A person who appears to be ambling aimlessly, but is secretly in search of adventure.

6.29.2008

Good art


One thing that seems to prevent some from becoming art collectors is a lack of confidence in their own ability to identify "good" art. Prompted by a dispute over whether the above Warhol painting is really a Warhol if it was created by a former studio assistant without Warhol's oversight, blogger-dealer Ed Winkleman ponders this topic. In the context of whether this painting is worth $3,000,000, we believe Warhol is a good artist who made good art. This painting was made by someone who was trained by Warhol in a manner that is indistinguishable from a real Warhol. Ergo, this painting is good art. I don't know if that is true, but it spurs a good conversation about how we decide what is good art. Be sure to read the comments on Winkleman's post; I particularly liked this quotation that someone posted about Sol LeWitt's work:
“He also liked the inherent impermanence of Conceptual art, maybe because it dovetailed with his lack of pretense: having started to make wall drawings for exhibitions in the 1960s, he embraced the fact that these could be painted over after the shows. (Walls, unlike canvases or pieces of paper, kept the drawings two-dimensional, he also thought.) He wasn’t making precious one-of-a-kind objects for posterity, he said. Objects are perishable. But ideas need not be. ”
For me, good art is not about the object, though I like and collect objects, rather good art is defined by the good idea behind it. I like to collect good ideas.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do all do all "ideas" look like they went to the same school?

7:17 PM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home