moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by moron on Jun 26, 2018 17:26:06 GMT 1, I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? You could say the same thing for a million different artists.
Definately, including Condo copying mixing Picasso and De Kooning and Dix.
Some make a career out of it whilst others just work in a similar style. Where would some artists like Kaws be without Disney and Sparky Schultz?
I guess it depends on how independant minded the buyers are on which type of bubblegum art they invest their hard earned wages.
I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? You could say the same thing for a million different artists. Definately, including Condo copying mixing Picasso and De Kooning and Dix. Some make a career out of it whilst others just work in a similar style. Where would some artists like Kaws be without Disney and Sparky Schultz? I guess it depends on how independant minded the buyers are on which type of bubblegum art they invest their hard earned wages. |
|
lg2771
New Member
🗨️ 523
👍🏻 329
December 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by lg2771 on Jun 26, 2018 17:31:09 GMT 1, You could say the same thing for a million different artists. Definately, including Condo copying mixing Picasso and De Kooning and Dix. Some make a career out of it whilst others just work in a similar style. Where would some artists like Kaws be without Disney and Sparky Schultz? I guess it depends on how independant minded the buyers are on which type of bubblegum art they invest their hard earned wages.
And as Picasso said and stole the quote from “Good artists copy, great artists steal”.
You could say the same thing for a million different artists. Definately, including Condo copying mixing Picasso and De Kooning and Dix. Some make a career out of it whilst others just work in a similar style. Where would some artists like Kaws be without Disney and Sparky Schultz? I guess it depends on how independant minded the buyers are on which type of bubblegum art they invest their hard earned wages. And as Picasso said and stole the quote from “Good artists copy, great artists steal”. |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Coach on Jun 26, 2018 17:34:03 GMT 1, I've seen the allegations, but I don't know. It's splotching paint dots on a canvas, not exactly the most groundbreaking innovative techniques out there, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the other side of the world also thought of splotching paint dots as well. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a stolen idea either. I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them?
With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire.
It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed.
And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece.
A better argument is whether you think the work is any good.
I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing.
I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there.
Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others.
I've seen the allegations, but I don't know. It's splotching paint dots on a canvas, not exactly the most groundbreaking innovative techniques out there, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the other side of the world also thought of splotching paint dots as well. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a stolen idea either. I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by moron on Jun 26, 2018 17:48:48 GMT 1, The name elevates mundane art into something special in many cases. If someone is buying an artwork to keep and hang on their wall for pleasure with no interest in value. Ignore the name of the artist.
The name elevates mundane art into something special in many cases. If someone is buying an artwork to keep and hang on their wall for pleasure with no interest in value. Ignore the name of the artist.
|
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Hubble Bubble on Jun 26, 2018 17:55:06 GMT 1, 
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by moron on Jun 26, 2018 17:56:34 GMT 1, I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others.
Rothko has the opposite effect on me Coach.
I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. Rothko has the opposite effect on me Coach. |
|
|
|
lg2771
New Member
🗨️ 523
👍🏻 329
December 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by lg2771 on Jun 26, 2018 18:06:27 GMT 1, I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others.
You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan!
I agree lots of artists have done splotches plus with todays mass saturation of imagery online and in the art world it's possible that it could be subliminal memory recalled a few years later by Hirst. It's also true that impressionists used splotches and even artists like Maurice Denis in his early oil sketches have a similar feel in parts as well as early Dali and Matisse. As far as I know technique cannot be copyrighted. The point I was hoping to make is what makes these prints worth the money and the paintings worth so great. If one removes the name Hirst from them? With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! |
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by nobokov on Jun 26, 2018 18:12:13 GMT 1, With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan!
With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! Any relation to the Krzysztof Kieslowski film Rouge? |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by moron on Jun 26, 2018 18:15:10 GMT 1, Be the first to buy the Hirst.
Be the first to buy the Hirst.
|
|
lg2771
New Member
🗨️ 523
👍🏻 329
December 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by lg2771 on Jun 26, 2018 18:18:01 GMT 1, You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! Any relation to the Krzysztof Kieslowski film Rouge?
Not explicitly. But as we’ve seemingly come to the conclusion with this thread I’m sure the writer had great inspiration from the film 
You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! Any relation to the Krzysztof Kieslowski film Rouge? Not explicitly. But as we’ve seemingly come to the conclusion with this thread I’m sure the writer had great inspiration from the film |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by moron on Jun 26, 2018 18:22:45 GMT 1, With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan!
With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! Red as in commie? |
|
shy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,590
👍🏻 646
June 2018
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by shy on Jun 26, 2018 22:52:29 GMT 1, for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out.
I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out?
Does anyone have any more info?
for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out.
I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out?
Does anyone have any more info?
|
|
.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by .dappy on Jun 26, 2018 22:54:53 GMT 1, ... 10 now in the queue 🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪
... 10 now in the queue 🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪🐪
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,376
👍🏻 2,144
July 2008
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Fake on Jun 26, 2018 23:04:17 GMT 1, all sold! 1 left and he is giving it away
all sold! 1 left and he is giving it away
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Express Post on Jun 27, 2018 0:32:23 GMT 1, Sold out. Listen to Poster Bob.
for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out. I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out? Does anyone have any more info?
Sold out. Listen to Poster Bob. for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out. I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out? Does anyone have any more info? |
|
shy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,590
👍🏻 646
June 2018
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by shy on Jun 27, 2018 0:37:48 GMT 1, yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out.
