What examples of fine art are as simple and easy to draw

File: orange-and-yellow.jpg (101KB, 801x1036px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 801x1036px

Untitled (Yellow, Orange, Yellow, Light Orange) sold for $36.5 million in New York.

>>2691744
I don't think you understand fine art or cartoon characters

File: Mondrian_Composition-No.-III-Composition-with-Red-Blue-Yellow-and-Black.jpg (2MB, 2872x2861px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2872x2861px

Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow, 1930 by Piet Mondrian sold for $50.6 million in 2015

File: brancusi_z_black-768x960.jpg (29KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 768x960px

Constantin Brancusi’s La muse endormie I (1909–10/executed 1912) sold for $9.13 million

File: MODIGLIANI_Portrait-de-Béatrice-Hastings-718x1024.jpg (125KB, 718x1024px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 718x1024px

Amedeo Modigliani’s Beatrice Hastings (1916), sold for $16.1 million.

File: La_danse_(I)_by_Matisse.jpg (265KB, 1599x1060px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1599x1060px

La Danse by Matisse

File: Newman-Onement_1.jpg (11KB, 265x450px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 265x450px

Barnett Newman, Onement 1, 1948 Currently on display in the Museum of Modern Art

File: 2.408.904.jpg (99KB, 1353x940px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1353x940px

Franz Kline's untitled black and white canvas from 1957 sold for $40.4 million in 2012

File: orange-red-yellow.jpg (234KB, 1777x2036px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1777x2036px

Mark Rothko's 1961 painting "Orange, Red, Yellow" sold for $86.9 million in 2012

>>2691788
I like this one, from the thumb i can feel some sort of perspective. Still not worth 40 million tho

>>2691821
no piece of art is objectively worth millions of dollars. it's all about the market and what people are willing to spend. whatever the work, it just hangs on a wall in the end, appreciating in monetary value but having no intrinsic value itself.

Let's see y'all paint something original using the same scale and materials that these artists were working with. I'll be waiting to see your results. :)

>>2691888
this t b h

Mondrian
>>2691773
could probably be imitated fairly easily.

And personally I think Matisse made a lot of shit, including the dance
>>2691778

Newman is a hack
>>2691785

And Kline is occasionally boring
>>2691788
but I doubt most people here could make similar work on that scale and have the same vitality.

Rothko is hugely overrated imo
>>2691792
>>2691768
but I doubt anyone here could achieve the subtle effects of color he manages with oil paint. most here don't even paint in oil

And Modigliani? I hate his style, but there's not a single person on this board that can do what he does, not even half as well as he does it.
>>2691776

And Brancusi
>>2691775
is a fucking boss, again this is just equating minimalism with effortless, which isn't (always) the case

>>2691770
Shut up idiot.

>>2691880
>objectively worth millions of dollars. it's all about the market and what people are willing to spend

thats exactly the object worth of a thing though, how much people are willing to spend. There is no "objective value" different than that

>>2691792
This is always the one people meme about, but they've never actually looked at the piece in person

File: 800px-Suprematist_Composition_-_Kazimir_Malevich - Copy.jpg (129KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x1000px

>>2691899
Modern art is still emotionless garbage. Mere art without the contents of actual display.

>>2692884
>the ''they've never actually looked at the piece in person'' meme

File: 123465532661.jpg (76KB, 764x1280px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 764x1280px

>>2692884
>they've never actually looked at the piece in person

I've seen pic-related in person. I always held off judgement due to listening to people like you. It was terribly underwhelming.

>>2693154
>Mere art without the contents of actual display.
You tried to sound deep but it didn't work

>>2691880
>it's all about the market and what people are willing to spend.

Nigga it's all about money laundering.

>>2694014
Not mutually exclusive. It's a market, like any other, and people will work it to their advantage.

>>2693154
Way to make me fucking angry with this whole thread.
Except this one. I like this one.

People who like modern art should be killed. I can't think of one defined group of people more deserving of death. Someone who says they like modern art is basically saying they hate culture and anything with a shred of substance, that they think a fucking blue square or an empty canvas is worth anything to anyone should be instant public execution.

>>2696448
I agree with you but your words or just going to be used to mentally justify whatever rhetoric they've absorbed to think that this shit is acceptable.

>>2696448
Modern art is so expansive that you'd be retarded to not like any of it. The styles and movements associated with modern art run the gamut. You talk of culture but you know so little about it.

>>2693154
I would wear this on a shirt desu

>>2693986
Lol so true.

>>2696448
Whats "modern Art" to you?

File: Rocks sold as modern art.jpg (44KB, 690x245px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 690x245px

>>2693986
>feeling the need to sound deep to talk basic knowledge

you tried to sound smart but it failed.

>>2697312
this is but a mere comment, without the contents of actual display

File: Money is art.jpg (154KB, 721x490px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 721x490px

>>2697314
this is but a mere display, without the content of an actual comment

>>2693154
>>2697312

>struggles to form a coherent sentence
>gets offended when people accuse him of being without contents of actual display

File: displaywithoutcontent.jpg (1MB, 1280x781px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x781px

>>2697493
>one guy on the internet
>people
>triggered
on what grounds do you stand to act so high and mighty? you have accused me little nothing but of the poor construction of words.

Art can be display without content and that is not necessarily bad. It is the perpetuation of art and most specifically with contemporary art where meaning is more of a figment of art than art by itself.

>>2697696
>where meaning is more of a figment of art than art by itself.

What do you mean by this?