> liberal: Sure I'd love to pay $400 000 for this early Rothko. It'll look great in my living room.
> conservative: $10 000 for this original Leyendecker? I'd rather buy a framed 40$ print from China and call it a day.
Why don't conservatives buy art?
Other urls found in this thread:
I buy lots of furry art, so thats incorrect
Thank you for helping traditional arts flourish lol.
You can buy good original pieces if you are either rich or stupid, and currently I am neither.
What? I do buy art, pic related
Different niches. Same reason right-wingers go into business instead of art.
>Why don't conservatives buy art?
Like you said, because they are stupid/
Where are the 'conservative billionaires' to support right wing causes? None exist, they are cucks.
Every rich conservative could at least support Lauren Southern and Infowars, etc...and really boost them up, but do they? FUCKING NO. meanwhile Soros and every Libtard billionaire are supporting antifa and every left/liberal cause....
I'm not a conservative, whatever that is, but I don't know the market well enough.
Same reason I'm not a day trader, I'm risk-adverse when it comes to crypto, and I'm into gold and guns and skills and the usual stuff like that because I think that's going work better for me.
Because I don't need to launder money
I've got better shit to spend my money on faggot, like more guns, silver reserves or non-perishable food items
Conservative rich people don't invest in pic related though.
That's it. Fuck traditional painting, I'm drawing hentai from now on.
Not true, user.
> Koch Brothers
> Rupert Murdoch
I got some monet but they're obv fake
I'm not stupid enough to spend my money to prop up the art cartel
I'm happy with prints. I can change them for something else when I'm sick of them. Wouldn't want the responsibility of a genuine work of art and do not believe they're worth the cost or even as an investment
I'm not reffering to buying dead Impressionist originals . You can support LIVING local artists that have nothing to do with the big auction houses. Pic related.
Liberals like the Podestas only buy art so that they can use it as a currency for child trafficking.
Liberals buy expensive art to launder money.
I have a friend who tried to start a small cottage industry basically renting out actual paintings on the cheap to use as commoner's house decoration, and as a result he could pick the best of the lot and basically be a permanent owner of whatever he wanted.
But that was when the economy was shit and plebs didn't want to spend jewbux on a painting. It's too bad because even though they're nothing you'd ever want to put in a museum, the bits he hung on to really do make for pretty cool house decor and conversation pieces.
They'd rather put the money into something that helps society become more productive.
Like yachts or long holidays.
>Why don't conservatives buy art?
Beat the shit out of that straw man, libtard.
I don't know plan to ever spend more than 50 bucks to print art off the internet and get in on my wall.
Someone else will have to buy the piece with the food colored period blood smeared around with foot prints.
>Wouldn't want the responsibility of a genuine work of art and do not believe they're worth the cost
What do you mean by this? There's Sargent originals - sketches that you can buy at $5 000. Pic related.
Because conservatives are...conservative with their money you fucking retard. Kill yourself.
my ultra conserative uncle has $5 million worth of art in his house I shit you not. the art is worth more than the house
>2017
>Buying (((art)))
Kudos to your uncle.
I'm actually talking about figurative art that means something and takes skill to make.
Mian Situ - contemporary realist painter
I buy art, regularly, am conservative .
Many of the collector friends are also conservative.
Artist, by in large, liberal, though there are a few exceptions.
>> Koch Brothers
>> Rupert Murdoch
They support neocon pretend 'libertarians' and Israel user, not right wing causes. Where is the right wing millionaires/billionaires to support the alt-right? To support Lauren Southern and boost her up to mainstream media level? To support Tomi Lahren? None exist, none support them.
Their money all goes to Israel and jewish causes.
Because modern day art is produced by jews and pretentious liberals without any skills, talent or effort.
Only fascists, imperialists, patriots, religious and traditionalistic people make good art. And they only make that art when they are at their height of their civilization, and when they are not shamed for pride in their people and culture.
Cultural relativism killed art.
I saw one piece of modern art which was literally just a photograph of a banana.
Its pretencious shit that they market to dumb rich people. Its like one of those f2p games, you dont earn money from most people, you earn it from the big spending whale that has no concept of monetary value because they are so filthy rich.
Maybe the reason is that conservatives don't want to spend money on art like pic related? And liberals actually buy the postmodern bullshit they believe in. That was the whole point of my thread but I guess not everybody knows Rothko/Leyendecker so it wasn't clear...
>wanting billionaires and elites to support anti elitist right wing populist movements
are you stupid or what
I think most conservatives (normal cuckservatives) dont care for art whatsoever anymore namely because the liberals dominate the field so heavily.
A few rotten apples ruin the bunch essentially.
But who knows, given how much people online value old art and complex artworks etc it might make a comeback.
Maybe we will see a right-wing cultural Renaissance.
