Was it worth it?

A life-size sculpture by Alberto Giacometti broke all records today by selling for $104,000,000 at auction. It was his "Walking Man I":


(I refer to the figure to the left .)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35223008...ts_books_more/

At least it wasn't "Piss Christ".

It's a priceless historic artefact. The older and more revolutionary a work is: the more it's "worth".

Basically the sculpture is a physical representation of Jean-Paul Sartre existentialist ideas. I think this sculpture should have the same value as a copy of one of Sartre's books.

But Giacometti famously often gave his work away for free, so maybe it should be even cheaper still.

This sculpture is really far from 'piss christ'

I think "Walking Man I" has it's value as art and depending on the context I think it's reasonable to be worth millions.

I'm more of a classic guy so I wouldn't spend anywhere near 100 millions in it, if I had that kind of money to spare.

Originally Posted by Louis Lux

This sculpture is really far from 'piss christ'

How?

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

How?

Cause it's conceptual and controversial garbage.

The sculpture stands on it's own as Art.

Originally Posted by Louis Lux

Cause it's conceptual and controversial garbage.

It's not controversial, it's disgusting, that's all. It's a clumsy message from one christians to his lazy comrades. Simple, concise and to the point, but not a master-piece, obviously.

Originally Posted by Louis Lux

The sculpture stands on it's own as Art.

It's not a stand alone piece: It's part of a series. Not only that but his books supporting/explaining his works are extremely illuminating and I would go as far to say essential.

Also the signifigance of this series is the massive transition it represents in Giacometti's career.

But yes it doesn't require physical support and it is in a way a sculpture that stands on it's own in it's own eerie surrealist formalism. Or as Deluze called: "Bloc of sensation".

Wow... that is so ugly. I mean some idiot fool who knows anything about metal work could create something nearly as good as that for a fraction of the cost, it is almost as bad as someone throwing a lot of trash random junk and welding it to gather, which sadly also sells as art.......

Its like when computers started aiding Japanese anime artist now almost any anime can have good quality backgrounds and character art, when in the past it was lacking sometimes do to cost.

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

But yes it doesn't require physical support and it is in a way a sculpture that stands on it's own in it's own eerie surrealist formalism. Or as Deluze called: "Bloc of sensation".

Exactly I don't need anything else to appreciate it, the piece has a certain presence.

But if I knew more about the context I probably would be able to appreciate it more.

I can't stand modern art

Originally Posted by Lupu

I can't stand modern art

Why?

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Why?

Because people pay completely insane amounts of money for something that's just ugly.
To sum it up, I read an article in a science magazine about something I don't remember, but it contained a cool game; There were 3 pictures that looked like painting randomly smeared on a black background, I had a choice of which one I liked best. On the next page it showed that one was painted by a famous artist who had gotten paid like mad for it, one by a six year old, and one by a chimp... To be honest, I liked the six year old's one best, in second the chimp's "artwork".

Originally Posted by Lupu

Because people pay completely insane amounts of money for something that's just ugly.
To sum it up, I read an article in a science magazine about something I don't remember, but it contained a cool game; There were 3 pictures that looked like painting randomly smeared on a black background, I had a choice of which one I liked best. On the next page it showed that one was painted by a famous artist who had gotten paid like mad for it, one by a six year old, and one by a chimp... To be honest, I liked the six year old's one best, in second the chimp's "artwork".

Is art meant to be pretty?
I didn't know.

It should at least look like something. That's just a crude, skinny man with long legs and a weird face walking, I don't care what ideas the artist wanted to depict, I don't see them.

Are you telling me art isn't supposed to look good? There's a reason those people don't write instead.

Originally Posted by Lupu

I don't care what ideas the artist wanted to depict, I don't see them.

That explains everything else you've said.

Quite frankly I wouldn't hand over a single penny for that thing. What makes it art? It could be put together in a single day and isn't pretty, complex or depicting anything of interest.

It's pretty much just a model of how South Park portrays Africans. Not even worth the material used to assemble it.