Challenges of the week give artists the opportunity to create new and fantastic art based on a weekly theme set by the challenge moderators. They are also a great place to develop core skills.
Being featured on ConceptArt.org can get your artwork viewed by millions of artists a month including big industry leaders.
|Color and Light||1.1||Do Assignment|
|Color and Light||1.2||Do Assignment||1.3 | 1.4|
|Illusion of Space and Atmosphere||1||Do Assignment|
|Personal Art||1.1||Do Assignment|
That's not inconsistent with how people tend to treat other investments. I've got some money in stuff, it slowly generates more money, but for all I know it could all be supporting an orphan sausage farm off the coast of Newfoundland.You know, which art people choose to buy and how much they choose to pay for it never really bothers me (beyond the slap-in-the-face of knowing there are people who can drop millions on one small luxury commodity...) People can buy whatever they want, that's their business. What bothers me is the way the Sotheby's/Christies crowd and their ilk treat art as an "investment" with apparently no thought for the actual art.
As for abstract, there's some I like and some I don't. I'm thinking of playing around with 'em myself because why not?
Pff, NO art has "intrinsic value", unless it's constructed from several barrels of crude oil or something...
The monetary "value" depends entirely on what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The artistic "value" depends entirely on who is looking at it, and whether they think it has any.
To me, Richter is rather boring and I'd place him well below, say, Kline or Frankenthaler or Gottlieb or Krasner, all of whom I like much better. But to some people I'm sure Richter is totally the bee's knees. And some people would reject all of the above because it doesn't look like Bougereau. (Who I also think is mostly boring...) It's all a matter of taste. It's ALWAYS a matter of taste.
And no, I can't spell Bougereau.
Yeah, going with Queenie on this. I suppose we could argue the word intrinsic but our world has become one of wants as much as needs. So is intrinsic a need or a want? Gold or diamonds have no intrinsic value that we haven't, as a species, given them. Is it that more people have decided that gold has more value than a Richter that gives it more intrinsic value? Too difficult of a discussion for a lazy Sunday.
QueenG 'n Bill,
Fair enough! Yes, probably better to avoid the meandering philosophical paths these things take. . .
Thing is, if it's all about established artists using the elite galleries as authentication for "investment grade" items, then there's really nothing to stop Richter from going to "Staples," buying a ream of printer paper and "creating" "White Rectangle No. 1," "White Rectangle No.2," etc.
Anyway, this thread's provided an excuse to surf some high-end gallery websites and see what the wealthy artist superstars and their patrons are up to!
[I should really get back to housecleaning and deciding whether or not I should scan part of the 30 hours or so of life drawing I have piling up on my living room floor into my SB. . . ]
Check out my sketchbook! Socially acceptable opportunity to yell at a teenage girl!
becsause they're essentally an exacting process of blowing up existing photographs in paint, rather than paintings of the things in the photographs. they're a reproduction of all the illusory effects of a photograph. 'realist' doesn't seem an appropriate umbrella.