Art as a commodity?

[lindeh]

I'm trying to get some opinions for an essay for my course and was wondering if you guys could help me out...

In 2001, Martin Creed won the Turner Prize for his work- an empty room with the lights going on and off repeatedly. Tracey Emin was shortlisted for her installation 'My Bed'- she didn't win but was paid 150,000 for it. She's been criticised for selling herself for success (i.e. by using the number of people she's slept with to make 'art).

What is the value of a Rembrant painting? Is it priceless because it's a good painting? Or because of the invisible presence of Rembrant himself? Take Rembrant's name away from the painting- is it still as valuable?

OK so I may not be making much sense (no sleep!) but I was hoping you could give me your take on art. Do you think it's turning into a commodity? Are artists creating works to cater for what's popular instead of themselves?

[threeornothing]

"It could be dangerous,

Art as a real threat"

[Hog]

I'm trying to get some opinions for an essay for my course and was wondering if you guys could help me out...

In 2001' date=' Martin Creed won the Turner Prize for his work- an empty room with the lights going on and off repeatedly. Tracey Emin was shortlisted for her installation 'My Bed'- she didn't win but was paid 150,000 for it. She's been criticised for selling herself for success (i.e. by using the number of people she's slept with to make 'art).

What is the value of a Rembrant painting? Is it priceless because it's a good painting? Or because of the invisible presence of Rembrant himself? Take Rembrant's name away from the painting- is it still as valuable?

OK so I may not be making much sense (no sleep!) but I was hoping you could give me your take on art. Do you think it's turning into a commodity? Are artists creating works to cater for what's popular instead of themselves?

what can be defined as art is being pushed to the limits. The BBC recently bought work by Tracy Emin and were slated for it. Personally I think people like Emin are having a laugh and making money from it. I remember listening to a tape of Yoko Ono coughing, thats art apparently!

Horses for courses. I actually like some of the obscure stuff but within reason.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Just my type of question

Art has always been a commodity, in that the idea of the artist creating art for its own sake only really developed in the 19th century, with artists of independant means such as Manet and Gauguin, or those with other jobs such as Henri Rousseau. The art we consider now to be high art was always painted for renumeration of some kind, whether directly through patronage, or indirectly by being created for the contemporary art market. Historically patronage has always come from the rich and powerful, whether individuals or organisations. The single greatest patron in the history of Western art is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, which from the outset of its establishment has always employed artists to make corporeal its message. The real development has been in the status of the artist, which went from that of an anonymous artisan in medival times, to that of superstar atists such as Leonardo, Titian and the ultimate cultural icon of his time, Michelangelo Buonarotti. But these artists were still subject to the wishes of their patrons, indeed much of what makes them great artists is that they dealt with EXACTLY the same subject matter as their peers, but were able to transcend the numerous constraints of religous narrative, enabling them to present these subjects freshly, and perfectly attuned to the needs of their society. Tracy Emin selling her 'Bed' to Charles Saatchi is not so different to Titian painting works specifically for Alphonso D'Este of Ferrara or Philip II of Spain. (This is particularly true given his role in Margaret Thatcher's election campaigns).

As for your question about identity, a Rembrandt is definitely considered to be more valuable than an equivalent C17th 'Remrandtesque' painting, especially as he had pupils, a school at one point, and great influence on Dutch Painting at one point, (his influence waned in his later years, but not his artistic ability), but generally there can be disagreements as to attribution and provenance. The reason for this is there are only a finite number of authentic Rembrandts, and his reputation and popularity is as great now as it has ever been, tastes change, but it seems unlikely that Rembrandt van Rijn will ever be seen as anything other than one of the greatest painters in Western History.

Here are a few good art history resources, I found them ivaluable during my degree. Hope it 's useful.

www.artchive.com this site is good for more popular artists old to modern-no contemporary.

Web Gallery of art The Web Gallery of Art is good up to about the 18th century, quite a lot of obscure artists (good for getting marks)

Saatchi Gallery, County Hall much of the classic 'Brit-Art' , plus a renewed interest in painting these days

[Hog]

Just my type of question

Art has always been a commodity' date=' in that the idea of the artist creating art for its own sake only really developed in the 19th century, with artists of independant means such as Manet and Gauguin, or those with other jobs such as Henri Rousseau. The art we consider now to be high art was always painted for renumeration of some kind, whether directly through patronage, or indirectly by being created for the contemporary art market. Historically patronage has always come from the rich and powerful, whether individuals or organisations. The single greatest patron in the history of Western art is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, which from the outset of its establishment has always employed artists to make corporeal its message. The real development has been in the status of the artist, which went from that of an anonymous artisan in medival times, to that of superstar atists such as Leonardo, Titian and the ultimate cultural icon of his time, Michelangelo Buonarotti. But these artists were still subject to the wishes of their patrons, indeed much of what makes them great artists is that they dealt with EXACTLY the same subject matter as their peers, but were able to transcend the numerous constraints of religous narrative, enabling them to present these subjects freshly, and perfectly attuned to the needs of their society. Tracy Emin selling her 'Bed' to Charles Saatchi is not so different to Titian painting works specifically for Alphonso D'Este of Ferrara or Philip II of Spain. (This is particularly true given his role in Margaret Thatcher's election campaigns).

