[supercaffeinated]

On the other hand the idea that an auction values something so precisely that it determines greater value over a closely but lesser priced item cannot be correct either. However since The Passion has earned substantially more than MDB (4 times more), I think it's pretty obvious which movie is better.

http://www.bradenton...ist/8199068.htm

[jtr1962]

I just want point out SC that depending upon who the sponser is, some art may not have much appeal at all. Take the National Endowment for the Arts and some of the crap produced by the "artists" they sponser. Remember that picture of the crucifix in urine? That certainly didn't have broad appeal. I'm not even religious yet I found it both distasteful and highly offensive. And what about that thing they put in Central Park recently? Sure, it was privately paid for, but I didn't see much about it that could be considered "art". To me it looked like someone was drying a bunch of tents.

[supercaffeinated]

In the past few months or so I've been to The Gates, MoMA, to the "Nomadic Meuseum" on the west side for an exhibition by Gregory Colbert called "Ashes and Snow", and to "Der RosenKavalier" at the Metropolitan Opera.

The Gates was actually quite enjoyable to see simply because of the venue. Walking from the upper east through "The Gates" and winding up at the Time Warner building surrounded by a huge crowd of people simply out enjoying a beautiful Saturday was fun. The Gates were kind of like Seinfeld, "A show about nothing", but a very popular show nonetheless. The Gates brought an estimated $254 Million to NYC.

[supercaffeinated]

Here's a picture I took of "The Gates". Click the image for a full-sized version.

[jtr1962]

Yeah, The Gates was different and popular, but I still don't see it as art. More like a public spectacle for lack of a better word. I didn't see it personally largely because there was a lot of lousy weather for the two weeks it was up and I was very busy. BTW, because of the name I actually thought that Bill Gates sponsored this exhibit until I read an article about it.

Since that went over so big maybe something with solar-powered LED lights in various colors and patterns would be good for the next Central Park exhibit.

[balding_ape]

Art doesn't fit simple definitions, and certainly doesn't conform to any one person's idea of it. The question "what is art?" has been asked for years, and never (to my knowledge) adequately answered. Why is a Warhol considered art, but my photo of a stack of Campbell's soup cans in my kitchen is not?

Also, the idea that artistic value and monetary value are interchangeable is silly. Many artists we now consider "important" made very little money from their art. And the price of art waxes and wanes...does that mean its artistic value does, as well? Certainly, the artistic value of something (whatever that means) often influences its monetary market value, but ultimately the monetary value is tied to the market, not the artistic value. Unless you think that Danielle Steele is better art than James Joyce or Shakespeare because Danielle Steele sells more copies, and her work makes more money.

[supercaffeinated]

The problem is that "artistic value" has no reliable unit of measure. There is no more reliable value of art than the dollar. As the aliens who will analyze our remains after we are extinct.

[supercaffeinated]

Wow, i didn't catch that ridiculously incomplete sentence until after the "edit" period expired. I guess I had too many jack and cokes at the black crowes tonight. My point was, there is no objective measure of value better than gross take.

[balding_ape]

supercaffeinated, on Mar 24 2005, 12:43 AM, said:

Wow, i didn't catch that ridiculously incomplete sentence until after the "edit" period expired.  I guess I had too many jack and cokes at the black crowes tonight.  My point was, there is no objective measure of value better than gross take.

And since that is such a grossly awful "objective" value in terms of its accuracy/precision, one tends to scrap it and not feel like one is really missing all that much "artistic value." After all, most of the most successful enterprises are not what I would say have artistic merit (with the understanding that what I think has artistic merit is an extremely precarious distinction): look at American Idol, Star Wars Episode I and II, Danielle Steele, Survivor, The Real World; all forms of media that, in my opinion, have near-zero "artistic value" and yet have made oodles of money.

Bottom line: when our "best objective" measuring stick for art is money, and it is so clearly a terrible measuring stick, I think we can relatively safely place it in a position of tertiary importance.