Why Some Master Painters Did ‘Awful’ Work

Art can be something very complicated and incomprehensible for many of us. Paintings from the Renaissance era, with their ideals, attract the attention of a wide range of admirers, but for some it is hard to believe that some less conventional works by painters like Picasso and Kandinski are worth the fortune for which they are sometimes sold.

O incredible.club found the answers to several interesting questions about the world of painting by delving into the work of art historians and cultural studies.

Time and again we hear stories about huge amounts invested in a certain painting. But the truth is that few paintings are auctioned for the astronomical values ​​that are usually reported. Art critic Jonathan Binstock considers that, worldwide, there are about 40 authors whose paintings are evaluated in figures with many zeros…

Let’s talk about a recurring example. Perhaps you’ve heard of the graffiti artist Banksy. His work has always focused on social issues. Nowadays, Banksy is an artist whose works are valued at quite high values. His painting “Girl with a balloon” sold for 1042 million pounds sterling (about 5 million reais), and everyone talked about the self-destruction of the work immediately after the sale.

Banksy is a brand, and some brands sell for high prices.s — think of a Louis Vuitton, for example. Thus, the value of a painting is determined by the author’s fame.

A painter can have bad luck for a long time, living in poverty and uncertainty, without the possibility of selling his works profitably.

The Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) has only 36 works. His painting “The Concert”, which was lost in 1990, is now valued at $200 million. The fact that some painters better evaluated by critics, like him, have few works, evidently makes the prices of each work higher. It’s the law of supply and demand.

The legendary Vincent van Gogh is a super brand. The painter’s paintings are very few and his works are unique.

10 years ago, the work “Suprematist Composition”, by Malevich, was sold for 60 million dollars. If not for the economic crisis at the time, its price would possibly have reached 100 million dollars. Malevich’s paintings in private collections are numbered and there is no idea when any of his works will be auctioned again.

One of Richard Prince’s works in favor of “appropriationism”.

Photographer Richard Prince came up with the idea of ​​re-capturing the photo of a cowboy from an advertisement, eliminating all text. What to many would seem like child’s play was considered art of the highest quality. Prince was well evaluated by critics and, according to them, ‘created a movement’, the appropriationist. The photographer’s daring gesture earned 3 million dollars, the value of the work “Cowboy”.

Many countries whose economy has grown and which aspire to become tourist centers have also become centers of art, with museums housing works by famous painters. This is the case, for example, of cities in the Middle East (where oil dollars flow) and China, whose GDP has been growing at extraordinary levels. To get an idea of ​​this movement not long ago, the royal family of Qatar invested 250 million dollars in Cézanne’s painting “The Card Players”. Having works by these authors, in a way, gives these countries the status of cultural centers.

In 2017, billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev sold this Leonardo da Vinci painting for $450 million. It is still the most costly transaction in the art world.

When you have 4 mansions, countless cars and a luxury plane, what more could you want? All that remains is to spend money on very expensive paintings, since it is one of the most durable goods.

There are, in the world, about 3 thousand billionaires (people with more than 1 billion dollars). And the paintings of well-known artists, as we wrote above, are very few, especially in comparison with the number of millionaires. Moreover, even those who are not interested in painting are ready to invest in it only because of the prestige (and sometimes appreciation) of this type of investment.

In short, money for a few paintings by the great masters and the result is obvious: sky-high prices.

Painting by Georges Pierre Seurat “The Canal de Gravelines, Grand Fort-Phillippe”.

In Susie Hodge’s book, “Why Is Art Full of Naked People?”, she talks about the purpose of frames. Thus, they protect the edges of the frame and attract people’s attention. Some frames are worthy, others are completely simple and do not distract from focus. The purpose of the frames is to complement and show the work in a better way.

But the abstract art painter Piet Mondrian wanted to eliminate this feeling of distance that the frame caused. Thus, the painter painted on the same edge of the canvas and even on the sides.

George Pierre Seurat he also didn’t like the shadow that some frames cast on the painting. And he himself often imitated the frame with small dots of different colors.

Fragment of “The Creation of Adam”, by Miguel Ángel.

The ancient Greeks considered a body without clothes to be incredibly beautiful.

In art, this behavior was often seen as a symbol. The symbol of a new life, sincerity, the importance of being a living being and also life and death.

Painting by the Czech painter Bohumil Kubišta “Hypnotizer”.

Probably one of the most frequent criticisms towards modern artists is something like “painters make scribbles instead of portraying things as they are”. Hence the misconception that objects look flat.

Take, for example, the screens of Kubišta🇧🇷 They break perspective but, at the same time, represent objects from different angles and even at different points in time. But it cannot be said that the representation on the screen is two-dimensional.

Drawing something to “look real” is no longer necessary in this age of ubiquitous digital photos. For this, you only need your cell phone. Therefore, in order to look for the answer to the question of why the artist in one or another picture depicted reality as something flat, it is necessary to embark on the same idea as the author.

In the 19th century, a style of painting was born under the name of primitivism, also known as art naive. His representations simplified the paintings and made primitive forms, as if they were children’s drawings. The paintings of some primitivists were considered true treasures of world art and made a strong impression on their contemporaries. And this, despite the fact that the artists did not have any, shall we say, formal education. Porosmani and Rousseau were self-taught, but their paintings attracted those who had seen it all and were saturated with traditional, “upright” works. Such pictures were like a fresh breath of simplicity.

But the avant-garde professional artists of the 19th and 20th centuries had a solid education and foundation. They could paint whatever they wanted, but at some point they decided to emulate the primitivists. It was conceived that way because it was a whole new way of influencing the viewer, capturing the interest of those who were already bored of the same thing.

The painters would have done an excellent job in the spirit of classical academic art, but it became too tedious. Picasso, as a young man, produced moving realistic portraits, but as a mature man he chose a path that would impress and refresh his eyes. And would anyone doubt his talent or consider his work scribbled?

Art is not synonymous with beauty, and art itself does not always represent beauty. The idea of ​​beauty varies from person to person, and the opinion of just one person cannot be considered a standard.

Among art critics, we find the following opinion: saying that paintings must necessarily be beautiful is the same as saying that a good film must be a romantic comedy or a drama with a happy ending. In that case, psychological dramas, action films and thrillers would not be films. Everything can be beautiful, and that just depends on the eye of the beholder, whether in painting, music, theater or cinema.

Now you’re convinced, right?

Art, painting in particular, must speak in the language of its time. And to enjoy any painting, even a realistic one, you need to know what’s behind it.

At exhibitions, we usually read the descriptions and even use an audio guide precisely for this reason. Isn’t it fascinating?

And you, do you have any kind of attraction for paintings? What style do you like the most? Share your opinion with us!