MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
This Billionaire Wants Everyone to Move on From His Crimes
By artappraiser on Tue, 03/23/2021 - 4:47am |
URL:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/billionaire-robert-f-smith-wants-everyone-to-move-on-from-his-tax-evasion
- Add new comment
- 8974 reads
Comments
I read the Bloomberg article on the following, but there were lots of them, here's 4:
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/23/2021 - 4:53am
Here's a major part of that problem:
And like with cops, but worse, few (of all income levels) are fans of IRS agents, so there's little public support for growing them back.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/23/2021 - 5:01am
BTW, in the international billionaire bubble, which I happen to keep up with but don't post on much here, racial tribes don't matter so much, but an Afro-American label can have a lot of value:
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 3:27am
I am reminded of the apocryphal quote attributed to the Gilded Age baron Jay Gould along the lines of I could hire half the working class to kill the other half. Keep plying the racial divisiveness, they love it, find it profitable as well as quaint and interesting; last thing they want is to have people focus on economic inequality instead.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 3:35am
With all due respect to the artist, is there anybody reading this that would, if they had come across this painting in a garage sale or pawnshop, pay $20 for it? I might if it was in a very nice frame.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:11pm
Lulu, it's funny because I was just talking with colleagues the other day about how people who would agree with your taste used to be quite common but lately they all seem to have disappeared, even evidenced by the fact that there are fewer buyers of traditional art than in our lifetimes. Yet there you are, a rare bird from another era.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:36pm
It's said there's no accounting for taste. I get that we can't define what is "good" as it's predicated on what one values. But we can talk about what's happening. I can't do it with the visual arts though you probably can. I'm not asking you to though it would be interesting. I can do it with music but I rarely do it here maybe for some of the same reasons you don't do it here. Like all subjects there is specialized vocabulary that people need to know to discuss it and I don't know how much of that vocabulary people here have. It's not nearly as much as one would need for a discussion of botany but there are some music related terms needed.
One can understand music deeply on an implicit level without that vocabulary but a discussion requires explicit knowledge. What can be said is that popular music has become much simpler in every way except possibly lyrically. I'm not just talking about the difference between classical, jazz, and rock music. Even looking at just the changes over time in rock music harmonies, melodies, timbre, rhythms, time signatures etc all have become more simple. That may be "good." Perhaps music had become too complex. I can only say that one of several things I value in the music I listen to, perhaps the most important thing, is a certain level of complexity. I get bored with music that is too simple.
It seems that most of the arts have become more simple though I wouldn't argue that. While I'm aware of other art forms besides music I don't think I know enough to comment on them. But I watch a lot of music videos with dancing both modern pop and older forms from movies. I've been thinking recently about how modern rock dancing has mostly become much less complex than previous popular dancing from older movies. Virtuosity seems to have been supplanted by simple repetitive sexualized moves. I'm not a prude and I don't care about the overt sexualization of dancing but I don't find it interesting to watch.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 5:52pm
I've never been into changing people's tastes, ocean-kat, I think that's stupid. People like what they like. Most people understand that about movies or music-that it's not like they are going to persuade their spouse to like a movie they hate by arguing with him or her-it's kind of odd why they don't get that with about art.
Art history, which I taught in grad school, is HISTORY of art, not "art appreciation", what people liked back then and why. It doesn't try to impose taste, it tries to study taste, or culture. Just not pop culture so much until the 20th century, because of who was paying the bills (I.E., the Catholic church, the Medici, and Ottoman potentate etc.)
After graduating, I went into the art and antique auction MARKET, where you sell things people like well enough to pay money for them, and the stuff nobody wants to pay anything for you don't sell. You don't get snobby about it or you'd be out of business, you sell what is currently valued, and you study why, whether it's Hummel figurines or animal trophies or wing chairs or Basquiat paintings.After I left working for auction houses, I did appraisals (again, not judging taste, but how the market values it) and then also as a consultant, learning clients' tastes (from big art dealers to people who want to buy but have little knowledge.) In that situation as well, you don't try to force them to change their tastes! Just the opposite, you try to learn what they like and help them develop their tastes and buy smart.
Everyone's taste is interesting to me! I don't care so much about the big money, that's why I ended up rather poor. I like it all, I actually like less valuable stuff the best because you can't see it museums. Nothing makes me so happy as to walk into a house crammed with stuff of a lifetime of collecting. You see the person, it's like a biography. But because I ended up doing appraisals of very valuable works of art and worked with dealers who sold them, I had to study the really valuable stuff too (actually was paid for quite some time to go to big auctions to watch the market and report back to the dealer on value changes.) But the expensive stuff is often actually the most boring to handle, as it's all been catalogued before, and you can see in museums as well (where it eventually ends up, that's why you're appraising it), and you don't need to own it.
