Art is composed of a couple things. Aesthetic, skill, and concept are generally the things people look at when deciding if the like or don't like something. If you read about the history of movements like pollocks or rothkos you will understand that conceptually they were talented and affected the way people viewed art. However, you could argue that they are ugly and easy to paint. If you were to recreate and sell a pollock today I would say it is probably worthless in all departments, but it wasn't about making money when it was first thought up. I don't personally care for pollock, rothko, duchamp, or other artists people have these questions about, but there is objective value in their work. Looking at a conceptual piece while only searching for aesthetic value is the equivalent of reading a book to hear music. The reason a pollock is expensive is the same reason any historically relevant thing is expensive.
Why the hell is splashes of paint worth millions?
← View full post
Art is composed of a couple things. Aesthetic, skill, and concept are generally the things people look at when deciding if the like or don't like something. If you read about the history of movements like pollocks or rothkos you will understand that conceptually they were talented and affected the way people viewed art. However, you could argue that they are ugly and easy to paint. If you were to recreate and sell a pollock today I would say it is probably worthless in all departments, but it wasn't about making money when it was first thought up. I don't personally care for pollock, rothko, duchamp, or other artists people have these questions about, but there is objective value in their work. Looking at a conceptual piece while only searching for aesthetic value is the equivalent of reading a book to hear music. The reason a pollock is expensive is the same reason any historically relevant thing is expensive.