88 posts in this topic

it is one brave soul who got money at his disposal who is bidding all the way up. What a weird world we live in. 

 

It has to be more than just one person bidding. Otherwise the price wouldn't be going up.

 

Currently at $100,099.99 with 24 unique bidders. Whether the Zimmer ever sees a nickel is another matter entirely. For all we know, his friends are bidding just to artificially inflate the price and get media attention on the item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now he can claim himself an artist. How sad the term "artist" is been abused.

 

The art MARKET has worked like this for the past 500 years. Nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it fraudulent? He set the original price at .99 cents. If people are willing to pay obscene amounts of money for it that's their problem.

Because the value does not match the worth? I realise he didn`t set the final price but as I said, if he was genuinely in it for the art and to be an artist then theres no need for him to attach his name and bs fame to it, nor the agenda in the Q&A.

All hes doing is pandering to the cult of "Zimmerman".

If he had been painting for years before all this and selling his work then fine, but to do so on the back of how hes now come to prominence just makes him seem like an even bigger douche and not worthy of the tag "artist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The art MARKET has worked like this for the past 500 years. Nothing new here.

Sad and true. Also why this irritates me the way it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the value does not match the worth? I realise he didn`t set the final price but as I said, if he was genuinely in it for the art and to be an artist then theres no need for him to attach his name and bs fame to it, nor the agenda in the Q&A.

All hes doing is pandering to the cult of "Zimmerman".

If he had been painting for years before all this and selling his work then fine, but to do so on the back of how hes now come to prominence just makes him seem like an even bigger douche and not worthy of the tag "artist".

 

You can't say that. Obviously some people out there however you feel about it think it's worth their money. If the bids are real that is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't say that. Obviously some people out there however you feel about it think it's worth their money. If the bids are real that is.

I can and did! And yes Im aware that people have different tastes, but seen`s as this is a forum to express opinion, I am doing just that.

If you don`t like my opinion then maybe move on to someone else`s, with whom you can identify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can and did! And yes Im aware that people have different tastes, but seen`s as this is a forum to express opinion, I am doing just that.

If you don`t like my opinion then maybe move on to someone else`s, with whom you can identify.

 

I guess it's semantics but your post wasn't worded as an opinion. You were making the claim as a universal fact for everyone. At least that's how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad and true. Also why this irritates me the way it does.

 

Take notice that I typed market with caps. There are many art circles. The market is just one of them. There are literally thousands or artists outside the market (outside the idea of art as a sellable luxury). It's a myth that only those who sell their art can live thanks to it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's semantics but your post wasn't worded as an opinion. You were making the claim as a universal fact for everyone. At least that's how I read it.

And thus is the nature of Art. Opinion more or less equals fact in many instances. Art asks you to give an opinion of something.

Its like years ago when doing Art written exams, 90% of the paper is just the student spouting there opinion of a piece of art or artist(s)/movement/trend etc.

And markers cant mark it wrong as long as it shows there actually basing it on what in front fo them. Your even told this going in ><.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thus is the nature of Art. Opinion more or less equals fact in many instances. Art asks you to give an opinion of something.

Its like years ago when doing Art written exams, 90% of the paper is just the student spouting there opinion of a piece of art or artist(s)/movement/trend etc.

And markers cant mark it wrong as long as it shows there actually basing it on what in front fo them. Your even told this going in ><.

 

 

Well...no. A fact is verifiable. Opinions are personal and aren't backed by fact. That's not to say that opinion can't run parallel to a fact, though.

 

But yeah all you had to do was say "In my opinion" then there wouldn't be an argument and then what you're saying is true.

 

P.S. There are no right or wrong opinions when it comes to art.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...no. A fact is verifiable. Opinions are personal and aren't backed by fact. That's not to say that opinion can't run parallel to a fact, though.

 

But yeah all you had to do was say "In my opinion" then there wouldn't be an argument and then what you're saying is true.

 

P.S. There are no right or wrong opinions when it comes to art.

I disagree, I saw what this thread topic is about  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl: 

I think unfortunatey in years to come, no matter what becomes of GZ this picture will be worth money because of who he is and what he has been involved in. I'm sure good money would be paid for some of the worst criminals in history work if they had produced art etc.

