$300,000,000

money laundering

>>3075889
/thread

>>3075858
Don't you see it? Pleb

>>3075858
I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the metaphorical resonance of the spatial relationships spatially undermines the inherent overspecificity.

>>3075889
again this shit. money laundering isn't the thing. it's an unregulated market, fucking it up by getting money laundering involved is like poisoning the stew for a few more sips. you can do whatever you want in the art market if you have money, one guy owns about 80% of warhol's stuff and keeps it all off the market to keep the prices high, for example. you can buy something yourself one day, and because you bought for that price, sell it the next day for twice that, and the 10 other pieces by that artist you bought for 2% of that price.

money laundering, pah. you've been watching too many movies.

>>3075858
WHOOOOO CAAAAARRREESSssssssˢˢˢˢˢˢˢˢ֧֧֧֧֧֧ ֧ ֧֧ ֧ ֧.........?

Yeah, that looks to be about worth at least that much. Willem de Kooning was a brilliant artist and is a fundamental artist in the innovation and progression of not only American art but in all of Modernism. The AbEx painters not only freed art from the image, but showed that the subject of the work can be the work itself. This liberated art beyond all constraints and opened the door for Pop, Minimalism, Colorfield, Fluxus, Performance, Conceptualism, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>3076952
>>3078851
ty actual intellegent anons

>>3078851
>the subject of the work can be the work itself
this is such a cancerous idea that should be put to death, it ONLY validates attention seekers with no desire for dignity or aesthetic and shuns any sincere craftsman by directing the financial fashion elsewhere. it is purely detrimental and anything done simply for the purpose of "MUH FREEDOM" without any honest reasoning is fucking abhorrent in its actual influence. i expect you want art to be "liberated" from quality too.

>>3076946
U-Uh y-yes! I agree as well! Shapes, form, methaphorical resonance yeah...

File: de-kooning-bowl-pitcher-jug.jpg (62KB, 534x416px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 534x416px

>>3078943
This is an early drawing by Willem de Kooning. Don't tell me that these people were poor draftsmen since most were more than capable of holding their own on a purely technical standpoint. They not only had a logical reasoning for the work that they did, but too great pains to get their work to look exactly the way that it does. The technical expertise just in the handling of the physical material is not only something to be astounded by, but it is also something to be mesmerized by. Look at Reinhardt's black paintings, they are not only not black but are also the most matte oil paintings you will ever see. Look at Newman's colossal zip paintings, some of them are over 20 feet long and 15 feet high, there isn't a single trace of a brush stroke anywhere in them. Look at Rothko's mature style, they're like water vapor. I can go on, but I think I've made my point.

And if you want an historical context for their work, Gauguin stated that painting would eventually reach a point where there was no form at all, just color. Rembrandt's late self portrait featured big blobby circles as the back ground, Goya's last paintings are essentially colorfields, Turner reduced forms to essentially smears of paint and color in his most powerful works, and the oldest known work of art ever produced by human beings is a pattern drawn into a mud brick dating back 70,000 years.

>>3075889
fpbp

File: 14cab36898038157f808308d505c03e9[1].jpg (985KB, 4096x2269px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 4096x2269px

>>3079094
just to add a little bit, you can also see in like the rococo and what not that they end up using their awesome skillz as mere ingredients for huge abstract compositions, and so there's not a massive difference between de kooning and rubens if look you at it that way.

>>3079094

I don't really have a clue why but a lot of artists as they got older in the 19th and 20th centuries stopped using as much shape and made things much more abstract with age. Look at picasso, he doodled every day in his last 2 decades while still being able to produce technically masterful works when he wanted.

Also good post more then I can offer, for these artists what they were doing was actually a big deal at the time, for people to continue the tradition without understanding the fundamentals like they did just makes for poor form usually.

The realism meme going on in academies who take themselves seriously makes me feel bad too cause the students look like they have no strong direction after graduating. It's either too real or too abstract.

>>3079112
I legitimately think that it is a good thing that art schools teach how to draw and paint realistically, though I think that they should spend as much time helping the students develop their own visual language to work with.

>>3079147

I agree I'm going to an atelier soon for training, I feel it's the best place to start, a lot of them are very strict and you have to draw how they want you to. There's no more jacques louis davids though to produce artists of a similar caliber in workshops these days, I could be wrong but feels bad man.

>>3079188
I have never been fond of David, he's far too academic for my tastes.

>>3075858
Want to know a secret about "modern art"?

If you tilt your head to the right, it then becomes a slanted piece of shit.

>>3079094
i think artists go abstract because their art becomes more "real" if that makes sense.

if you draw realistically you are bound to different rules and concepts that may hinder you from fully expressing your emotions in your art. sure, drawing technically impressive stuff is nice and all but its closer to craftsmanship than actual "art"
(dont get me wrong, im not saying realistic
drawings arent art. its just that drawings that actually ewoke emotions dont necessarily need to look realistic and are therefore closer to what i personally define as "art".)

>>3079204
why did i laugh so hard at this post

File: 6cacd02f300281b65b1735145d6d9756.jpg (614KB, 1024x854px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1024x854px

>>3080885
i mostly agree but then most abstracts (not PC wallpapers but actual abstracts) are fairly boring to look at even when you can appreciate the thought and process of their creation.

