Friday, November 13, 2015

Even abstract boobs too racy for US TV

Don't miss this wonderfully funny talk by Stephen Colbert about what is art and what is porn.

For example, one of the most celebrated, and justifiedly so, pieces of fine art, is Amedeo Modigliani's  Nu Couché (New Coochie?), which just sold for $170M.
(I remember in the eighties when a van Gogh set a world record with five million. I guess fine art is getting even better.)

Seriously, nude or not, it is a classic and genuinely beautiful painting, and for childishly squeamish forces to pressure media into showing it like this:

... is not just ridiculous, it is a crime against art, and a serious malfavor towards the children it's supposed to "protect". Imagine growing up in a "protected" home, having no idea that the other sex has these parts, and then turning 18 and going to college! (Or to log onto the Internet...)

Anyway, if this is porn, I wish they would tell me how they did it. I would like to start a "porn" web site, sell ONE painting of a nude for hundreds of millions, and retire in style.


Ken said...

I get the feeling that it has actually got worse, that 20 years ago showing nude art was much more common. I wonder what they make of the nude babies that are shown in older art.

Bruce W. said...

I agree it has gotten worse. It seems to have gotten to the point that the self censorship kicks on just on the fear that a few people might be offended.

Tommy said...

I totally agree, it is truly a sad state of affairs. Oh but, I just had a thought... If this one image sold for $170M, then EO must be a multibillionaire, for he sold thousands of images when he sold Domai.. :-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

That's right, Bruce. Or just one or two complaints, and big companies panic and give in.

Tommy, would be kewl, but egalitarianism is not popular in this part of the galaxy.

Anonymous said...

That's a ridiculous amount for almost any painting, certainly that one. I like it, but 170 million? No.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yes, I'm sure most people agree with that.
But most of the gallery world, they don't sell art proper, they sell investments.
People may give a nodding thought to how they like it and how it goes with decor,
but mostly they have been convinced that the painting will go up in value.
From such a price it seems unlikely, but the market is alive. Maybe this act alone
will create it's own myth about the picture, help create future, even higher prices
around other paintings and this one, etc...

Generally, a price has very little to do with how much it costs to get something made
and delivered. The price is simply the highest number each customer can be convinced
to part with to get the merc. And tha't why there are special editions, hard-and soft-covers,
etc., so you can catch as large a swathe of that scale, down to those who will only
buy it when it goes on sale.

Ken said...

With our low interest rates and the large amount of available money people are looking for investments with good returns, so among other things they've tried art. Of course once they start putting the money in, the prices go up and it becomes one more asset bubble. The art market will probably collapse more than the real estate and share markets will, as at least companies do earn money and people can live in houses.