I am puzzled that people would even want to know what I like in art. Makes no sense to me. I'm just one person. It's ALL personal taste. Influenced by zeitgeist and marketing.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 9:12pm
It's not about changing people's tastes for me. It's not even about understanding a person's taste either. Though I can do that. If someone tells me their 20 favorite songs I can usually tell what they value in the music they listen to. It's about listening to what is happening and seeing trends. And the very clear trend in music for the masses is toward greater and greater simplicity. I'm not saying that it's bad music, simplicity is a subjective value. One that most people place a high value on in the music they listen to now days.
That appears to be a trend in other art forms as well though again, I don't have enough knowledge of other art forms to be sure of that.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 10:53pm
I'd like to expand on this a bit. I'm not much interested in a list of what a person likes, but if they have knowledge in the subject I'm interested in why they like it. That can help me understand art and maybe help me see something my untrained eye can't easily see. Some people simply see better than other people and I'd like to learn more about how to do that. Just as some people can hear more in a song and maybe help other people hear it
I don't really think about good or bad or even I like this but don't like that. I like music, all of it, every genre and form. But some songs are ordinary and not very interesting to me, trivial. Other songs are extraordinary, interesting things are happening. It reminds me of an interview I saw of Peter Gabriel who is known for his innovative music videos. When asked about it he replied, paraphrasing, "Everyone should be able to do what ever type of video they want but it seems to me that almost everyone wants to do the same thing almost everyone else is doing." Musically that is also what almost everyone in rock wants to do. Almost the same thing everyone else is doing. And it's getting more and more common for most everyone to do almost the same thing. It used to be more common for bands to do something original but still occasionally a band will do something original. For example: This song by XTC, a well know mostly traditional rock band.
I could write a dozen paragraphs about this song but I'll choose just one point. The constant time changes. There are periodically several measures of 3/4 in a mostly 4/4 song. But the measures in 3/4 aren't like a waltz, in 3. They're subdivided into 2. It's 2 over 3 so every 2 measures of 3 feels/sounds like 4. It feels like a slow 4/4 followed by a slightly quicker 4/4. The increase in intensity adds to the upbeat feel of the song and accentuates the mood of optimism that matches the message in the lyrics. Add to this that the bass is playing a 4 beat lick that is repeated 3 times equaling 12 beats over 4 measures of 3/4 equaling 12 beats. This really throws off an easy beat to tap your foot to. This isn't easy to play smoothly, young or less skilled musicians wouldn't be able to do it and it's more difficult to listen to and can make unskilled listeners uncomfortable as they lose a sense of where the beat is.
I think one main reason unskilled listeners don't like more complex music is because they can't understand implicitly what I've just explained explicitly. They get lost and the order in the music becomes chaos/noise for them. Again, I'm not asking you to do something similar with art that I've just done with this song. Post what you want. Perhaps the effort to dumb it down to my or maybe our level is too time consuming and not interesting or fun for you. This is just how I think about music and how I attempt to think about other art forms
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 7:36pm
Response to OK: there are several thoughts i have.
