Blog #7 Assignment

Contemporary society's value of an artwork, can be both fair yet unfair. Fair, for the ancient artwork, unfair for the random or dull paintings that can cost millions of dollars. I agree that ancient artwork does deserve it's given price however, the newer and strange artwork doesn't deserve to have a price so high, and honestly some of the works don't even deserve to be in a museum. I feel like the amount of notable effort and uniqueness that a painting has or if it's an artwork from long ago, those deserve the highest prices. I've seen artwork of a some canvas and a big dot in the center and a curved line passing by it, costing up to 3 million dollars, and that's sheer insanity.

Neo-Surrealism. Expiatory Temple.This is modern art. THIS is artwork I'd pay thousands, if I have to, for. If I could choose an appropriate price I'd go for 2-9 thousand, or maybe even 10 thousand, course if I had the money for it, I'd pay that price for something so perfect to me. It'd look perfect for my home and it just feels like something I would never get my eyes off of. It gives off a cooling and peaceful sensation.

online assignment

Based on the reading I feel that the more money you got the more you don’t really connect to a art piece. I say this because I believe that rich people only by pieces of art only because they feel is modern and unique. But in my eyes I believe that you should buy an art piece because you can connect to it and it created an aesthetic emotion. In my opinion the value of an art work should be determined by how rare it is. I also believe that the value should be determined by the how big the piece of art is and how it’s created, such as technique, the use of different colors, and the type of art it is. The piece of art I chose is really interesting to me because it looks like different people intertwined together and the use of warm and cool colors make it hard for you not to look at it. How much I would pay for it? It all depends on how economically stabled I am. If I am economically stabled I would pay at most $1,500 because it really catches my eye and I feel connected to it. But if I don’t have a lot of money I would pay $300-$600. I feel that anybody can relate to any piece of art and if you do that should be what determines how much you should pay for it. Everybody will experience a different emotion to a piece of art and some may experience the same one that’s why some works of art are auctioned and sold for a lot of money.

Online Class answers 2 questions

1.            Media impacts the art industries today by over pricing tags on specific art of an artist. Filthy and or Rich millionaires to billionaires will defiantly buy a $100,000 painting. History of an artist also molds contemporary society’s value of an artwork by him or her producing what appeals to the bidder or buyer with lots of pocket money. I agree in the fact that an artist must make a living by selling it’s own genuine and personal art work. But I question the business industries’ methods of how it sells art and how it influence the art industry into an informal art commodity.

2.            Does it matter who made it? Yes it does, but is it the artist’s name that gives an art its true value? Personally art should not just be admired but also value it’s significant forms. The perception that evokes aesthetic emotions are the true value of a painting, sculpture, and drawing. These elements should determine the value of an art work.

On a rare occasion, with the money I have now I would buy a painting around $150 by some underground artist or even a friend's painting if it was significant enough to me. I would buy this painting for $50 Designed by JR

How much do you think the value of this painting?

           

Blog post #7/ Online assignment

Today's art society has taken an obvious discourse. Today the value of an artwork is shaped by the artist popularity. The price of the piece of art has absolutely nothing to do with its actual artistic quality. editor and critiques have the common goal of increasing the market of specific types of art and artists. This phenomenon surely makes many artist question their own ability. I imagine them asking themselves, Why Francis Bacon and not me? This is a very good question. Does Francis Bacon put more effort? Is his work better quality? Does it represent something of more significance? In my opinion, it doesn't. I solely believe that an artworks price should depend of amount of evident effort, the value of mediums, overall quality. I believe that during an auction, the artist's name should only be given to the buyer after the purchase has been made. This would prevent buyers from purchasing a work solely due to the artist's popularity, and make them appreciate the style and quality.

