1/4 What makes art valuable

[@MikeyRumi180]

The irony of it all really is that the original Artists never see a cent of all that money.

[@winkulgames6656]

Omg where was this channel my whole life this is all i needed

[@ericswain4177]

Third time watching this video series1-4 , every time I watch I come away with a new perspective and viewpoint. Art is one of the least codified subjects in the world.

[@Toghebon]

1- Escaping taxes/laundering money 2- Insane competition between filthy rich people whose only pleasure in life is to symbolically crush other filthy rich people - Thus : 3-Incoherently, tastelessly amassing lots of symbolic power in various forms including art to assert yourself as socially dominant - #2 and #3 leading to : 4- Snobbishly faking an appreciation of modern art in order to differenciate yourself from the masses who despise modern art -The whole 4 lead to : 5- Artificially inflating the high-price art market in order to maximize the socially positive outcomes of the first 4, so only the wealthiest can compete and therefore assert themselves as even more dominant And finally , without any link to the first 5 : 6- Genuine appreciation of art in general and sensibility to the philosophical abstraction of modern art That I think is a decent hierarchically classified base to explain why art prices have been rocketting. I might forget a ton of other reasons though.

[@omga14]

What gets me is the part where they talk about the Massacre of the Innocents. So this painting is not worth it's "value" when it is considered done by another artist. They find out that it is a Rubens(sp?) and now it's 76M+? So the power of the painting is less just because it was thought to have been done by another less regarded artist or simply unknown? This is where I become convinced that these people don't really appreciate art for the sake of it itself. I see beautiful work by unknown people and give it the same regard as I do if I see something of equally beautiful by a well known artist.

[@madman3891]

Most people that have the money to spend millions on an art work do it for the social value which honestly is fine. If you want an interesting story of a couple that became famous because they bought art that they enjoyed, look at Herbert and Dorothy Vogel.

[@NEONMOTORFAIRY]

It says more about the value of money, than the value of art.

[@joannahigginsartenchantres1902]

I can only find parts 1-3, 4 appears to be missing 😢 Can it be reposted?

[@gdhse3]

Why is part 4 of 4 blocked in the USA? Any reasons for that?

[@andrenewcomb3708]

But where do you put the "Massacre"?

[@andrenewcomb3708]

And that actually isn't what Bethlehem is about? Take the girls there and she might slap you.

[@acaciarogersart]

I think art is the only category of commerce today where quality, craftsmanship, effort, or talent has little to do with value. Its disturbing

[@Xplorer228]

What about celebrities? What about Designer fashion? Gucci? What about mainstream pop music? Television? The art market isn't much different than a lot of things. People buy into all sorts of useless expensive status symbols. Another reason some contemporary art is so expensive is the same reason why ancient artifacts are so expensive. Collectors know that they are going to go down in history and that makes it worth more.

[@acaciarogersart]

+mossy1 umm....I don't know if you know this...but as far as celebrities go...acting is a talent, often requiring classes, practice, many auditions, and years of experience and building up fans. Musicians are talented in singing, playing instruments, or writing music...also requiring practice, classes, experience, and building a reputation. If someone sucks at singing or playing an instrument, they don't make money doing it and people don't like listening to it, with the exception of terrible singers being famous because it is funny to some. And some people are famous just because their family is super rich. You have thwarted yourself with your own point.

[@acaciarogersart]

+mossy1 also fashion is an art form that is expensive, time consuming, requires craftsmanship, and has to adhere to certain standards depending on the market, but because it does fall into the category of "art" it too can be admired for being absurd or outrageous, but only the artistic application, not the practical

[@Xplorer228]

Acacia Rogers Art You missed my point entirely. I am not saying that these genres as a whole are full of talentless hacks.. I'm saying that just like the art world, they contain extremely wealthy constituents who have made it big without much work at all because they have become a brand, a status symbol, a fame monster. So try looking at the examples I gave again but this time with that in mind. There are many low talent pop stars who are stupid wealthy because their fame is what sells. There are handbags with the same quality as Gucci, and yet Gucci is stupid expensive.. because its a status symbol. "reality" T.v. is full of mind numbing drivel, yet the stars and creators of the show are now rich and famous. The art market is just an extension of the same phenomena that pervades many genres.

[@acaciarogersart]

+mossy1 these are valid points and I see why you are bringing it up, but I do have a retort. In regard to the talentless that became famous or became a brand, do you have any idea the money that was spent on marketing and image to make that happen? Do you know how much Gucci pays for advertising? For that spot in vogue magazine, to be a part of runway shows. And those crappy pop stars, their agents are marketing geniuses, and someone has to handle creating the albums, editing the autotune, scheduling photoshoots, image editors, commercial/air time, booking gigs and selling seats. It is a butt ton of work and money to make something famous that may not deserve said fame, because they know the millions it will get in return. Is that moral or acceptable? Not always. Is is slimy and disgusting. Absolutely. But still....far more work, time, money, and effort that throwing paint on a canvas violently and demanding money and too be recognized as talented. There really is no comparison.

[@guharup]

Rothko is very good though, infact his works are amazing, but 120 mil, last count? is anything on a canvas worth that much?

[@PaperadiGomma123]

You can use art to deduct taxes. Basically the higher the cost the higher the discount so instead of paying 120mil you're saving a large part of that sum practically stealing from the tax-paying citizens

[@itslanded]

How does a artists work become desired? Is it fixed?

[@RovexHD]

Know the right people.