I listened to a lot of Fripp (Crimson/League of Gentlemen), Tone Dogs (check out Ankety Low Day), Gabriel/early Genesis, Thick as a Brick, and other so-called art rock. There are sometimes tradeoffs in craft vs musicianship for one - timing is just one aspect of complexity - Eno's layers of aural effects in ambient music and rock 'n roll are another example. I thought Beyonce's added vocal fx & harmonies distinctly improved a recent rather humdrum CardiB song. Fripp has his theory that having the skill to play 500 things but still choosing to play that open E power chord is more powerful than a garage band that only knows that chord. But of course that's only 1 educated opinion - maybe Ramones and Sex Pistols are just fine without a decade of practice. At the end of the day, songs are songs - and if the hooks aren't there, "Roundabout" becomes Yes's later doodling. I just watched a nice Genesis video to commemorate the very difficult Lamb Lies Down sessions and tour. Despite some very impressive complex work, the biggest hit was the simple but catchy & haunting "Carpet Crawlers". And while the magnetic orchestral 18 minute Supper's Ready was a huge achievement, it still smelled of grandiose art school, rather than the more refined, better mixed (and more song-oriented) Lamb. Literature-wise you might compare Steinbeck's Of Míce and Men with Grapes of Wrath or East of Eden. One is stripped down but compelling; the other two build over time, are thick but immersive. Which is better? Depends on your mood. Charlie Watts threw a Samba beat on Sympathy for the Devil and suddenly it was fresh. Not like complex Gang of 4 or XTC timings (later to be "Shriekback"), but enough to shake it up, much like Chrissie Hynde's timings and chord progressions. But that can be done with Paint it Black sitar, a voice box like Peter Frampton, Sinead's high range, Townsend's extended synth intro to Baba O'Reilly, and so on. XTC's arguably no more musical than some of the best bluegrass players out there (Sneaky Pete's steel guitar is mesmerizing and tough to play, and I once watched a banjo group churn out a very respectable "Purple Haze" with harmonies on demand at a festival. Again, there are multiple paths to complexity. And sometimes complex for its own sake sounds contrived. And sometimes there's a quirk, like Neil Young's authentic and passionate voice that lacks intimal perfection - yet he's written arguably 100 top notch songs, mostly simple, but expressing a number of moods. We listen to music to reflect, to find energy, to dance, to rebel, to feel sad, to fill the background, to feel funky, and so on. Dexy's Midnight Runners could shift timing, speed, sentimental-to-party-and-back. Fishbone mid-eighties had lots of timing changes and full band onslaught - but much more groovy and chaotic freestyle than XTC with multiple singers and crazy ska horns... (check out Party at Ground Zero or U.G.L.Y.). Rasputina turned a 3-girl cello circle into a weird frenzied goth rock 'n roll (did i note the importance of ambient changes? Pixies were great at it, but pre-MP3 compression Larks Tongue in Aspic was able to go from a nearly inaudible sound to full audio assault that would blow hardy Klipsch speakers (tested multiple times). And *collections themselves* are complex. That we might listen to songs back to back with diverging timing, heaviness, styles partly solves the problem of trying to do it in one song over 2 albums (say a Tales of Topographic Oceans) - artists would mix up their own styles, while a random play on your CD/PC collection can provide much of the same diversity.
But in the end we like what we like, and even that *may* evolve. I hated Elvis Costello the first time I heard him, later grew on me. Same with The Cure - listen to the aural and mood complexity of The Top There are masters at kitsch like Nancy Sinatra or Vive la Fete, and then in-your-face singers like Nick Cave/Birthday Party & Tom Waits (lots of time shifting), 80s niche complex shifting fare like Cocteau Twins and Einsturzende Neubaten, and then more standard but quirky fare like Radiohead or Gorillaz, and then a lot of ethnic world music to fill other gaps. It's a movable feast. (Oh yeah, i can appreciate classical music, but overall it's never been my thing. But i also greatly appreciate how good soundtracks whether songs or effects greatly enhance movies.)
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/27/2021 - 5:19pm
Of course rhythm isn't the only thing that matters. I thought I made that clear in my post. I wanted to go deeply into one song and just one point about that song rather than make a bunch of general points about many different songs. I also wanted to make it accessible as much as possible without dumbing it down too much. I thought enough people had at least learned a musical instrument at a basic level and would know what a time signature was so I wouldn't be talking over their heads. I could have focused on a different point or musician, for example Sting's use of different modes and how that affects his melodies and harmonies but most people don't even have a clue what modes are. I could have looked at the frequent key changes in a well know tune like The Girl From Ipanema but I wanted to choose something from the rock genre and something more modern than classic rock.
Mostly I felt misunderstood in that every time I post on art to Arta she seems to think I'm looking for her to list her favorite artists or paintings. Not only don't I expect or desire anything from her as one who is studied in the field of art but what I might "want" from a discussion on art wouldn't be a list of favorite paintings but some type of esoteric or knowledgeable explanation of what is happening in the painting. What did the artist do and some hypothesis as to why he did it. This was an attempt to illustrate that in a field I think I'm well educated and studied in, music.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/27/2021 - 6:23pm
Alright, you might like this set of interviews ( or not)
https://youtu.be/Ejs1G2yLBM8
What surprised me was 1) how human they all are, 2) how while it was presumes Phil Collins made a power play to take over vocals, he was pissed that he couldn't just play drums, and 3) the irony that as good as Gabriel was, his leaving let Genesis reach much bigger success.
