On 29 Oct 2006 19:34:54 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Don't know who Tracey Emin is, either- but that doesn't sound very
appealing. There are a lot of things in the world that people with
too much disposable income will pay outrageous sums of money for- and
they're not always easy to create. But IMO, calling some of this
stuff "art" is slapping the faces of the old masters.

An old guy with a big beard sitting down and holding a book - not very
appealing.
http://www.askmichelangelo.com/images/5670a.jpg It's all how you look
at it.

All things considered, if I were decorating a place and had unlimited
cash, I'd prefer any one of Michelangelo's works to a rumpled overcoat
made of knotty pine or a boat that looks like a car. Doesn't make me
right, just a personal preference- based on Michelanglo's depiction
of the heroic in man, as opposed to depictions of the common.

I actually do really admire the skill of the artist who sparked this
thread- I just can't understand why that skill was applied to
reproduce such common objects. Kind of like making a model of a
toaster from Italian marble- even if it is flawless, it serves no
purpose (unless it can toast bread, too)

But I never got it, and probably won't. I suppose it's my loss- but
it's easier on the bank account.

If you had the money, would you buy the work, or buy the tools and
develop the skills to make your own?

Neither, really. If I had some extra money, I'd probably use it to
finish making my own furniture for my house. If I had enough to go
beyond that, I'd buy machine tools and use them to make tools and
parts. It'd take a lot of scratch before I ever got around to buying
or making "art", unless you lump turned objects in that category. I
find functionality and good engineering more aestetically appealing
than most art, new or old.