[@acaciarogersart]

My gawd the idiot that spent 72mil on that rothko. Some ritzy pompous art dealer will try to convince you to like it and explain why its "good" and how you should react to it because it needs the help... In contrast, when observing "Massacre of the Innocents", no one needs to explain anything for you to feel emotion, or understand the story it tells, Or understand why its valuable.. BOOM, the difference between good art and expensive garbage.

[@Xplorer228]

I've cried while viewing rothkos and it had nothing to do with its financial value but with its empirical and intended beauty. And I didn't need anyone to explain it to me because I'm not stupid. What that art dealer explained in this video was pretty obvious.

[@acaciarogersart]

+mossy1 you are a minority my dear . I'm not saying your experience is invalid or it didn't happen, but it's a heck of a lot less common than you think. And no this doesn't mean you have some profound understanding of things that others do not. It means mind over matter is a strong force.

[@acaciarogersart]

+mossy1 also none of that justifies it being anywhere near 72mil in value and yes spending that is absurd

[@Xplorer228]

Acacia Rogers Art Might does not make right. So why exactly ARE you saying I'm in the minority? What is your point? Mind over matter doesn't matter.. it has nothing to do with this other than the fact that I value mind over matter. And actually yes, if you are someone who understands something (anything) in a certain way that the majority cannot then that is the very definition of having "some profound understanding of things that others do not". Rothco IS like a piece of a music that, if you allow yourself to not get distracted by the price tag, can be overwhelmingly beautiful. I never said it justifies it being 72mil. What I am saying is that you are letting the price dictate how you view the work and you are currently doing the equivalent of comparing Mozart to Brian Eno. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because Brian Eno's music is minimalistic that it is garbage.

[@acaciarogersart]

mossy1 Im sorry but i admittedly believe the value and admiration of something should have more to do with the talent, work, time, practice. and effort that went in to it. Or at least some level of visual appeal. For example...Jackson Polluck. There is absolutely no talent or workmanship behind his paintings, but at least they are sometimes pretty to look at. Sure i might hang it on my wall, but i wouldnt call it amazing art, nor would i pay more than a couple hundred bucks for it. We realism painters know how painstaking painting can be and we literally spend years trying to advance and refine our skills because such work, talent, and toil used to increase value and fan base. Not to mention the immense emotional satisfaction of completing something that you are truly proud of that you know was very difficult and time consuming to create. Then some schmuck sells a picture of colorful squares for multiple millions. Im sure you can understand the frustration. Or maybe you cant. I dont know

[@RedPillSurvival]

2 things make art valuable: 1. People looking to profit on other's speculation. "I'll pay 100 million because I think the next bloke will pay 150 million" 2. Money laundering - Yes. People will pay proffer a painting for big money as a way to accept a payoff/bribe in a way that cannot be contested. Which US president has a son who is an "artist"?

[@milagra46]

I really enjoyed this video, thank you

[@whsbstudentgallery9112]

Acacia Rogers Art - What a shame that you do not view Art as something which you might have to use your intellect to enjoy. To suggest that the only good art is the stuff that "No-one has to explain for you" not only negates many of the great works of modern art but also many of the pieces which my students have produced. It is the general public's lazy attitude to the study of art and the context in which it is made, which causes such limited and narrow responses in galleries and classrooms around the world. I'm afraid you are sounding a little bit like a Philistine, despite the fact that you claim you have an interest in Art. I believe that, in a way, we are all students, for the whole of our lives and I think that you will appreciate more in life if you accept that some things may need to be considered for a little longer than a couple of minutes. Did a teacher never explain something to you? Did it increase your knowledge? Did you have a greater appreciation for that thing once it had been explained? More importantly - have you ever solved a problem on your own? Was it satisfying? Did you find that you felt that you shared a common bond with others who also solved that same problem? (This is how a lot of advertising works.) Finally, in response to your comment "I think art is the only category of commerce today where quality, craftsmanship, effort, or talent has little to do with value. Its disturbing" Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of different arenas in which people are paid enormous amounts of money for doing something badly - or seemingly doing nothing at all! The point is not to rate the value of something by the cost, but by the meaning it has to someone. If someone finds an object useful or has an emotional connection to it, then the object has value. If a painting sells for 72M at auction, it is because it means something to the person that buys it. Even if they are buying it as an investment - that is its use to them. The film suggests that the Rothko sold because the buyer appreciated the fact that the Art had an interesting previous owner. The story of Art, who it affects, where it ends up, how it is read throughout the ages, what it means to us, is all part of the beauty of Art. Art, after all, is history and a good work of Art - to counter your proposition - should keep on communicating to us through the ages - even if it's voice is hard to listen to and it's message appears undecipherable.

[@niggaheads]

anyone from stile?

[@samuelbyron6146]

The first painting is glorified garbage the 2nd is an actual painting.

[@vutEwa]

It's British to say "clarrring" instead of "clawing"

[@intoconjunctions]

As strip-mining is to nature, so the art market is to culture. Robert Hughes

[@luisbito8391]

no cuality is manipulation is same

[@kevnev342]

money laudauring, greed , tax evasion

[@Webbi-ry6ub]

its useless

[@vutEwa]

"do you remember when you first sarrrr it?"

[@TurkiyeCumhurbaskani]

Half of them forgery

[@jfloop77]

$72M for three colored squares - "it is a wonderful painting". That's what you hear from snob propagator. Nothing more than snobism.

[@samuelbyron6146]

5.12 it is a wonderful painting it is a wonderful painting. Like wtf???? Its a piece of shit!!!

[@proffiesloth]

First

[@TheNoblot]

FROM REMUS TO BRENNUS on the ART world, we all know History is written by the winners 😉✍️👑🎨🖼️🎭🎪🥇🛡️⚔️🎵🩰