As for your point, it seemed you thought many people couldn't grasp complex music, so went for simpler, more sexualized, whatever. Yet that strikes me as all the Jaco (?) Pastorious/John McGlaughlin debates of old, who's the best and what not. Granted Al Dimeola can blow away Dylan's guitar playing, but maybe it's just not the right mood. I can discuss timings and what not, and Tribute to Jack Johnson used to be one of my faves, along with all that Rahsaan Roland Kirk multiple horn thing, but after 10000s of albums they all have their place. For one thing, the search for something new used to be so ingrained - 3 albums by someone and you went out and found a new flame - only a few were precious enough to hold onto longer. I can imagine maybe AA's world is like that - you like stuff, but there's so much out there, you just keep collecting and curating in your brain if nowhere else.
N.B. i largely can't listen to old stuff anymore - i simply don't care, I'm in a different space, most feels like didn't age well or didn't age with me. I always used stuff and moved on. Contrariwise i heard Whoopi Goldberg play some tunes in a movie the other day, including a Ringo Starr song of all things, plus Superstar, and it came across sweet and damn good. Except i couldn't get them out of my head for days, which sucked. I can walk into a store and come out knowing what songs were playing on the speakers - most are oblivious to it.
Anyway, all this just seemed to annoy you, so I'll shut up now.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/27/2021 - 6:21pm
I don't know how to respond to this. First off I'm not annoyed at all by anything you've said. But you don't seem to be responding to what I said. I never once compared jazz or jazz musicians to each other or to a rock musician. If I were going to do that I wouldn't have compared some skilled jazz soloist like Dimeola to Dylan who isn't know as a "great" guitar player. I could conceivable compare a jazz guitarist to a rock musician known as a "great" guitar soloist, like Eric Clapton. But again I specifically said I'm not going to compare jazz to rock.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/29/2021 - 4:19pm
I missed where you said you weren't going to compare jazz to rock (and I'm not sure Dimeola's most famous piece is "jazz"), but you did stress this:
which i think sells many listeners short - lots of listeners - stoner hippies largely - liked Zappa and The Dead's intricate timing, but would also turn around and out on Jefferson Airplane or The Fugs or Janis or back to Captain Beefhart. Given enough acid, the sense of the beat was either easier or irrelevant, though lots of dancing going on. I'd guess much of the popularity was shared social milieu, the region's artists vs imports. I'm not convinced people feel driven to describe music as part of listening to it, though some do. I r call discussions about Buford's 8/17 over 15/17 beats or some such, but we certainly didn't do that for every song. Rush attracted massive numbers of pretty straightforward rock fans, but Neil Peart and Geddy Lee played anything but simple timings.
I also remember Electric Light Orchestra having a couple nice orchestrated albums (El Dorado for one - not being terribly complex timing wise - still, it launched 2 of their biggest hits that one might think a bit challenging for typical radio listeners what changes internet has wrought (and what drives popularity and metrics of popularity) has changed greatly the last 20 years. Who was listening to what in past eras was defined by record sales and guesstimated radio listenership (plus concert sales) - now it's more measurable downloads and streams.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/29/2021 - 4:51pm
In a sense you're illustrating my point. Your examples are 60/70 ish rock. My point was that the music for the masses has gotten simpler. I don't get why you're constantly bringing up "the beat" when I specifically said that I was just picking one point of many to delve more deeply into it and several times brought up other points. Numerous computer programmers have attempted to answer that question and what ever algorithm they use they invariably find that pop/rock has become simpler harmonically, melodically, rhythmically, lyrically etc. People argue whether that's good or bad, which it what you seem to want to do but that's not what I'm doing. So I can't debate you on that question. I'm just looking at what's happening attempting to not make invidious comparisons
I'm not convinced people feel driven to describe music as part of listening to it,
And I'm not trying to convince you of it. Several times I discussed the difference between implicit and explicit understanding of a subject. Just because I attempted to explicitly explain one aspect of one song in no way implied everyone should be able to do that. I never once implied or stated that everyone should learn enough to make their implicit knowledge explicit. The vast majority of people understand music implicitly whether they listen to the most complex jazz or the most simple pop.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/29/2021 - 6:07pm
You and PP might enjoy watching this if you haven't, (I just did, now, they played on the local PBS tho it was made in 2019.) Some might call it revisionist, I just found it adding a little nuance to what it is still pretty simplistic "rock n roll history"
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/rumble/
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/29/2021 - 11:24pm
Nice - i was a bit annoyed at first, but then it seemed to settle down a bit, stop trying to prove too much. Link Wray, Randy Castillo, Jesse Ed, even the Buffy St. Marie stuff was surprising. Of course Robbie Robertson is good fun, and the Hendrix bit - he's all of these things, not denying any part of it. And yeah, New Orleans as the great swampland of bastardized people, one big muddy delta.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/30/2021 - 3:23pm
yeah, that's the same exact thing I felt watching it. Then it struck me like this after thinking about it: this is the correct way to revise history, it doesn't have to be: replace one bible with another, which is what the woke zeitgeist is offering now. It actually never was a bible in my lifetime, that's just the woke narrative. Looking outside your frame was always a thing everyone did in academia: it was more like hey, ever think you are stuck inside a frame, consider this frame instead, just sayin.
