And pollock. There was a lady a while back that supposedly found a pollock at a thrift shop but nobody knew if it was authentic or not. The difference between $20 and $40,000,000 relies entirely on who really painted it. Art seems to be so much based off of reputation and that's why I don't get it.
Well, a lot it. An artist will make a few wonderful pieces and become famous and then the rest of their pieces could be crap, but because they had those other great works, everyone wants them. Besides, you can always claim that the critics don't understand the deep meaning in your art in order to make it look less ridiculous.
I'm not saying this to bash art, I happen to love art. But I see people freaking out over sketches by Van Gogh or Leonardo da Vinci, and while I love them and think they're fabulous artists, their sketches are hardly anything to freak out over. It really is reputation.
I mean, it's like when you watch movies or TV and you see all the cliche rich people and before they'll walk right by a piece of art in an auction, but months later, once the artist has made a name for him or herself, they're practically falling over each other to get the piece.
I kinda understand. A lot of it is about building a respectable collection and watching it appreciate over the years. Sell it at auction many years later and the cycle starts over. That's the only part I think I understand.
*rolls around in money while laughing*
I'm not saying this to bash art, I happen to love art. But I see people freaking out over sketches by Van Gogh or Leonardo da Vinci, and while I love them and think they're fabulous artists, their sketches are hardly anything to freak out over. It really is reputation.
I mean, it's like when you watch movies or TV and you see all the cliche rich people and before they'll walk right by a piece of art in an auction, but months later, once the artist has made a name for him or herself, they're practically falling over each other to get the piece.