Should Australia sell Jackson Pollock's "Blue poles"?

[laughing dog]

I think it’s very easy to beat up on economists, largely because so many people think they understand that terms which are narrowly defined by the discipline are equivalent to the broader, less specific meaning in common parlance. Because economics seeks to describe

Maybe. But it's also easy to beat up on economics understanding all of that. Particularly in America.

In general, it is always easier to beat up on something one does not understand, regardless whether the beating is merited or not.

 

[J842P]

I think it’s very easy to beat up on economists, largely because so many people think they understand that terms which are narrowly defined by the discipline are equivalent to the broader, less specific meaning in common parlance. Because economics seeks to describe

Maybe. But it's also easy to beat up on economics understanding all of that. Particularly in America.

In general, it is always easier to beat up on something one does not understand, regardless whether the beating is merited or not.

I suppose it could be. Whether or not that is empirically the case doesn't seem particularly relevant, so I am happy to grant that point.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here’s what I think. I think after he finished painting it, he thought it looked a bit ‘flat’, and needed a bit of additional interest, so he later added the ‘poles’. And I think it worked quite well. There’s an additional colour (blue), ‘straight’ shapes and lines to contrast the non-straight ones, and a bit of an additional 3-D effect, with the ‘poles’ done in thick paint over the top of the (already dry and hardened) original. I think he managed to liven up the composition considerably. I myself would not hesitate to part with, say £1000, to have this on my wall at home. The fact that apparently somebody else started the painting and Pollock finished it would not put me off.

 

[Axulus]

Safer in a museum than in private hands. I don't think significant pieces of art should be tradable commodities in the first place, but capitalism conquered this planet long ago.

That doesn't make any sense, why shouldn't they? So that more of these "significant" pieces can just be held in storage?

Museums are keeping a ton of the world’s most famous art locked away in storage

Most of Georgia O’Keeffe’s work is in storage.

Nearly half of Pablo Picasso’s oil paintings are put away.

Not a single Egon Schiele drawing is on display.


...The largest museums typically display about 5% of their collection at any time.

https://qz.com/583354/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-great-art-in-storage/

Also, when would you determine that a piece of art has become "significant"? Would the owner be compensated for the fair market value at that point, or would it simply be confiscated by the state?

 

[Politesse]

Safer in a museum than in private hands. I don't think significant pieces of art should be tradable commodities in the first place, but capitalism conquered this planet long ago.

That doesn't make any sense, why shouldn't they? So that more of these "significant" pieces can just be held in storage?

Museums are keeping a ton of the world’s most famous art locked away in storage

Most of Georgia O’Keeffe’s work is in storage.

Nearly half of Pablo Picasso’s oil paintings are put away.

Not a single Egon Schiele drawing is on display.


...The largest museums typically display about 5% of their collection at any time.

https://qz.com/583354/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-great-art-in-storage/

Also, when would you determine that a piece of art has become "significant"? Would the owner be compensated for the fair market value at that point, or would it simply be confiscated by the state?

The system is pretty screwy to begin with. But there's no fixing it. In the meantime, a museum is a better place to "store" art than some rich asshole's billiards room.

 

[zorq]

Australia should keep the "Blue Poles" until they have a need for funds greater than the value the art provides the community it currently serves. The state should operate out of practical motives, not sentimental ones.

Personally, I have never had much respect for highly abstract art. I feel like I can appreciate the aesthetic appeal to a degree and I can usually distinguish the works that are considered to be a higher quality in these styles from those considered lower quality, but I simply can not dislodge from the back of my brain the notion that even the best works in this genre, like "Blue Poles," and anything by Pollock in particular, could have been produced by an unruly toddler left unsupervised in an art studio. It was a shock to discover that this work may be the most valuable painting in the world.

It is almost insulting.

 

[ruby sparks]

Australia should keep the "Blue Poles" until they have a need for funds greater than the value the art provides the community it currently serves. The state should operate out of practical motives, not sentimental ones.

Personally, I have never had much respect for highly abstract art. I feel like I can appreciate the aesthetic appeal to a degree and I can usually distinguish the works that are considered to be a higher quality in these styles from those considered lower quality, but I simply can not dislodge from the back of my brain the notion that even the best works in this genre, like "Blue Poles," and anything by Pollock in particular, could have been produced by an unruly toddler left unsupervised in an art studio. It was a shock to discover that this work may be the most valuable painting in the world.

It is almost insulting.

There is, imo, much more deliberation and skill in a Pollock than could be produced by an unruly toddler.

That said, some abstract art could be made by an unruly toddler, or a monkey, and there have been notable scams.

In Pollock’s defence, although he was at least 50 years late to the abstract modernist party, he did at least invent a new way of painting (called Action Painting) and should be credited for that. He was trying to paint the feelings inside his head and once said, ‘if you want to see a painting of a flower, go look at a real one instead’, which more or less sums up why I like abstract (or conceptual) art a lot, possibly more than figurative art.

That said, the high monetary value is imo ridiculous, but then at those ‘celebrity’ levels, it’s not about the art, it’s about the monetary investment, it’s business, based mostly on reputation.

 

[bilby]

Australia should keep the "Blue Poles" until they have a need for funds greater than the value the art provides the community it currently serves. The state should operate out of practical motives, not sentimental ones.

Personally, I have never had much respect for highly abstract art. I feel like I can appreciate the aesthetic appeal to a degree and I can usually distinguish the works that are considered to be a higher quality in these styles from those considered lower quality, but I simply can not dislodge from the back of my brain the notion that even the best works in this genre, like "Blue Poles," and anything by Pollock in particular, could have been produced by an unruly toddler left unsupervised in an art studio. It was a shock to discover that this work may be the most valuable painting in the world.

It is almost insulting.

It's worth a lot because people think it's worth a lot.

It's intrinsic value is FAR less than it's worth.

So, basically, it's just like gold or diamonds. Or banknotes.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just to broaden out the topic:



'My Bed' (or 'the unmade bed') by Tracey Emin. Originally bought for $200k in 2000, but sold for $3.77 million in 2014.

Arguably not really worth either of those sums, especially the latter, but still a great piece of art, imo. It says something intimate, confessional and profound about our shared human condition (in particular, suffering, particularly mental suffering, and what to do about it) that I don't think anything else has expressed nearly quite so well, all the more so because it's so mundane, not to mention real, because it's the actual bed that she was not for some time able to raise herself out of after a relationship break up. But it's an empty bed, because she was eventually able to leave it and move on. So it's a representation of a preserved, painful memory.

 

[Rhea]

If I were Australian, I think I would want them to borrow against its full value so that they could purchase $350M worth of Australian art, then sell the Pollock to pay off the purchases; thereby replacing their collection with a showcase of Australian works.

They could probably get a Pollock reproduction to display for those who like to look at such things. (I do, I think it’s neat.)

But as Australian (if I were one,) I would want the major value in my national museum to reflect national talent.