Starting to go through the book….sippin on a Dark Blossoms Syrah……what a true treasure! My first thought was…what the HELL else was I doing that I didn’t sign up for this list day one??? I was big into wine by then? AND Syrah at that!! ![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
Second thought….what was the “project wine” Roussanne with Alban…“Legs”? Third…….Alban Vineyards deserves a LOT more praise than it gets!
Sorry, but why do you think it is art? It is decorative but whatever. What is the point?
Well….its the name of the book? And……if your 20yr old bottle of Rose’ sells for over $50K……it’s not because of the juice……you are in the rhelm of the rare fine art world now, relatively speaking……aren’t you?
Given the vastness and subjectivity of ‘art’ it would be interesting to hear why you would question that is not art- especially based on the basic definition and broad acceptance of the term ‘art’.
Well I guess Andy Warhol corrupted art back in the 60s for the Pop art addicts. Not much point in discussing. Look up some critical views on post-modern art. Just cause people spend bucks does not make it worthwhile. Look up criticism of Koons.
Bit dated but view this
the intent and context is rather intriguing. if the goal was to make art ‘proper’ it is certainly a disservice to the created artifact to affix it to a bottle of wine/consumable good. if the goal was to make a ‘serious’ wine then it seems odd to take focus away from the true contents of the bottle. either way it can be seen as an issue regarding authenticity.
If finished wine can be an expression of oneself (art) why stop at just the contents of the bottle?
Would you scoff at a painting if the artist also designed the frame to specifically compliment the canvas?
Not to be a jerk, but in another post you said “SQN is a manufactured wine in the cellar” and then, when asked if this comment was based on your own experience, you said “No…I am relying on the previous posts above.”
Not sure what you are attempting to provide here.
Dude.
“The Art of Sine Qua Non” isn’t just some random proclamation by the OP, it’s the name of the effing book he’s posting about.
I got it - but I couldn’t help it. SQN to me is like Koons.
Ok, I’ll bite; what is Koons?
It’s not “what” is Koons, it’s “who” is Koons.
Actually, it goes to a more interesting question, namely “what is art”? Today we use the terms "artist’ and “performer” interchangeably. A singer who has no idea what a key signature is or how to keep time is called an “artist”. People who can’t play their instruments are lauded as being “genuine”. Painters who can’t draw for a damn are artists.
Guys like Leonardo or Cezanne? They wasted time learning to draw. Today it’s all about expression, not the skill to actually express.
So Krankl’s doodlings are now art.
This isn’t a slam - I admire Krankl.
But really. Art?
According to NY Millionaire Listing Dome people think Koons is wonderful art.
I sense wonderful thread drift!
Koons makes none of his creations. Artist, performer, other?
I didn’t catch the name at first, thought wine was being discussed. Doesn’t he design wine labels? Other than that, don’t know much about him.
"Guys like Leonardo or Cezanne? They wasted time learning to draw. Today it’s all about expression, not the skill to actually express. "
If you had a copy of the book you would read that Krankl only became good at his art form he did through lots of practice. He has scars from accidental cuts he received through the years. Wood block art is also very difficult to do if you have ever tried, one reason is you have to make a negative of what you are trying to create.
“So Krankl’s doodlings are now art.
This isn’t a slam - I admire Krankl.
But really. Art?”
Just like a Warhol and a Haring’s doodles are also art, Yes!
Art can be in many forms (wine could be considered one) but in terms of paintings for example so many other things than the artistic quality of the painting give it value. That is best illustrated when experts change their mind about who has created a painting - it may increase or decrease dramatically in price without any change in the actual quality. (Similarly, forgeries may have high price tags until it is understood that they’re not created by the people they believed it was.)
To put it very simply, it has much to do with name recognition - major museums and art dealers want to have the big names, so very much attention goes to the big few names. Thus, the prices increase. Sometimes, even completely “un-artistic” events, such as someone stealing a painting, may increase its name recognition and thus it’s value. It can be argued that the “Mona Lisa” has “benefited” from being stolen. The life events or personality of the painter can also affect how people view and value their art.
The bottom line is art is completely open to interpretation and it’s price can very much be influenced by more than the physical artistic piece.
All that is true. But to bring it full circle, as we know, price has nothing to do with quality. I wasn’t questioning the value, as people pay money for a lot of things, especially highly recognizable paintings, in no small part because they’re hoping for some ownership prestige, not to mention that those things can be good investments. I was only questioning the use of the term “art”.
If you define “art” simply as something people will pay money for, there truly is no reason to learn how to do anything and you end up with things like “Piss Christ”. Warhol was a marketing genius. Leonardo was I suppose, a mere craftsman. And in fact, that’s more or less how he was perceived at the time, and like all good craftsmen, he was able to get additional jobs from referrals.
So I guess my mistake is to believe that there should be something more than marketing involved if I’m going to call something “art”. And good for Krankl for learning how to do wood blocks. I have indeed tried and as I’m no good at drafting and drawing, I wasn’t particularly good at that and I stuck to doing other types of woodwork. I’d not call it “art” however, and there are lots of high school kids who do various drawings and printings and such and I just don’t see that every endeavor by everyone is necessarily “art”. But if people want to consider it such, OK.
Jeff Koons.
Just Google and choose images - that will take you beyond any description I could give up.
Koons was responsible for that ridiculous packaging of the 04 Dom.
Time for you to make a list!
What are the criteria?