Yeah, but can you repair it for under 100k?

I know a few art conservator/restorer types.  They have a lot of overhead and time invested their trade/craft.

The big hole in the center makes me wonder if I can have sex with it. And how much it'd cost.

Not as much as you'd think. That painting is a dirty whore who likes it rough.  Sacred Honour compels me to leave it at that, though.

Posted by: Lady in Black ~ still carrying a torch for Perry at January 05, 2012 04:42 PM (ycuSb)

Missed it by thatmuch. I guess I owe you a Coke.

If you cross your eyes, the center portion looks like the Energizer bunny running over a poodle riding a boogie board as he races toward the sunset (on the right).

(The blotchy white thing on the left looks like Momma...)

She did, they say, $100,000 in damage to the $30 million painting.

Those skid marks aren't going to archivally steam clean themselves!

I've got some old book covers from middle school that I need to get on the market, stat.

I hope you saved your diaramas as well.   Once those book covers sell, your early works will demand a premium.

Who was the fool who priced that thing at a cool 30 million?

My guess is the artist's agent.

Posted by: joncelli at January 05, 2012 04:40 PM (RD7QR)

Looks like a blood smeared cow pissing to the right.

The point of abstract paintings is to create ‘the thing itself’, not a representation of another thing, whether object, person, or landscape. It stands alone, good or bad, and its merit isn’t measured by how well or how poorly it reproduces something else. To me, abstraction in art is more direct and immediate. The abstract artist understands that the art isn’t what’s hanging on the wall or standing in the round; rather, the art lies in effect: what takes place in the mind or heart of the person experiencing the painting or sculpture created by the artist. The best artist guides your eyes and provokes the thoughts he or she wants you to think, the emotions he or she wants you to feel. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don’t, but people should at least be receptive to the idea.

I like Still's painting, myself. To me, the style is reminscent of PollackÂ’s girlfriend/wife Lee KrasnerÂ’s work. Still was considered quite the big name in his day, and was often compared with Pollack as an innovative force in the abstract expressionist movement. And no, Ace. I very much doubt you could paint something as good as Still's piece. You could give it a try, though.

I paint, and my own work seems to veering off into abstraction, almost against my will. I sell my work to make much of my living, both commercial stuff and fine art, and there's not exactly a lot of big money potential there--and I don't write that because I'm a snob or because I like struggle without gain. I do it because I must, because if I didn't I'd be filled with the woulda shoulda coulda regrets I swore wouldn't be weighing me down when I die. What I want--and what most serious artists want, I think--is to make something beautiful and true.

What that woman did was shameful and wrong, but it wasnÂ’t the act itself that bothers me. It was the thinking behind the act, that oh-so-special combination of viciousness and vacuity.

It's the type of painting that will draw crowds.  Crowds that look at it and form one emotional response:  "This is fucking art"?

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 05, 2012 04:45 PM (lVGED)

THAT'S IT!!  I knew that painting reminded me of something.  It is like looking in the toilet last night after the explosive diarrhea.  Damn, I need to get a canvas to put under there next time.  I could probably get a few mill $, right?

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 04:48 PM (vtiE6)

Nothing more immediate than  being punched and then getting an ass rub.

It's rare to evoke that kind of response from a 2D artwork. 

Usually it's the sculptures and 3D art that arouse the violence.

$30M for that?

It's glaringly obvious that all of us are in the wrong business.

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 04:48 PM (vtiE6)

Nice try.  It's a piece of shit and everyone knows it.

The point of abstract paintings is to create ‘the thing itself’, not a representation of another thing, whether object, person, or landscape. It stands alone, good or bad, and its merit isn’t measured by how well or how poorly it reproduces something else. To me, abstraction in art is more direct and immediate. The abstract artist understands that the art isn’t what’s hanging on the wall or standing in the round; rather, the art lies in effect: what takes place in the mind or heart of the person experiencing the painting or sculpture created by the artist. The best artist guides your eyes and provokes the thoughts he or she wants you to think, the emotions he or she wants you to feel. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don’t, but people should at least be receptive to the idea.

I like Still's painting, myself. To me, the style is reminscent of PollackÂ’s girlfriend/wife Lee KrasnerÂ’s work. Still was considered quite the big name in his day, and was often compared with Pollack as an innovative force in the abstract expressionist movement. And no, Ace. I very much doubt you could paint something as good as Still's piece. You could give it a try, though.

I paint, and my own work seems to veering off into abstraction, almost against my will. I sell my work to make much of my living, both commercial stuff and fine art, and there's not exactly a lot of big money potential there--and I don't write that because I'm a snob or because I like struggle without gain. I do it because I must, because if I didn't I'd be filled with the woulda shoulda coulda regrets I swore wouldn't be weighing me down when I die. What I want--and what most serious artists want, I think--is to make something beautiful and true.

-

Huh?  I work because I need money - that's what's true

What that woman did was shameful and wrong, but it wasnÂ’t the act itself that bothers me. It was the thinking behind the act, that oh-so-special combination of viciousness and vacuity.

