12:37 PM  
And, John Coltrane is to Jackson Pollock as Miles Davis is to Mark Rothko.
 
2021-04-11 2:22:38 PM  

seelorq: Wendigogo: seelorq: Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.

I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?

I can see what you're saying about Rothko. Sorry to bash him. Abstract art has rarely appealed to me.
Speaking of glowy- Van Gogh is a favorite. Gustav Klimt. His portraits of women were ethereal, incandescent, and their clothing decorative (if they were clothed), particularly with his use of gold leaf.

Alphonse Mucha- for similar reasons- his work appeals as it is illustrative and decorative. His ability to paint and illustrate is something I've always admired. And I enjoy the Art Nouveau period.

I'm a big fan of those artists, too. And I'm an art historian...and curious...have you ever studied abstract art, as in a class?

One of my pet peeves with the art world (especially private galleries and some museums) is how (relatively) unsuccessful it's been at winning over fans from outside the art world to Modern art. I get that, if you haven't studied why they do it, it looks strange and unfamiliar and hard to appreciate. And the "Well, my kid could have done that" or even "I could've done that" responses.

Thing is, the famous Modernists were the ones to do it first, bucking convention and tradition. We take it for granted now, but abstract art was once really upsetting to polite society. Shocking, even. In his early career, Monet wasn't given the time of day by the academic art world or mainstream society. The term "Impressionism" is derived from an insult an art critic levied at him. Van Gogh was ignored his entire life. Picasso freaked people the fark out...and he was classically trained to draw in the traditional way, which is one reason why his abstraction is so compelling. He knew how the render the body naturalistically, which helped him to fark it up so well in his later abstract works. And he was inspired to do it by the abstraction in African art that he saw in museums. Now cheap, framed Monet and Picasso prints are in thousands of hotels and restaurants around the world. They are ubiquitous and, for better or worse, have lost their bite because of it.

On the other hand, there is a lot of bad abstract art out there, too, so I see why many folks are turned off by it. It can be very conceptual, and if you are not cognizant of the concept, the final product doesn't easily connect.

Anyway...I'll step off of the soapbox. Thanks for replying.


I did study Modern Art in college, though not to any great length, as it was only a small part of the curriculum and I had no interest in going beyond what was required. We were encouraged to visit local museums that showcased modern art. I absolutely loved those visits. Going to art museums is almost a religious experience for me, whether it's viewing art from the Masters or Modern Art or anything in between.

I studied illustration in school. So I have an appreciation for design as well as what we called 2D. There was almost an animosity between our departments. It was bizarre. But having seen what is out there in the fine art world, there is a palpable disdain for illustrators, as they are sometimes not seen as "real artists" by other painters.

I also recall one fellow student, a 2D major, creating what looked like brown sludge seeping from the ceiling of one of the art rooms. This was their thesis. Apparently art schools create a lot of shiat. This isn't a secret. And it saddened me to know that after four years, that was this student's takeaway and they sought to be recognized for it. This was the culmination of all their hard work? This is what they paid tuition for? Just idiotic and pointless, in my opinion. Essentially sneering  and thumbing your nose at the institution that sought to help you grow as an artist isn't a good look. It'd be interesting to know what they've been doing with their time lately. 

Back to the museum thing- I recall reading mission statements of these modern artists. As you're familiar with, the artist's intent, etc. As an illustrator, I learned that if you have to explain your work, you failed. The work must tell the story. I understand that learning of an artist's vision can be very educational, satisfying, and even necessary. It can also lend itself to an air of self-importance and sometimes narcissism with the artist making their case to be understood and appreciated. In the circles I've run in with illustrators, they are the most humble, unassuming, down to earth people who just DO. They are masterful in their own right and work hard, creating often beautiful, thought-provoking art.

That being said, if I was told to go to a museum and look at a gold-plated toilet hanging on a wall. I'd probably be less likely to consider the artist's vision, roll my eyes and move on.
 
2021-04-11 3:03:49 PM  

Wendigogo: seelorq: Wendigogo: seelorq: Wendigogo: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

Why? Because he has an opinion of an artist?

I don't like Rothko's work either. It's the most uninspired, overrated crap I've ever seen. Most of it looks like poorly taped off paint samples.

I didn't love every Rothko painting I've seen, but some of them...they just glow. And I happen to like things that glow.

So I'd like to know, who are some of your favorite painters?

I can see what you're saying about Rothko. Sorry to bash him. Abstract art has rarely appealed to me.
Speaking of glowy- Van Gogh is a favorite. Gustav Klimt. His portraits of women were ethereal, incandescent, and their clothing decorative (if they were clothed), particularly with his use of gold leaf.

Alphonse Mucha- for similar reasons- his work appeals as it is illustrative and decorative. His ability to paint and illustrate is something I've always admired. And I enjoy the Art Nouveau period.

I'm a big fan of those artists, too. And I'm an art historian...and curious...have you ever studied abstract art, as in a class?

One of my pet peeves with the art world (especially private galleries and some museums) is how (relatively) unsuccessful it's been at winning over fans from outside the art world to Modern art. I get that, if you haven't studied why they do it, it looks strange and unfamiliar and hard to appreciate. And the "Well, my kid could have done that" or even "I could've done that" responses.

Thing is, the famous Modernists were the ones to do it first, bucking convention and tradition. We take it for granted now, but abstract art was once really upsetting to polite society. Shocking, even. In his early career, Monet wasn't given the time of day by the academic art world or mainstream society. The term "Impressionism" is derived from an insult an art critic levied at him. Van Gogh was ignored his entire life. Picasso freaked people the fark out...and he was classically trained to draw in the traditional way, which is one reason why his abstraction is so compelling. He knew how the render the body naturalistically, which helped him to fark it up so well in his later abstract works. And he was inspired to do it by the abstraction in African art that he saw in museums. Now cheap, framed Monet and Picasso prints are in thousands of hotels and restaurants around the world. They are ubiquitous and, for better or worse, have lost their bite because of it.

