Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fire 'destroys' Saatchi Modern Art classics
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm no expert on insurance and stuff ...
But what sort of payout will this eventually reap.... Must be almost large enought to start the fire in the first place .... not that that was what happened ....
That aside, Saatchi had some good stuff, so that would certainly be a big shame if he lost a piece or two.
But what sort of payout will this eventually reap.... Must be almost large enought to start the fire in the first place .... not that that was what happened ....
That aside, Saatchi had some good stuff, so that would certainly be a big shame if he lost a piece or two.
Oh well, Tracy Emin will have to spend a couple of afternoons knocking up some more tat to sell Saatchi. Got to hand it those modern art guys though - they managed to persuade enough people that their 'works' are actually worth something and not the worthless piles of tat they look like to everyone else...
..actually my old tent's on it's last legs. If I sew the names of everyone I've slept with into it do you reckon it'll be worth something?
..actually my old tent's on it's last legs. If I sew the names of everyone I've slept with into it do you reckon it'll be worth something?
virividox said:
That's the badger!
The problem with Pop art is exactly that, it's only famous (of value) for 15 minutes.
I know there were a couple of really "good" pieces amongst that steaming pile of sixteen minute old s h i t e but I'm sure they were not in the building when the reason for an insurance claim was set in motion, accidentally of course.
iGAV said:
That wins Pun of the Day AwardAnd to all you philistines, modern art does exactly what it says on the tin, so stop complaining. And by the way:
Mona Lisa : some woman sat in fron of hills and a track
Michaelangelo's David : Nude bloke holding a flannel
Only an imbecile would call stuff like that art ...
I've actually seen the real statue of David in Florence and all I can say is that it's hands are well big. The guy was a goalie or something! It's strange as I never noticed that on any of the other of Michaelangelo's sculptures I've seen...Savage Henry said:Michaelangelo's David : Nude bloke holding a flannel
Only an imbecile would call stuff like that art ...
Anyway are you comparing modern art (which is mostly conceptual bull**** knocked up in a couple of hours) and real art where the artist actually had some talent?
caveman_uk said:
Can't say I noticed the hand proportions, I'll look next time. Perhaps David was Bob Wilson in a later life?
I'm saying that you can't compare modern art with more established pieces. Plenty of people I know slag off modern art in the same way my Dad tells me to go and get a 'proper' hair cut. Just because it doesn't meet the required criteria they may have set in their own mind, just makes it less artistic for them, not less artistic in general.
Sure, the standard of a lot of modern stuff is questionable. But as you pointed out it is just conceptual. And if I can't conceptualise it I can't just stand there and say it's worse than the Gauguin in the next room. It's easy to reduce modern art to basic elements, so that's what I did with David and Mona Lisa.
I didn't want to start of a bun fight, I just wanted to stand up for modern art.
caveman_uk said:
as far as i remember the big hands were a sign of "having the power in its own hands" ...you know florence was a free city lead by the people and not ruled by a king (until it degenerated to decadent regime by the di Medicis) and the legend of david vs. goliath fitted perfectly for their city at it's time
sadly during my visit i only get to see the (very good) replica on the outside ..we were short on time to visit the museum