>>3080893
depends how you look at it. i agree that on the surface a lot of paintings arent too exciting which, you could argue, is also a pretty important part of art, but when knowing the history and trying to "understand" or relate to a drawing it gets pretty exciting for me. obviously i cant say "you are looking at art all wrong!". art is subjective so liking a drawing or finding it exciting(these are two different things but it still boils down to the same thing) comes all down to taste in the end.

>>3080905
sure. art is ultimately all subjective. there still seems something wrong when people praise work for things not even on the canvas.

>>3080913
for example?
do you mean conceptual art?

>>3080923
get a downie kid to paint a picture of a house. call it an abstract by an unknown artist. hilarity ensues.

File: img-413161550-0001[1].jpg_fit=2560%2C3342.jpg (1MB, 2560x3342px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x3342px

>>3080893
i think it depends, i go to the gallery with people who don't know anything about art, some times they're blown away by abstract stuff, sometimes stuff that i think is really interesting they're like 'nah'

the only sort of universal thing is that nobody gives a shit about the old art, dragging one of them through the room with a bunch of landscapes and lame genre pieces from the 17-1800s is excruciating unless it's a famous piece

so it seems like it all comes out even in the end, most art is boring to most people i guess

i think probably the exception is the various modernist kinda movements, surrealism, impressionism, cubism etc. everyone likes those, i guess that's what people want out of art, something really 'arty' but more relatable than totally abstract stuff

the most hated was when they had a display of sneakers (not kidding) like they air jordans from the 90s and that sort of thing, like tons of old sneakers in glass boxes, not as an ironic thing, they really were trying to make you consider them as art objects, was impossible to enjoy

>>3080955
ever tried going with your friends through a museum with an art guide? i mean a person not an audio guide sort of thing.
getting everything explained to you by a good guide really helped me learning to appreciate art i wouldnt have normally.

>>3078455
Shut up nobody cares about anything you say

File: a-clockwork-orange-puremovies-620x299.jpg (40KB, 620x299px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x299px

>>3080977
Oh I agree. Having someone tell you why something is good or bad or even significant is double-plus good!

If I were to use my own judgment I might have thought less of Philip Guston's famous works such as: Pink anthropomorphic testicle with symbol drawn eye smoking a cigarette or Pink anthropomorphic testicle with symbol drawn eye looking at a bottle of alcohol. However, thanks to the wonderful staff of my $40,000 a year art school, along with frequent trips to the government-funded art museum and generous use of their audio guides repeating anecdotal information about artists like Guston's life over and over again I now know that everyone that doesn't like this kind of art is wrong and dumb whereas everyone that does like this art is right and smart.

>>3075858
The most valuable thing in the art community is literally a picture of a toilet.
lmao artfags BTFO

>>3075858
You don't have to buy it.

This is not money laundering, it's greed and ethical corruption.

We live in an age where entertainment is put under a purchase and a tax and sold as a product, when no form of it should be paid.
Perhaps, this piece of art should cost no more than 5$ - more or less the price of the canvas and the paint on it, since they're material goods.
Using money for commissions, donating to an artist's Patreon or paying for pieces of art is automatively immoral.

>b-but the artist suffered and had to train to make this!
This doesn't matter at all. Painting is an after-time activity you practice and serves to purpose as a job in the secondary sector. Your fault if you live on art.
Do any of you want kids to pay a toll to play football in the park? Pay to have fun? You're crazy.

>>3076952
>>3082928
I would agree, but saying money laundering doesn't exist at all in the art world, you'd be out your mind.
Art is literally the easiest way for elites to launder millions and millions of dollars. Considering that art patronage is already highly controlled by elites, it only makes sense that art galleries would be an ideal place to make covert bribes or transactions.
Even to a billionaire, $300,000,000 is a shitton of money, especially if it's just for a painting.

>>3075858
needs more loomis

>>3085468
no it isn't you tard, it's not even a good way. it's a way that looks good in movies because it's visual. that's it.

riddle me this, if you wanted to launder some money would you do it in a way that involves a single very expensive and unique item that literally comes with a certificate that has it's whole transaction history on it, or would you do it in a way that's not retarded?

>>3075858
it's for money laundering. That's it.

>>3085726
that's way you lower the entry level for what is considered ''art'' and then pay your own ''artist'' to make some shit in half a day with no prior training, and voila

Your digital paintings of horizon zero dawn :30 dollars

>>3085468
>Easiest way
>Not big sports, like soccer
>Where people can put their logo into a player's shirt for millions
>And more billions are easily moved daily, by selling shirts, merchandises, commercials, filling stadiums
>And some players like the Neymar cunt being overpaid
stop watching CSI and get a grasp at how the real world economy really works

>>3076952
Money laundering may be part of it, but it''s also about taking advantage of tax loopholes to get massive breaks and deductions, stuff like that. Practices that may be perfectly legal but still come off as a shady and makes people question the industry as a whole.

>>3075858
Shit... I'd likely get banned from this board if I described what I saw in that painting lmao