ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Jackson Pollock. Why the fuck is Painting No.5 worth $140 million.

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by Jimmy Juice, Jul 30, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Below is the offending article. A load of paint chucked about and now it's worth more than 140 Bugatti Veyrons. So here's the question. Does anybody see any appeal in it? And if you do, why?

    Attached Files:

    • Tat.jpg
      File size:
      45.7 KB
  2. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    First of all it is not worth $140 mill - all that has happened is someone is prepared to pay that.

    These paintings are now the rich boys toys and are a way of them putting their money somewhere that they hope will not depreciate at the same rate as the Yankee Dollah.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    That's actually quite easy on the eye, compared to some others. For example, look up "Cy Twombly", who died recently. Now his stuff really is crap, and a textbook example of how a few art dealers and collectors can conspire to make an 'artist' famous - and, more importanly for them, valuable.
    Cy Twombly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Do a Google images search - and be prepared to be very surprised indeed. You know the one about the infinite number of monkeys and typewriters? This is the art version :)
  4. Its value was decided at auction and on that day said painting was worth $140 million.

    My step daughter is apparently far more talented and could turn out three of these a week without trying. So why is the three foot high smiley face she has crayonned on her wall not worth a few quid? For that matter Tracey Emin sold her minging bed and it made her rich and famous. Somebody must like this shit. I'd like to know why?
  5. So Old Snowy you are saying its dealers choosing somebody and running them up. Which would suggest nobody actually likes this crap.. That Twombly stuff is dire.

    Oh and do you want to move this? Modern art in the NAAFI was probably not a great idea.
  6. Its all emperor's new clothes syndrome, Chaz Saatchi spends millions on things by Damien Hurst, so by default they must be worth millions, and must be artistic; nobody spends millions on a badly preserved shark, a badly butchered cow, or a bed most parents would get washed and remade, now would they? So the next punter/john will spend a mint to be in with the in-crowd.

    Before and during the war there was a Dutch forger, Han Van Meegeren who was knocking the greats out by the cart load. A lot of museums have carefully not had their collections authenticated by independant sources, too many experts with egg on their faces when stuff that was painted in the 1600s and been vouched for, turns out to be 'school of forgery that you didn't notice circa 1943'

    Art is built on bluff it and cuff it. Without it Brian Sewell would be out of work.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Not a big fan of Jackson Pollack but I would prefer him to the British artist Damien Hirst who won the Turner Prize for a work involving a dead cow and a dead calf in formaldehyde . Hirst also won a prize for a decomposing pig. He is however the wealthiest artist in the UK.
  8. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    I think the NAAFI is just the place for most "Modern Art". I've seen more artistic streaks of blood and mucus on the walls on a staurday night than most of the stuff being sold today - mind you, some of the Chapman Bros stuff of concentration camps and Nazis is not too bad :)

    And as for Damien Hirst - not only is his stuff shite, but he doesn't even do it himself. He has a workshop of young hopefuls who actally bisect the sharks, glue the rhinestones onto skulls, etc. All he has to do is have the idea...
  9. Seems a lot of money when you measure it in cars, but value it in professional footballers and it doesn't seem too much.

    Pollack is/was an important eyeball pleaser in the history of American art and was bigged up by the CIA who portrayed his stuff as cutting edge modern art to try and show the Commie stuff which was still based in natural realism as being thick and old fashioned.

    The value of art like this is not based in how 'nice' or 'good' the painting is - you can have the identical image on your wall as a print for buttons.

    Pollack, an alcoholic, also made the top career move of killing himself, and a passenger, in a single vehicle drink/drive car accident in his 40s.

    Personally I think it is crap and wouldn't put it up even if I owned it, but there you go.

    Why is a first folio Shakespeare play almost priceless when you can the same play off Amazon in a modern book for pence? It's got the same words in it so why the difference?

    Art-wise his stuff was supposed to be about explosive action and capturing the emotion of the moment rather than perspective etc.

    But I remember reading about a guy in New York who produced paintings by giving him self succesive enemas with different colour paints and just standing back and firing the contents of his arse at the canvas.

    Needless to say his stuff and Pollack's were virtually indistinguishable.

    And as this is the Naafi, fuck 'em, they're all cunts anyway.
  10. I've looked at the highest selling paintings on Wikipedia and maybe I'm missing something by looking at pictures on the interweb but until you get to Van Gogh its all utter shite. Damen Hirsts stuff would also fall into that category but at least I can look at it and see what a dead cow looks like in formaldehyde. Painting No.5 is utter nonsense.
  11. It's worth that because that's what someone was prepared to pay for it, same as any other product/commodity in a market-based economy.

    In this case, I think it's clear that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has its thumb well and truly lodged up its own arrse.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. All he has to do is have the idea...[/QUOTE]

    Fair play, school of... is acknowledged in the art world, as it covers your arse when you are wrong, but in the renaissance, Michelangelo could draw a perfect circle freehand, I doubt Hurst or Emin could draw a picture that the average member of the public would recognise.

    As I have said the whole art world is built on shifting sand, take a look at Clarice Cliff, good at ceramics, but possessed of the artistic ability of every other Fired Earth Cafe customer.
    • Like Like x 1

  13. That made me larf that did. So its not the art that's worth the bucks but the sad alky twat who painted it? I can kind of see that with Pollock but what makes the gurning bint Emin important? Apart from a decent pair of course.
  14. I prefer this version, costs less than a tenner and makes for a better party!

    • Like Like x 1
  15. Can't you see; its upside down!