Paging Ivan Reid

You sure your gaff's still there?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm

;^)

 

Nigel Eaton says...

At least some good came of an earlier fire

"Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
modern art."

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo

Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
eh?

 

Nigel Eaton says...

I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
catch fire tbh.

 

Some of which, although deemed as being irreplaceable, can be
reproduced to the previous standard.

How does that work then? Does it mean the value of the second article,
being a copy, is worth a lot less. Or will the try to convince us that
as it is an identical replica to the original then it is worth just as
much, if not more?

I for one was never aware that if I had a bath that leaked and managed
to contain a small amount of water within it then I had a work of art.

Art is just...wierd.

Unless you look at contemporary art, which is obviously different.

And as I'm now clearly wittering away I think I'll shut up.

--
Lesley
CBR600 FW
SBS#11[with oak-leaf cluster]
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally

Un-cork me to reply

 

Lozzo wrote in

I'd love to be an insurance assessor on that job.

"Mr Saatchi, you paid £3,000,000 for this work of art. Well, I've studied
the description and photographs and I can source the materials at Makro for
£17.50. I have statements from 3 leading academics: assembly into a perfect
facsimile should take at most 35 mins. Based on this information, would you
care to revise your claim?"

 

right, that's enough.

How much do you think - for example - the original canvas and paints
cost that now form the Van Gogh's "Sunflowers". Or Dali's "Persistence
of Memory".

So, they're only worth a few quid each then?

 

I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.

Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.

 

says...

She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
her bedroom.

 

Good point. What the **** do Charles Saatchi and co. know about art.
More money than sence, eh?

 

"I don't understand it, so it must be shit"

 

darsy wrote in

I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.

 

says...

I know you're taking the piss, but that is exactly how I feel about
modern art. It is invariably bought by people with no taste and a lot of
money to burn.

It's a fashion thing IYAM. It's trendy to be a 'modern art' collector,
and some people will go to any lengths to be seen to be trendy.

Tracey Emin, Damien Hurst et al must be laughing all the way to the
bank.

 

you seemed to be agreeing with the "I don't understand modern art so
it must be shit" camp.

 

"And I'll tell you who else I had on the back of my cab. That Jim Davidson.
Now there's a proper comedian, none of yer alternative student rubbish...."

 

How can you say 'no taste'? You don't understand their taste and that's
about it. I'm guessing they like to be challenged and see thought
provoking stuff but it's only a guess.

I don't think that's true for Charles Saatchi. I think you're a long
way off.

If I was looking for motives I'd suggest it was boosting peoples egos by
allowing them to commission modern artists but it's not because they
'want to be trendy'.

Some of them might even be doing it for selfless motives since they
wanted to make art more publically available.

Heard Emin interviewed yesterday; she didn't seem to be laughing a lot.
Sure though, they've got significant amounts of cash.

 

darsy wrote in

No. I'm hoping that the economic rationality of the insurance cos. will
force some debate over the "art market".

David Aaranovitch said in The Observer "It was a terrible week for Britart.
But if we really needed all this stuff, what was it doing in a
warehouse?....It's too big, too valuable, too friable to be left where
people can see it."

It's an interesting article that raises quite a few questions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1228014,00.html

 

Patent nonsense. It'd be equally absurd to suggest that the only way to
appreciate modern art is to see it in exactly the same way as the original
artist.

It's all open to personal interpretation and criticism. But "it's all
shit" isn't criticism, it's pure philistinism.

Now if you'd suggested Jackson Pollock was a fucking con artist, I'd
not hesitate to agree

 

Like whisky then, for example?

 

What is there to "understand" about an unmade bed? Or a pile of
tyres, or bricks for that matter?