I will say that this is not to say GZ is a crinimal, but more that it doesn't matter who you are or what you may have done, if there is fame attatched to your name it will generate money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, I saw what this thread topic is about  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl: 

I think unfortunatey in years to come, no matter what becomes of GZ this picture will be worth money because of who he is and what he has been involved in. I'm sure good money would be paid for some of the worst criminals in history work if they had produced art etc.

I will say that this is not to say GZ is a crinimal, but more that it doesn't matter who you are or what you may have done, if there is fame attatched to your name it will generate money.

 

Disagree with what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with what?

sorry should have made that more obvious....

 

 

 

P.S. There are no right or wrong opinions when it comes to art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry should have made that more obvious....

 

How is what I said not true? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is what I said not true? 

It was sarcasm, I was trying to suggest what GZ created could not be considered as art...

And this is represents what I thought might be a funny joke...

 

plane-crash-o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No suprise, Zimmerman is a fraud.

 

05B9h8G.png

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No suprise, Zimmerman is a fraud.

 

 

 

Fraud in what sense?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraud in what sense?

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-zimmerman-copy-a-stock-photo-for-his-original-100k-painting/

 

"The best guess is that Zimmerman wanted to paint an American flag, so he searched for an image of one on Shutterstock or another site that features that company?s images and then just painted over it. While there?s no big art rule that says use of multimedia or even tracing is inherently ?bad,? Zimmerman does not disclose the use of the foundation image, calling the piece ?original? and ?hand-painted.?

 

Seeing as Shutterstock?s images are copyrighted and are not free to use, things could potentially become legally complicated if Zimmerman did, indeed, crib the image from the stock photo company. Plus, if someone is going to drop $100,000 on Zimmerman?s first-ever painting, they?d probably want to know from where the image originated?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling art on ebay now eh.  Must be for future defense funds.  Dude seems to always need a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...no. A fact is verifiable. Opinions are personal and aren't backed by fact. That's not to say that opinion can't run parallel to a fact, though.

 

But yeah all you had to do was say "In my opinion" then there wouldn't be an argument and then what you're saying is true.

 

P.S. There are no right or wrong opinions when it comes to art.

I guess I kind of forget how strong an opinion I have on art and artists sometimes. In regards to opinion and fact being equal, I mean within art and not as a generalized statement, I would also say its more that there are shall we say "largely accepted views/opinions/bs/lies", that various artists/groups/movements adhere to, and I myself am as guilty as the next in terms of that.

Thus when old G.Z. pops up with this, well rant on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-zimmerman-copy-a-stock-photo-for-his-original-100k-painting/

 

"The best guess is that Zimmerman wanted to paint an American flag, so he searched for an image of one on Shutterstock or another site that features that company?s images and then just painted over it. While there?s no big art rule that says use of multimedia or even tracing is inherently ?bad,? Zimmerman does not disclose the use of the foundation image, calling the piece ?original? and ?hand-painted.?

 

Seeing as Shutterstock?s images are copyrighted and are not free to use, things could potentially become legally complicated if Zimmerman did, indeed, crib the image from the stock photo company. Plus, if someone is going to drop $100,000 on Zimmerman?s first-ever painting, they?d probably want to know from where the image originated?"

 

He can buy the right to use the photo as he sees fit. That's kind of the point of that website and stock photos, that are also royalty free. Unless I missed something?

 

Stock photos are used daily by all kinds of artists around the world so I'm not really sure how this is a problem. Unless he stole the photo which is a completely different issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No suprise, Zimmerman is a fraud.

 

 

omg... it's too funny to be real, :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's art, so is what I leave in the toilet after a rich meal. Probably some gun nut with more money than sense, funny how easy it is to make money from complete fools. If only Americans were this eager to funnel money to people and causes that are actually worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

copyrighted U.S flag, its illegal for U.S citizen to draw the U.S flag, awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is what I said not true? 

 

Depends. Contemporary art discourse and statement is very precise, hence you can elaborate quite an objective opinion of the piece's failure or success to articule it's intentions.

 

Thats the beauty of TRUE contemporary art: Despite what some conservatives, diletants and purists want you to believe, it's quite transparent, it's semiotical. Unlike modern art, which depends on hermeneutic to FIND meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.