As for abstract, there's some I like and some I don't. I'm thinking of playing around with 'em myself because why not?
The monetary "value" depends entirely on what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The artistic "value" depends entirely on who is looking at it, and whether they think it has any.
To me, Richter is rather boring and I'd place him well below, say, Kline or Frankenthaler or Gottlieb or Krasner, all of whom I like much better. But to some people I'm sure Richter is totally the bee's knees. And some people would reject all of the above because it doesn't look like Bougereau. (Who I also think is mostly boring...) It's all a matter of taste. It's ALWAYS a matter of taste.
And no, I can't spell Bougereau.
QueenG 'n Bill,
Fair enough! Yes, probably better to avoid the meandering philosophical paths these things take. . .
Thing is, if it's all about established artists using the elite galleries as authentication for "investment grade" items, then there's really nothing to stop Richter from going to "Staples," buying a ream of printer paper and "creating" "White Rectangle No. 1," "White Rectangle No.2," etc.
Anyway, this thread's provided an excuse to surf some high-end gallery websites and see what the wealthy artist superstars and their patrons are up to!
[I should really get back to housecleaning and deciding whether or not I should scan part of the 30 hours or so of life drawing I have piling up on my living room floor into my SB. . . ]
Check out my sketchbook! Socially acceptable opportunity to yell at a teenage girl!
becsause they're essentally an exacting process of blowing up existing photographs in paint, rather than paintings of the things in the photographs. they're a reproduction of all the illusory effects of a photograph. 'realist' doesn't seem an appropriate umbrella.