The neatest thing about it for me as far as rock is concerned: it really goes to the difference between American and Brit rock. Brit rock influenced by American blues but in a very simplistic way.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/30/2021 - 3:36pm
Any time I pay any attention to the abstraction of the value of art [if that is even the right way to put it] I come away knowing I understand it even less.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 10:37am
You seem to be the only one focused on race.
The article does not mention race.
The piece is called Western art.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:22pm
No this piece is called "by Jean-Michel Basquiat." When you spend that kind of money, you know all about him. If you don't do it yourself, your art advisor tells you. Just having a piece of anonymous "western art" on your wall is not going to get you much bang for your buck impressing your fellow billionaires around the world. A Jean-Michel Basquiat will do the trick nicely, means you're hip and with it, you appreciate the tortured Afro-American artist soul thing. (Basketball, hiphop and Warhol too, you can throw all those in there, it's package that you get.)
And race is the wrong word here. It's nationality. It's mentioned as a big deal in the report that the buyer is from Asia, because: it's a big deal .A Japanese billionaire was the first to drive up the prices for Basquiat to the stratosphere a few years ago, that was big news. It's still big news when: Asian billionaires prefer American culture to their own and in particular, Afro-American culture. What's that about, hmmm?
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:51pm
Aside: you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, just a short while ago you pointed to how you posted on a racially identified art exhibition on another thread. Psst: most successful fine art artists do as you say here, not there, they don't want to be ID'd in a manner hyphenated by race, ethnicity, gender, etc., they'd prefer to be known just as an "artist". Basquiat was pretty much like that, too BUT he's not the buyer here, he's dead, value is assigned by the buyer.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:58pm
My point here is that you are the one who introduced race/ethnicity into the discussion of the purchase
The buyer could simply see a source of future profit in the work
The work could represent nothing more than more money for the buyer
For the record:
Basquiat had no problem identifying as Black, rather than a simple"artist"
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/african-american-jean-michel-basquiat-rose-graffiti-sprayer-artist-international-fame
Edit to add:
You said Basquiat was happy being known as an "artist"
In his own words, he says that he is Black and uses Black protagonists
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 5:28pm
Probably. Given the current zeitgeist, it's a reasonable investment.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 1:51pm
Might interest you, more Emma: that it is absolutely an extreme current concern to everyone involved in the art market. It has always been an escalating part of the art market since the 1990's (including money laundering and the development and use of "freeports" where art is parked without being taxed). But it's gone way further now because right now there is a big sort of takeover attempt or "disruption" by the whole cryptocurrency/blockchain investment madness crew It is complicated, you can start if interested by doing a google for NFT art. Obviously, from the Basquiat auction result, you can see they have not convinced many billionaires yet against believing that "real" art is still the way to go, investment wise if that is your desire.
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 2:26pm
1) a certain amount of cynicism since Dali started rubber stamping prints & Warhol commoditized commoditization. (Basquiat being somewhat a Warhol disciple, no? Junkie or not, he knew where the bread was buttered)
2) currencies can be by fiat or agreement. There's a certain advantage to these flexible mobile art currencies that may override their lesser aesthetic value (in an age where tinny compressed music has won over high fiedelity), the convenience of the download & easy transfer can supercede the value of the piece in general.
3) somehow I think the dealings with the Salvator Mundi were a bit of a shot-across-the-bow: art fraud & shenanigans now a full political & high stakes activity, increased with the pandemic and scarcity of more worthwhile investments. Can you get to your art cache in lockdown? How about your NFTs? Don't pen me in...
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 2:46pm
well, as you can see from Twitter, all the big boys and girls in the art market are cynical about it as well. But it most definitely is a major disruptive "thing". Especially as it gets all the investor types thinking about what they are really valuing.