The point regarding comparisons between representational work vs abstraction or abstract impressionism (in the case of Rothko) isnt lost on me. Thought I have found this sort of debate lazy. All art movements are of value culturally. This degenerate vs non degenerate art debate brought on by Hitler was always ironic to me considering how fucking pedestrian his skill and eye were.
>All art movements are of value culturally
So a picture of a banana is of equal value to the sixteenth chapel?
I have yet to see a piece of modern art that actually takes skill and time to create.
Anything worth having an original of is priced absurdly.
Also, are you seriously asking why people who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative dont blow money on poor investments like those who consider themselves liberal do?
Who the fuck said conservatives don't buy art?
When I worked on wall street 80% of the guys were conservative and at their dinner parties there we usually Monets etc on the walls.
Art isnt a poor investment.
Expensive art is mostly about money laundering and tax dodging. Conservatives are decent, honest people who don't do stuff like that
Art is nice, but paying retarded prices is for morons
Leyen was HOMO. A HOMO I TELL YOU!
Yes it is.
This.
It literally is, though. Unless you're laundering cash.
It depends.
If you have that ammount of money to spend and have done proper research it's fine. If you're a Middle class or Upper Middle class it doesn't make too much sense unless you don't have children.
yes it is
o shit dawg u go to the atelier?
I got a reasoning. Liberals don't know how to spend money properly.
Although I do love art, what is considered "Art" now a days is garbage and often produced with a heavy handed message.
>the sixteenth chapel
Art is in the eye of the beholder, what is considered art is on an individual basis. Enjoy what you enjoy
Anime posters are better art than most "art" today.
And people also like playing with their own shit. Just because you say something is art dosn't make it art.
It's just a scheme by a bunch of talent-less hacks to sell garbage and at the same time earn money off of it for feeling high and mighty about it.
However it's not like conceptual art should sell for 100xtimes more than representational art like it is today.
Also not everyone was a master in their early 20s user...
Although you claim to love art, you'll be hard pressed to say 4 names of living realist painters, right?
so i can make lots of cash selling drugs, buy some modern art painting for $50 , sell that for a million $ to someone, give them a million $ in cash and somehow i've made money. doesn't make any sense i've lost $50
Most art is useless and detrimental to society.
I work at one of the top 2 auction houses in the US. I started in smaller houses though, so have seen all the different markets around the country. Conservatives buy historical items of all types, guns, furniture, coins, etc. There is definitely a large market for paintings, especially regional. You just don't see them buying any contemporary art.
>Although you claim to love art, you'll be hard pressed to say 4 names of living realist painters, right?
Anyone would. Realism was relegated to advertising in much of the 20th century, and then cheap photography and computers killed the cottage industry.
Also, what's with that pic? Are we to believe it isnt just traced over a layer?
because I don't make nearly enough to support an artist
most of the stuff I buy are just prints
I would commission all kinds of stuff if I had money to burn
even with no debt there's still savings and retirement
Yeah, go ahead and try it out and report back to us. It's a sound theory and you definitely wont lose any money.
I love art but I admit to having a narrow taste. And no I am not implying Hentai.
>so i can make lots of cash selling drugs, buy some modern art painting for $50 , sell that for a million $ to someone,
If you stop right there and dont add the rest of the bullshit you added (give them million in cash) then you would see why it makes sense
Online version my nigga. Pic related - a cast study.
What about you?
No they aren't. Degenerate in the mathematical sense would be when the artwork takes a certain extreme characteristic, usually in the amount of order in the painting, and thereby cease to be an artwork. For example a solid block of marble that hasn't been sculptured at all. If future civilizations where to find such an "artwork" they wouldn't be able to distinguish that it was a product of human artifice.
Should a Rothko or a Basquiat outsell Diego Rivera? Hard question. Market is dependent on demand. Rivera was an icon for a wider movement, all be it one that has historical echos. The demand for Rothko is distinctly tied to the revolutionary nature of the color field works, and how they were to some effect a pinnacle of a unique movement with little hitorical echo. Do I think its worth 100,000,000, no, but I understand why its in high demand and institutionally celebrated.
clearly you arent suggesting that people from the future couldnt understand that Mondrian was art.
...
>realism
fuk year
Just the other day somebody posted a picture of a CNN FAKE NEWS thing he made for practice, and offered to sell a bunch of them off for cheap because he was about to run the plasma table. This could be the future of poorfag art, just like how many people wanted to get a $15 MAGA hat.
pic related is from some random who got a front row seat a rally and was hype as fuck. Maybe Zyklon Ben had the right idea selling books wherein he claimed trading rare pepes on eBay is what we're all about (I have a copy for posterity, though not signed.)
my two favorites
>implying people with actual fucking skill have completely dissapeared
Watch and learn, my sheltered friend.
youtube.com
Also I recommend you check out on Google: Jeff Watts, Jeremy Lipking, Jeremy Mann, Casey Baugh. Before you say all contemporary art is degenerate unskilled trash. Good luck!