Here is a work by Ramon Peralta, a Dominican born artist and close family friend. The monochromatic oil painting was brought about by Peralta's interest in paper and the way breeze effects it. Personally I don't know if any artwork is worth more than 5k. Then again if Francis Bacon got 142.4 million for his work of art, there is no reason why this one can't in my opinion. 

online class

lauren melendez
may 27-2014

The way i understanding these two articles are I believe that art has lost its true meaning. Now a days people can just claim that there an artist because the made something that they think is a work of art. I found both of these articles interesting. from what i understand our  generation well is the 1% who basically decided the value of art. i feel know a days with social media and everyone no longer wanting to truly original once someone say that this work of art is amazing even joins the ban wagon and agree without even truly looking at it too see if it's a good piece of art. I feel we should determine the value of a piece art, even though we all don't have the same option on art. the amount of money id pay for a piece of art if it was done by my favorite artist Bansky id pay a good amount of money for one of his art works.  

Online Assignment

     The value of artworks are primarily based on who painted it and how much someone is willing to buy it for. Francis Bacon's work is worth so much because he is on the list of artists who are considered important in the 20th century and have a limited selection. How does an artist get on that list? That is decided by the art industry & society and their love for the artist's work. Taking into consideration that to the wealthy community, the price they pay for expensive paintings are probably like pocket change to them. It just seems a lot to us, but not to billionaires, which is why they don't mind spending a few of their bucks on something valuable. I don't agree however, that ridiculous paintings and art pieces should be priced at such a high amount. I'd say if anyone can do that, it shouldn't be worth much because it can easily be duplicated.

     Artists that work on art pieces with significant amount of detail and they put their heart and soul and leave a valuable message in it should get more money than the crap that the wealthy buy today. The value of an artwork should be determined by difficulty of creating it, and how powerful the message is.

Subway by Sam Carlson

I would pay a good amount to own this piece of work because the way the artist constructed it is absolutely brilliant. The use of the paint strokes make it seem like the train is in movement. The colors used are a perfect fit. It is also relative to me, and everybody living in New York, displaying a message of isolation in society, how people always seem lonely while riding the train, or feel lonely.

Blog Post #7

Ben Weiner: Paintings of Paint

Throughout the trips I have taken through this course I’ve somehow always had the same question in the back of my head…”What makes the work of art so important and expensive?” Yes there are some painting that when one takes a look at you can tell it is one of a kind, but then their are those that look like something you yourself can create. So why that work of art? Maureen Callahan makes a point in saying that the reason why such works of art are so expensive is because of the name that goes attached to the work of art. Todays buyers only look at the artist name and not the actual work of art. Art seems to have become a game of “popularity”. Buyers only want what is popular and modern and in return popular museums like the MoMa and the Guggenheim mostly display what is “popular”. Some artist are even using their staff to produce their artwork but then end up taking the credit and millions of dollars for it, which I find completely unfair. If collectors are spending millions of dollars on these works of art shouldn’t they come directly from the artist, but in a way is it just bad karma to the millionaires who spent all these dollars on those pieces for absolutely no reason? Whatever the case is, when it comes to art I personally believe art collectors have become passive consumers, they will just follow the current trend. If you see a piece of work you like and it captivates your attention I believe it has value. Buyers should buy what they like not what others tell them they should buy. If a person is going to spend a large amount of money on something it should be spent on something that they will enjoy and something they value. 

One piece of artwork that I would love to purchase is by artist Ben Weiner's, “Painting of Paint”. I find this work of art to be different than anything I have ever seen, the vibrant colors and the realistic overall feel on the painting makes it all the more mesmerizing.

From my understanding of these two articles, I believe art has lost its true value. Now a days people can just throw a label on anything an call it "Art". Also we let ourselves be influenced by what is popular , and by who has it. Wealthy people spend ridiculous amounts of money on ridiculous art work. I personally believe that they don't even appreciate the art, they just compete for who can pay the most. I think that for something to be art, it would have to have meaning ,and depict a certain feeling or connection to the viewer. Also things that are part of history I would call art. They carry so much worth because they take us back in time. What I've come to conclude is that's when it comes to art there are infinite amounts of interpretations. Whether arts is beautiful and has has meaning or if art means many 0's . We all have different interpretations.  The type of art I would by would be something that intrigues me and makes me question what it is? What is means? But most of all that is full of colors and forms and that I instantly find it amazing.