It was a helluva a deal though.
yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out.
It was a helluva a deal though.
|
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by nobokov on Jun 27, 2018 0:39:03 GMT 1, I'll believe it when I hear it from Serpentine, not Bobentine.
I'll believe it when I hear it from Serpentine, not Bobentine.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 0:49:20 GMT 1, Sold out. Listen to Poster Bob. for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out. I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out? Does anyone have any more info?
That is the worst bit of advice I’ve ever heard. Even if it actually is sold out. 😂
Sold out. Listen to Poster Bob. for what it is worth, I read on an instagram post that this is sold out. I am not sure if it is the first tier or just sold out? Does anyone have any more info? That is the worst bit of advice I’ve ever heard. Even if it actually is sold out. 😂 |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Express Post on Jun 27, 2018 0:50:04 GMT 1, Too bad these cant be flipped.
yes I agree. I p it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though.
Too bad these cant be flipped. yes I agree. I p it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though. |
|
lg2771
New Member
🗨️ 523
👍🏻 329
December 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by lg2771 on Jun 27, 2018 0:53:30 GMT 1, Too bad these cant be flipped. yes I agree. I p it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though.
That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it.
Too bad these cant be flipped. yes I agree. I p it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though. That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it. |
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by nobokov on Jun 27, 2018 0:54:28 GMT 1, Too bad these cant be flipped. That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it.
Too bad these cant be flipped. That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it. 😂 had a good laugh from that |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Express Post on Jun 27, 2018 0:55:59 GMT 1, Gold
Too bad these cant be flipped. That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it.
Gold Too bad these cant be flipped. That’s not true. Anything can be flipped. Just have to use both hands and really get under it to flip it. |
|
|
|
blerd
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,350
👍🏻 1,203
November 2016
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by blerd on Jun 27, 2018 7:16:52 GMT 1, yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though.
yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though. No way on Gods green earth that this is a genuine account. |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Coach on Jun 27, 2018 15:35:11 GMT 1, With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan!
By whom?
With respect, that argument can be used about many paintings by many great artists. There are few artists that have skills that are so unique that only they can paint in the way that they do. Inevitably a famous artist’s name will have a direct effect on value as collectors/museums want to own art by the famous artists that they admire. It’s not dissimilar to the “my child could paint that” argument. The fact is their child didn’t paint it - didn’t have the idea to do so - makes that argument flawed. And so, yes, I agree that if something similar is painted by an unknown or little known artist, it will have a fraction of the value. But quite rightly so. Part of the value of the work is who the artist is, and their previous career to get to the point where their name dictates the value of a piece. A better argument is whether you think the work is any good. I think it is - particularly a couple of the four. I find them aesthetically pleasing. They are, for me, reminiscent of Impressionist work. I get pleasure from abstract work, and the emotions that such work can instill (seeing Rothko’s in person is just about the most emotional artistic experience I have had). But I accept that they will not be for everybody, and to some they will just be splodges. That’s cool. We can’t all like the same thing. I’ve digressed, and so will leave it there. Edit - I see that in the painfully slow amount of time it’s taken me to type this, the same point has been made more succinctly by others. You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! By whom? |
|
lg2771
New Member
🗨️ 523
👍🏻 329
December 2017
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by lg2771 on Jun 27, 2018 16:01:50 GMT 1, You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! By whom?
John Logan
He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it.
You should read or see the play red if you’re a big Rothko fan! By whom? John Logan He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it. |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Coach on Jun 27, 2018 16:33:17 GMT 1, John Logan He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it.
I’m not familiar with penny dreadful.
Thanks for the recommendation. I shall look it out.
John Logan He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it. I’m not familiar with penny dreadful. Thanks for the recommendation. I shall look it out. |
|
|
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Hubble Bubble on Jun 27, 2018 22:04:46 GMT 1, John Logan He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it. I’m not familiar with penny dreadful. Thanks for the recommendation. I shall look it out.
It’s a Victorian gothic horror TV series on cable. C’mon, Coach... keep up!
John Logan He created penny dreadful if you’ve ever heard of it. I’m not familiar with penny dreadful. Thanks for the recommendation. I shall look it out. It’s a Victorian gothic horror TV series on cable. C’mon, Coach... keep up! |
|
shy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,590
👍🏻 646
June 2018
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by shy on Jun 27, 2018 23:38:28 GMT 1, yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though. No way on Gods green earth that this is a genuine account.  cheers mate!
yes I agree. I believe it is sold out. When a dealer instagrams sold out then it is sold out. It was a helluva a deal though. No way on Gods green earth that this is a genuine account. I am as real as you are cheers mate! |
|
shy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,590
👍🏻 646
June 2018
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by shy on Jun 27, 2018 23:41:58 GMT 1, Hey Mates- any updates?
Has anyone actually bought these prints?
Or is everyone waiting to see if they are offered these prints?
Or are they actually all sold out?
It's all quite confusing?
Hey Mates- any updates?
Has anyone actually bought these prints?
Or is everyone waiting to see if they are offered these prints?
Or are they actually all sold out?
It's all quite confusing?
|
|
Winter
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,155
👍🏻 4,461
March 2007
|
Damien Hirst H4 • Veils, by Winter on Jun 28, 2018 0:07:59 GMT 1, I’m guessing most people are waiting still.
I’m guessing most people are waiting still.
|
|
cheers mate!