How does it feel that you are supporting greedy artist to rise their prices causing some furries to starve to dead?
because teaching subhumans a lesson is the real art
just photograph it and print it out, saved 400k €
I never said there was no one with the talent, guy. I said that no one would be able to name them like more prominent artists because realism hasnt been in vogue for fucking ever.
Even Rockwell did the majority his work for advertising purposes.
Also, the use of a computer saps all the impressiveness out of a piece. And to tie this in with what OP was saying, how the fuck do you expect to buy an original of something created on a PC? Where's the value?
>Sixteen Chapel
What did they do to the other fifteen chapels?
Does this count?
I'm the OP, you faggot.
I wanted to show that you can do that without a layer underneath.
Computer art can only be sold as prints - that's why I believe patronage of traditional art, especially among conservatives, should be encouraged.
(((lauren southern and infowars))) is shit tier noob shit
ye ive been doing the online, just signed up for some summer classes. pic is prelim drawing for gouache study im gonna do today. Gl with your art journey my man
Holy shit, that's amazing!! I haven't done gouache yet, still at monochromes.
Would love to follow you if you're open to that. Good luck on your journey too!
Conservatism the way we're wishing for is bad for business.
That's why they are liberals. (((Progress))) = new markets
Definitely not true OP. Especially for the remaining realist style painters left in the US, pretty much every patron and buyer is politically conservative/moderate
>t. Guy with artist parents
I am aware of that, but the artists still don't get the same respect (and money) of their more degenerate counterparts. And arguably most millionaires in the US at least are conservative. So I believe it's mostly liberals that actually invest in art. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Because art isn't worth the money that artists think it is. I'm very happy that this market is shrinking down and artists are forced to do other things seeing that art is dying. Good riddance.
Because there are no good contemporary artists to buy directly from and art dealing is just money laundering? Historically, all the great painters, sculptors, composers, architects, etc. were all commissioned by the conservative elite because they wanted to enrich their country. In the post-modern world though, all the artists do is get paid a barely survivable wage by globalists to make some subversive piece that nobody will care about in a year.
There are no conservatives in America. We have utilitarian liberals and deontological liberals.
I'm not particularly conservative but doesn't priceless art belong in museums instead of in rich shithead's living rooms?
Buy the print. Admire the original.
>Because there are no good contemporary artists to buy directly from
Kasey Baugh, Jeremy Lipking, Daniel Gerhartz? Will Cotton?
Currently there's few museums that buy contemporary realist art. The artist needs to make a living somehow.
Priceless art belongs in museums, but that's the best of the best. That's what we're talking about when Jew banker scams fail.
But in the house or for the average person, you know society is failing when they can't produce or afford anything that gives them inspiration.
What if this is your best free background image and the fucking mods keep banning all the threads about making art yourself in whatever form?
>But in the house or for the average person, you know society is failing when they can't produce or afford anything that gives them inspiration.
Art isn't worth what it sells for, its mostly made to launder money.
>sixteenth chapel
says the fucking mongol great art authority
m8 just for curiosity are you rich?
I could probably easily afford some nice art. A few months back I decided the art to give me a daily grin would be a cheap sports car. That's enough for me, and I could easily be making sixfigs if that's what I wanted.
I just want to know if you're a fag or if you understand how normal people think.
because we have cameras now. no reason to paint a fucking picture.
>Why don't conservatives buy art?
Many do. Your presumption is false.
The fact is that there aren't many redpilled conservatives around.
I'm not rich, man. I am unemployed - worked for a bit in the textile industry as a designer and got laid off. I would love to sell oil paintings for a living but I know that it's more realistic to cuck for a game company like Ubisoft or work in (((advertizing))) if you want to make a living.
I'm just selling shit like this for like 100$ on etsy so I'm not even asking for that much. Probably I'm disconnected from the way normal people think because I would rather live on min wage and still paint that have a higher salary but have to give up art completely.
If I could find the original painting of this I'd buy it. Except I don't have any money.
>tfw I am flirting with 18k worth of fine art
eh, rather just go to porn sites for something better
But I would buy a nice statue or something maybe. Next door my friend's father bought a small reproduction of a naked women for the back yard. Pretty lulz. Every time I've been to poor countries I spent my money on local art. I have a fully dank carved wood bird being eaten by a tiger from asia. It's not anything for a show room, but it's pretty fkn cool.
Keep at it. We're still trying to figure out how to get good music and stuff.
it was the one after the fifthteenth
u can make an art out of degeneracy
Glad to hear you support local arts.
> rather just go to porn sites for something better
...you mean draw hentai, kek?
Low in trait Openness and high in trait conscientiousness means that they don't appreciate beauty, and don't like making a mistake with their money.