On the other hand, there is a lot of bad abstract art out there, too, so I see why many folks are turned off by it. It can be very conceptual, and if you are not cognizant of the concept, the final product doesn't easily connect.

Anyway...I'll step off of the soapbox. Thanks for replying.

I did study Modern Art in college, though not to any great length, as it was only a small part of the curriculum and I had no interest in going beyond what was required. We were encouraged to visit local museums that showcased modern art. I absolutely loved those visits. Going to art museums is almost a religious experience for me, whether it's viewing art from the Masters or Modern Art or anything in between.

I studied illustration in school. So I have an appreciation for design as well as what we called 2D. There was almost an animosity between our departments. It was bizarre. But having seen what is out there in the fine art world, there is a palpable disdain for illustrators, as they are sometimes not seen as "real artists" by other painters.

I also recall one fellow student, a 2D major, creating what looked like brown sludge seeping from the ceiling of one of the art rooms. This was their thesis. Apparently art schools create a lot of shiat. This isn't a secret. And it saddened me to know that after four years, that was this student's takeaway and they sought to be recognized for it. This was the culmination of all their hard work? This is what they paid tuition for? Just idiotic and pointless, in my opinion. Essentially sneering  and thumbing your nose at the institution that sought to help you grow as an artist isn't a good look. It'd be interesting to know what they've been doing with their time lately. 

Back to the museum thing- I recall reading mission statements of these modern artists. As you're familiar with, the artist's intent, etc. As an illustrator, I learned that if you have to explain your work, you failed. The work must tell the story. I understand that learning of an artist's vision can be very educational, satisfying, and even necessary. It can also lend itself to an air of self-importance and sometimes narcissism with the artist making their case to be understood and appreciated. In the circles I've run in with illustrators, they are the most humble, unassuming, down to earth people who just DO. They are masterful in their own right and work hard, creating often beautiful, thought-provoking art.

That being said, if I was told to go to a museum and look at a gold-plated toilet hanging on a wall. I'd probably be less likely to consider the artist's vision, roll my eyes and move on.


Rothko wrote extensively on critical issues in then-contemporary art.  It's hard to believe that was 70 years ago.  In any event, he drew a distinction between the subject matter of an artwork, that which might be represented by an image, and the subject of the artwork, that being the method and choice of the artist to use specific expressive devices in the making of the work.  It's an approach that helps address the confusion many viewers feel when they encounter an artwork without context, particularly mid to late 20th century modernists.
 
2021-04-11 4:25:36 PM  
bisi:I appreciate the insight, as I'm sure many others do. You know your stuff and it's compelling reading.

However, when it comes to art most people (myself included) are uneducated simpletons that can't really appreciate the craft behind painting a monochrome square or splattering some paint in random pat ...


Fark user imageView Full Size


Don't be Roy.
 
2021-04-11 4:54:08 PM  
As to Rothko? I lived a few hundred feet from the Rothko chapel and never went. I had a girlfriend who dragged me to the PRIVATE museum on which ground it sets. When I saw the amazing photos of the interior, and wanted to visit after having moved out of state it had closed for a couple years worth of renovations. I hope to see it next time I'm back. His stuff, like every artist, is a mixed bag, but the chapel is gorgeous in photos
 
2021-04-11 5:59:05 PM  

Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.


seelorq: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

Why?


I confess that my reaction to Rothko was strongly influenced by my first exposure, which was via the Rothko Chapel in Houston. I found it a horrid hunk of Brutalistic slabs, and the paintings inside, being basically shades of black, were extremely off-putting. He's got some stuff I'm fine with, so I guess hate was a little too strong there, but that chapel...<shudder>.
 
2021-04-11 8:46:01 PM  

JammerJim: Truthman: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

You sound like fun.

seelorq: JammerJim: I hate Rothko.

Why?

I confess that my reaction to Rothko was strongly influenced by my first exposure, which was via the Rothko Chapel in Houston. I found it a horrid hunk of Brutalistic slabs, and the paintings inside, being basically shades of black, were extremely off-putting. He's got some stuff I'm fine with, so I guess hate was a little too strong there, but that chapel...<shudder>.


Ha! I get people not loving a lot of stuff called brutalist architecture. I love much of it. Fell in love with a building I went to school and worked in for a few years during undergrad.
 
2021-04-11 11:17:42 PM  

seelorq: bisi:I appreciate the insight, as I'm sure many others do. You know your stuff and it's compelling reading.

However, when it comes to art most people (myself included) are uneducated simpletons that can't really appreciate the craft behind painting a monochrome square or splattering some paint in random pat ...

[Fark user image image 405x540]

Don't be Roy.


Whatever that's supposed to tell me.
 
2021-04-12 8:13:32 AM  

bisi: seelorq: bisi:I appreciate the insight, as I'm sure many others do. You know your stuff and it's compelling reading.

However, when it comes to art most people (myself included) are uneducated simpletons that can't really appreciate the craft behind painting a monochrome square or splattering some paint in random pat ...

[Fark user image image 405x540]

Don't be Roy.

Whatever that's supposed to tell me.


The problem with Abstract Expressionism in a nutshell.
The "artist" spends more time explaining how a bourgeois oaf like you will never really understand their lofty and special feelings about the true meaning of their work than they took to paint it.
(Spoiler: this is a lie on every level; the "true" meaning of their work was "it got me attention and money".)
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.