Art as crap for the sheep

A New York artist and stock trader lost tens of thousands on stock trades
lately so she drew the stock lines of her trades as black lines on white
canvas and sold a dozen of them for $10,000/ea. I honestly don't care what
statement she was making, they weren't worth $10k each, but at least she
made up for her losses.


Without a link we have to assume you've
merely swallowed an "urban legend", hook,
line and sinker. The story sounds too classic
to be otherwise. (How'd she get an art dealer
and have so much success so quickly, for
instance?)

Is it art buyers or media consumers who
are sheep?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:52:32 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:39:22 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

A New York artist and stock trader lost tens of thousands on stock trades
lately so she drew the stock lines of her trades as black lines on white
canvas and sold a dozen of them for $10,000/ea. I honestly don't care what
statement she was making, they weren't worth $10k each, but at least she
made up for her losses.


Without a link we have to assume you've
merely swallowed an "urban legend", hook,
line and sinker. The story sounds too classic
to be otherwise. (How'd she get an art dealer
and have so much success so quickly, for
instance?)

Is it art buyers or media consumers who
are sheep?


I don't assume that. I just read:
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/21/this...-over-1000000/

The most interesting part of the article was, to me, the reference to
the mounting of a print on Dibond.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| Without a link we have to assume you've
| merely swallowed an "urban legend",

| I don't assume that. I just read:
|
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/21/this...-over-1000000/
|

I find that story much more believable. There's
a name. The man is a photographer. What's more,
he's managed to fashion himself into a commodity.
His name is a saleable item. People pay him $1/2
million to have their portrait done. As absurd as that
is, it also means that the man paying $1 million for
the potato photo was not buying a giant photo of
a potato. He was buying and investment and
cultural currency. He can go to parties saying he owns
so-and-so's own favorite painting, which he bought right
off of so-and-so's living room wall. Then after he's
milked that story he can sell the painting, probably
for a profit.

The other story is about an unnamed woman who
is not an artist, yet paints a few streaks on 10
canvases and somehow magically sells them all for
a fortune.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:09:46 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Without a link we have to assume you've
| merely swallowed an "urban legend",

| I don't assume that. I just read:
|
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/21/this...-over-1000000/
|

I find that story much more believable. There's
a name. The man is a photographer. What's more,
he's managed to fashion himself into a commodity.
His name is a saleable item. People pay him $1/2
million to have their portrait done. As absurd as that
is, it also means that the man paying $1 million for
the potato photo was not buying a giant photo of
a potato. He was buying and investment and
cultural currency. He can go to parties saying he owns
so-and-so's own favorite painting, which he bought right
off of so-and-so's living room wall. Then after he's
milked that story he can sell the painting, probably
for a profit.

The other story is about an unnamed woman who
is not an artist, yet paints a few streaks on 10
canvases and somehow magically sells them all for
a fortune.

Yes, that little story definitely requires some skepticism. I could
believe one was sold - there's always an idiot somewhere, but a dozen?
When "art" sells for $50, someone likes the art. When it sells for
10K, they're buying the artist, and they need a reason, whether it's a
trusted friend touting that artist, or some other recommendation.