As for your question about identity, a Rembrandt is definitely considered to be more valuable than an equivalent C17th 'Remrandtesque' painting, especially as he had pupils, a school at one point, and great influence on Dutch Painting at one point, (his influence waned in his later years, but not his artistic ability), but generally there can be disagreements as to attribution and provenance. The reason for this is there are only a finite number of authentic Rembrandts, and his reputation and popularity is as great now as it has ever been, tastes change, but it seems unlikely that Rembrandt van Rijn will ever be seen as anything other than one of the greatest painters in Western History.

Here are a few good art history resources, I found them ivaluable during my degree. Hope it 's useful.

www.artchive.com this site is good for more popular artists old to modern-no contemporary.

Web Gallery of art The Web Gallery of Art is good up to about the 18th century, quite a lot of obscure artists (good for getting marks)

Saatchi Gallery, County Hall much of the classic 'Brit-Art' , plus a renewed interest in painting these days

You know your shit!

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Ta . I sooo wish I was still at uni, its great when you do something you actually enjoy and get into.

PS what does the gringo actually mean? I always use it as ' I am feeling a bit Mexican today/am in league with Chong' etc

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

Just my type of question

Art has always been a commodity' date=' in that the idea of the artist creating art for its own sake only really developed in the 19th century, with artists of independant means such as Manet and Gauguin, or those with other jobs such as Henri Rousseau. The art we consider now to be high art was always painted for renumeration of some kind, whether directly through patronage, or indirectly by being created for the contemporary art market. Historically patronage has always come from the rich and powerful, whether individuals or organisations. The single greatest patron in the history of Western art is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, which from the outset of its establishment has always employed artists to make corporeal its message. The real development has been in the status of the artist, which went from that of an anonymous artisan in medival times, to that of superstar atists such as Leonardo, Titian and the ultimate cultural icon of his time, Michelangelo Buonarotti. But these artists were still subject to the wishes of their patrons, indeed much of what makes them great artists is that they dealt with EXACTLY the same subject matter as their peers, but were able to transcend the numerous constraints of religous narrative, enabling them to present these subjects freshly, and perfectly attuned to the needs of their society. Tracy Emin selling her 'Bed' to Charles Saatchi is not so different to Titian painting works specifically for Alphonso D'Este of Ferrara or Philip II of Spain. (This is particularly true given his role in Margaret Thatcher's election campaigns).

As for your question about identity, a Rembrandt is definitely considered to be more valuable than an equivalent C17th 'Remrandtesque' painting, especially as he had pupils, a school at one point, and great influence on Dutch Painting at one point, (his influence waned in his later years, but not his artistic ability), but generally there can be disagreements as to attribution and provenance. The reason for this is there are only a finite number of authentic Rembrandts, and his reputation and popularity is as great now as it has ever been, tastes change, but it seems unlikely that Rembrandt van Rijn will ever be seen as anything other than one of the greatest painters in Western History.

Here are a few good art history resources, I found them ivaluable during my degree. Hope it 's useful.

www.artchive.com this site is good for more popular artists old to modern-no contemporary.

Web Gallery of art The Web Gallery of Art is good up to about the 18th century, quite a lot of obscure artists (good for getting marks)

Saatchi Gallery, County Hall much of the classic 'Brit-Art' , plus a renewed interest in painting these days

Well said Arty McArterson!

[pantsandsocks]

Let's face it, art is worth little, if not nothing without a famous name on it.

Tracey Emin's work is autobiographical, so it could be said that she's selling herself. But it's good all the same...

[Swingin' Ryan]

Use this as your opening paragraph -

Tracey Emin should be shot. She recently pissed away 60,000 of Liverpudlian tax payers money that could have gone into schools, so that she could create a "piece of art" consisting of a bronze bird on a pole.

The Momart fire (which saw Emin's tent burnt to ash in a warehouse fire), was the best thing to happen to British art in the last 25 years.

The Turner Prize is a farce and the Tate Modern needs burning. Modern art is 90% garbage and it's popularity resides solely on the joint stupidity and pretensions of those who make it, and those who buy it.

That's an A+ in the bag...maybe.

[Guest pop-notmyface]

"It could be dangerous' date='

Art as a real threat"[/quote']

quote Refused. Protest Song 68?