Daniel Ambia
Blog Post 7
The Value of Contemporary Art

            I found both of these articles interesting and a little aggravating. Cotter discusses the bitter truths about the art industry vs. the art world and Callahan discusses essentially the .00001% obsession with being cool by consumption. In philosophy we read an essay about the philosopher Adorno's theory concerning the commodification of popular music but I believe his theory can also be transferred to the visual art world. In a capitalist society art has become a commodity. Apparently what decides the monetary value of art has not changed over the centuries except it's no longer Emperors and Kings art collections but collections of the contemporary ruling class, the uber wealthy. It appears the wealthy are still able to decide the monetary value of art based on their personal preferences.
             In my opinion there are some artifacts that should retain a relatively high value, historical pieces perhaps that have been refined and serve as a time capsule for our past as human beings. On the other hand, if a billionaire wishes to spend millions of dollars on a sculpture of a balloon animal or a dead tree then I suppose more power to the artist for convincing the billionaire to write the check. The value of art should ultimately be decided by the artist. If the artist has put in the work and time on a piece, then naturally they should be able to demand what they see a fitting price once the piece goes on the market. If the consumer is touched by the piece and wants to purchase it then hopefully the artist and the consumer can come to some type of agreement. I don't know enough about the art world to say whether or not a piece should be worth $50,000,000. Maybe the artist who uprooted and made the dead tree theirs has every right to demand what they will.
               I like to look at art, I like going to museums and I definitely have a few reproductions hanging in my apartment which I may have paid at the most 25.00 for. But as far as purchasing an original piece I would have to say my favorite artist is my son Romero. He creates original work almost daily and I put most of it up on the refrigerator. To me his artwork is priceless ;).

Online Assignment Blog

William Powhida

From what I understood from the readings, or at least the first part, it is this generation’s one percent, who basically decided the value of artwork. It sort of works full circle in a way, where people with money, believe they know what modern art is; they pay ridiculous amounts of money for mediocre pieces of art. This in turn effects the art market by making popular what many don’t find esthetically pleasing but however do find “artsy”. This then affects galleries, where the majority of art pieces in galleries are aimed towards those same upper class individuals, where the priority of these galleries is to sell. The idea here is to buy pieces that are selling, popular mainstream pieces, overpricing the bad art at times and centering the rest of your gallery on that idea.

This affects many artists, especially in a city like New York, where artist now have to succumb and produce mainstream art in order to survive in the artwork and pay the rent. My initial impression was that, the artist themselves set the prices of artwork, which I believe is true, but it is still dictated by the current art market. The process being that the artist has a piece of art that he feels should sell for one thousand dollars. However the current upper class values it at a much lower price, because the piece isn’t popular right now; mainstream. Or that same wealthy class doesn’t classify that piece under their standard of “modern” or “artsy”.  It’s definitely hard to say that I fully disagree, because can you really blame them for trying to make money; everyone in the end is trying to make a buck. It all comes down to who takes advantage of the current situation, however it does suck that I have to go to pay sometimes sixteen dollars for galleries and museums to have to see crap art. Not that all the artwork is bad but some pieces now look as if a six year old could have made it, but to each it’s own. When it comes to determining the value [price] of artwork, there are many factors; I don’t believe there is one overall deciding factor. Also with the current idea of what is “hot in the market”, I don’t see any other way to price art rather then the current system. For me it’s hard to stray away from the idea of supply and demand, the more popular the item [idea of art], the higher the price. I do think the message of the art should play a role, somewhere, messages of awareness, topic along those lines, referring to the projects we did, I’d pay good money for pieces like those.

I think art by William Powhida, would be art I would pay good money for, of course I’m not trying to spend thousands of dollars but I would pay a fair amount. In fact I don’t think I would ever pay over one thousand for a piece of art unless it was for charity or had to do with animals. The reason I would pay for work by Powhida is because I’ve heard him speak, heard the genuineness of his art. His art is so blunt and he shows no fear, and he becomes even more empowered with all the criticism that he gets. He makes some difference, starts some controversy in the art world, when he’s attacking the upper class or people in important positions. Besides, his work makes me laugh, which is awesome, especially if I’m going to hang these pieces up.