How do we draw a line between being “artistic” and being ridiculous for the sake of novelty?


1|0
4|5

Most Helpful Guy

  • Yes I agree - I presume we are talking modern art - I sneezed in a hankie today, I think I will call it modern art at sell it for ten million dollars.
    I kid you not this sold for 86.5 million dollars
    www.galleryintell.com/.../...-Yellow-1961-2012.jpg

    0|0
    0|0
    • Damn, now I gotta go find a new way to make a painting thats basically just two colors, on a canvas and sell it

    • Show All
    • @Waffles731 Rothko killed himself almost 50 years ago. That painting sold at auction for 87 million 4 years ago. He worked from his garage and made his primary living as an art teacher.

      He's wasn't fleecing anyone.

    • @Dandeus Well then, maybe there was a reason he didn't make any money in life.

Most Helpful Girl

What Guys Said 4

  • I think its all about status. Whether or not something is art depends on the status and reputation of the creator.

    0|0
    0|0
  • When someone puts a urinal on a wall in a gallery and calls it art (which really did happen)

    0|0
    0|0
  • Novelty is overrated. Art can be interesting, and should be aesthetically engaging. If it's not, it's crap, whether its new or not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • look at ridiculous idiots like Lady Gaga or Kesha... you have your answer

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

Loading...