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 2:54pm
No, I'm saying art itself is quite cynical - the business/collector side has just *increased* its cynicism.
And as per Lulu & abstraction, I guess this level of cynical business abstraction of art values & aesthetics is only fitting. I think maybe he underestimates his appreciation for the reality?
Anyway, I think you've talked about more of a switch to yuppie woke identity artworld vs the way it was - I'm not sure the extreme NFT trading focus denies that - it's more the ecosystem than the art itself now.
[accepting that I don't know shit about this arena - my ravings may be spot on or a world away]
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 3:25pm
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out after my eyes uncross from this very short thread on the cultural significance of NFTs from my favorite finance reporter. I expect she will be back with more on that aspect sooner or later. Also, Susan Blackmore's TED talk on evolution, memes and temes that Kaminska linked to in that thread was very good.
However, I was thinking about the amount of money flowing into NGOs for black causes and beneficiaries, not the advent of NFTs when I suggested that the Basquiat purchase was a reasonable investment.
----------
There are some Basquiat quotes that haunt me every time I see his name or an image of one of his most famous paintings. They accompanied an article about his rise to fame and the promotion of his art and his persona by art dealers.
“Believe it or not, I can actually draw.”
“I wanted to build up a name for myself.”
“I wanted to be a star, not a gallery mascot.”
They struck me as so profoundly sad.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 7:07pm
You spoke personally with the buyer?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 5:01pm
I am very sorry I decided to share any info like this here you are obviously not at all capable of doing anything useful with it except demagogue it for your own agendas, including some personal thing you got about me, you are trying to prove to someone (god?) that I have an agenda, want to dig dig dig and aggravate people into arguing with you. INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING someone sharing their thoughts and knowledge. It is clearly way way way over your head.
Won't make the mistake again. No more art market talk from me on Dagblog BIG WASTE OF MY TIME. Way savvier people to discuss it with elsewhere and I gave up being an undergrad college teaching assistant decades ago.
(BTW, there are several people still on the masthead here who show appreciation for me sharing such thoughts on Twitter. They don't participate here anymore. I don't wonder why anymore.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 5:47pm
Really: why keep chasing me and Peracles around and trying to irritate us into talking with you? We really just want to talk to and challenge each other, with comments welcome from people like ocean-kat Lulu and Orion and whoever else may stop by from the old times.
You NEVER appreciate time put into explanation or argument. So why do you engage if you hate us so much and think we are so wrong. Really rather you wouldn't, because you bring in nothing new, just the same exact argument no matter what it is. Why not do your own thing on your own threads? Bring in someone else to talk to that you won't try to irritate all the time and from who you accept challenges with appreciation and good will. Why keep attacking?
BTW the reason I bring in comments from Twitter by people like Jilani or Yglesias is because I find what they say intriguing and challenging. I wish they OR PEOPLE LIKE THEM were interacting HERE instead. But those kind of people are no longer here, so I import them. It's not like I am purporting their tweets to be "journalism", NO, they are just REAL discussion (not agitprop with agenda, but thought provoking comments and discussion) like we no longer get here from enough people.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 6:00pm
Usual MO
I pointed out a statement made by Basquiat in an interview that countered your suggestion about the artist
I gave my opinion, it disagrees with your opinion.
You go to ALL CAPS!
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 6:02pm
they have these tools on twitter that many people use, I wish we had then here:
Mute is you don't even see their comments and they don't even know it.
Block is you don't see their comments and they can't see your posts or your comments. And they know it, they can't even try.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 6:12pm
AA, we have disagreements, there is nothing wrong with that
You used to post tweet snippets from James Lindsay
Through discussion, his hypocrisy was pointed out.
We are under no obligation to agree
You see the media fueling fear in the Asian community
I see fear that was already present
I do not see how telling the Asian community that there is nothing (more) to worry about after Atlanta working
I see other communities offering support as a better option
"We have your back"
I see the pious attitude of people like Andrew Sullivan as a big misfire
Thugs of any color who attack Asians or anyone else should be punished legally
I have no magic wand that will keep Black thugs from thugging
Economic improvement and police reform, which you dismiss as sending social workers into gunfights, are the only options I see for long term change
Edit to add:
Danny is spending time with photography
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 6:48pm
Billionaire logistics on speed
(but all the liability is outsourced, amirite?)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 4:14am
back to:TAXES! (instead of billionaires) New ruling for everybody who itemizes health care costs!
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/26/2021 - 3:52pm