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 04:48 PM (vtiE6)

50 That had to have been painted by a liberal or a very drunk conservative?
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 05, 2012 04:46 PM (i6RpT)

Or a very crafty huckster who sold people on the idea that the word "art" can be defined as anything.  Yeah, yeah, it was funny when Marcel DuChamp did it with the urinal, but now every talentless hack that can grasp a crayon took that one lame joke and ran with it, producing the Modern Art movement.  People now read meaning into random paint splatters.  It's no wonder there are armies of swindlers willing to sell the emperor a new painting to go with the new clothes.

(Wait!  I didn't see it before but the black areas of the above work spell "SCOAMF".  It's the work of a genuis...)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 05, 2012 05:00 PM (/kI1Q)

I did the Bungalow in Broad Ripple two years ago. Decided to hold off on showing any more until the Painted Women series is done--which it almost is, after taking up six years of my life. Then, when I find a gallery, I show them all. More visual power that way.

Guy hires a painter. Hey, he says, paint my porch a forest green.

Painter says, really? You sure? Guy says yep.

Few hours later, painter knocks on the door.

It's painted, he says, but I still think it's a Ferrari.

Posted by: Juicer at January 05, 2012 04:57 PM (/UFbC)

And Dennis Kucinich...

"The best artist guides your eyes and provokes the thoughts he or she wants you to think,"

My eyes rolled, and I was filled with thoughts of landfills.  I've seen house painter's drop cloths that were more appealing.

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 05:03 PM (vtiE6)

Only if there are funny animals playing cards in them.

"Would anyone like some cozy, glowy cabin in the woods pictures? With sunsets?"

Joan Miro did a few that resembled that sort of thing.  They didn't suck though.

As a Denver yokel, let me clarify a few points.

The painting shown is not the one being shown by other news sources including local stations.  The one shown elsewhere is even less interesting.

The cost to repair the painting is estimated at $10,000, not $100,000.

No one paid $30 million for the painting.  Like almost all of Still's works, it was held by Still's family until donated to the Denver museum.  Four of Still's works were sold to fund museum operations.  They sold for $104 million with one going for $61 million.

Just another monument marking the decline of western civilization.

That's a $30 million painting?  Who knew that Koko the Chimpanzee could dip brushes into red and black paint cans and throw the colors on a canvas in alternation?

So is the pendulum going to swing back to works like this? Now granted, it's no cozy cabin in the woods or sunsets, but I think it's wonderful.

Does this really compare, even if the artist managed to inject his own name into it?

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 05:03 PM (vtiE6)

Only if there are some Bob Ross "happy little trees" included;P)

I like Still's painting, myself. To me, the style is reminscent of PollackÂ’s girlfriend/wife Lee KrasnerÂ’s work. Still was considered quite the big name in his day, and was often compared with Pollack as an innovative force in the abstract expressionist movement. And no, Ace. I very much doubt you could paint something as good as Still's piece. You could give it a try, though.

What that woman did was shameful and wrong, but it wasnÂ’t the act itself that bothers me. It was the thinking behind the act, that oh-so-special combination of viciousness and vacuity.

Posted by: troyriser at January 05, 2012 04:48 PM etter than Pollack too.  I'd even buy him the large canva

I also paint and yes, Ace could paint something as good as Stll.   Ace could paint better than Pollack too. I'd even buy him the large canvas and Valu Rite so he could throw the paint on in the same way.  Hell my cat can paint better than Pollack and he doesn't have to get drunk to do it.

Yes abstract art has meaning, and much of it takes skill and a mastery of the mediums, this painting and others not so much.  The eye of the beholder does not make it great or valuable. 

It's not just what the "artwirk" looks like, it's the rare expensive material that it's made of.

That's not just any painting.  It's actually the skin of a rare Antarctic snow tiger....as the black stripes on the white background indicate.  The red is that world renowned elixr made famous by none other than 'the winner' Charlie Sheen.  The yellow is new, not in the catalogue edition, may have been added by a druken female tourist.(the grey indicates it was an aging tiger)

I know you were joking, but lest others be misled, from the Denver Post:

Based on a complex donation agreement reached in 2004 with Patricia Still, Clyfford Still's widow, the artist's paintings and works on paper — about 2,400 in all — are owned by the city of Denver.

But the Clyfford Still Museum, which was created to house, oversee and exhibit the collection, is a privately funded 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that receives no city support.

Like scores of other arts organizations in the region, it is receiving public support from the seven- county Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, which is funded by a 1/10th-of-1-percent sales tax.

No defense of that particular painting or that particular artist, but "i could do that" is a bullshit reason. The fact is that you did NOT do it; the artist in question DID.

I can type all the same words as Shakespeare. And yet only one of us is a literary genius.

Lots of people can play the guitar part from "Purple Haze." I mean the notes are all right there, and you can easily find out what order to play them in and everything. But only Jimi could come up with it.

Technique is great but technique alone is not art. There are people who can do very photorealistic paintings; they are NOT ipso facto better art than (say) sketchy late Picassos, which are very simple in terms of line and detail.