George Zimmerman in the news again.

To me, this is not an artist...
http://news.artnet.com/art-world/vigilante-george-zimmerman-arrested-over-a-painting-219223

Personally, I would not give a penny for his suppose to be "art" pieces.

 

I love the quote "“Just because you get pigment and a canvas or a piece of cloth and you dirty it up doesn't make it a work of art,".

 

I liked that phrase too. It's just a matter of time that his name will fall to the way side and his art won't be worth near what he's seeing now.

Just gets me that an individual gets recognized for other things than their ability to create appreciative and meaningful art. That recognition, alone, brings higher values on art than what someone who's dedicated their entire life, put forth blood sweat and tears.

 

I actually meant it less as it concerns Zimmerman but more as it relates to all these Goodwill finds that we see on the boards that are essentially pieces of canvas dirtied up with paint. Some are less "dirty" than others of course but just because there is some oil on a canvas doesn't make it art.

 

For some it comes easy--others, not so much.

 

I would rather own a Goodwill find than Zimmermans.

 

The point I'm making is that the recognition he's received is the only reason he's seeing those prices.

If it wasn't for his face being plastered all over the media, and one of those pieces was found in a thrift store, everyone here would say it's nothing special, probably a student piece.

There's artist out there that the skill comes second nature and still don't see prices like that.

 

I get your point and have some appreciation for it. However, I applaud the fact that people are buying real art as opposed to mass produced prints. The fact that there is an appreciation that one is buying something hand made and original is worth a lot. Besides, you can not arbitrate taste.

 

True enough, although personally I would rather own a poster of a great painting than a mediocre original. I also highly recommend supporting talented artists who are unknown or under-appreciated.

 

My brother told me to paint over used canvas. I can't imagine painting over something that someone took their time to create. No matter how amateurish the piece is, I just can't bring myself to do something like that.

 

This is where we differ ...... and that is OK

 

That being said, I don't own any posters, but have published a few of them. Last week my mother in law saw one for sale in a thrift shop in Florida and bought it for a whopping $10 framed.

 

I'll never understand what anyone sees in Picasso, Dali, Warhol or Nieman

 

Terry,

I felt the same way about most modern art until I went to see it in person. Prints really do not do justice. That said, there are a few I still dislike. I am with you in that I don't care much for Leroy Neiman. I find Jackson Pollock's work mostly boring (though he is starting to grow on me a bit), and (blasphemously) most Georgia O'Keeffe's work seems like pandering to me.

 

Personally, I like art that makes me think and wonder what the artist was thinking. I love surrealism and cubism art. I see those styles as someone painting a poem on canvas. It's more of the intellectual part of art. When one is told the title of the piece or is explained to what the subject is about, it's up to the persons eyes and mind to perceive it.

Picasso and Dali's works are like a 3D poster.you can't see the true meaning to it at a quick glance, but once you deeply study it, the image, the "meaning" is clear as day.

 

I never could get into Picasso for whatever reason. I tried. Dali I love, Magritte too. Pollack and Warhol on the other hand...not so much. Other artists go on a canvas by canvas basis.

 

I like Pollack, can't stand
Picasso, Dali or Warhol.

 

I can stand Dali..........

 

I like that one. Here are two of mine.

 

You do know that the flying geese are by Escher and not Dali, right?

(I happen to love his stuff, so I'm glad you like it too!)