Manuel Cojocaru agree

Manuel Cojocaru also a story

To get famous and rich possiblh, not to have art

so why the fuck does he not use his scottish voice

Why should he? He left Scotland when he was three, and has never lived there since.

***** are yuo sure

That's what wikipedia says, and I have read the same thing in other places. He was born in 1959 and left Scotland for good in 1962. His childhood was spent in Canada, he went to art school in London, and he lives in Trinidad.

diyconstruction why would it go away now? After 20+ years of success?

He doesn't.....it's just mild click bait.

Sharon Voden Typical female comment. Emotion!

@@vaderetro264 typical male comment, acting like emotion isn't important

His art does show true emotion, I describe his artwork as hauntingly beautiful, it's amazing visuals but also something lonely and dark. I'm a huge fan

poor you.

You blew alot of people niko huh

I'm an artist dating a consultant and occasional art investor. I spend all my time in my studio and barely network and she told me 'you can have all the talent in the world but if you have no connections you go nowhere. whereas if you have shitloads of connections but no talent you will still get somewhere'

The difference is that they've been dead for a long time and we've re-evaluated their art and seen it as being worth studying instead of just as a passing fad. Very seldom have artists been famous during their lifetimes and kept their legacies in death.

+Human791 Works of art are the ultimate luxury goods and nothing, save an absolute collapse of civilization, will change that

why not? If people want to spend millions on consumer goods such as cars, clothes and brands, then why not spend millions on art?

Some artworks need same amount of time as bulding a school (im talking about big ass paintings) by a well known company (a week). And it needs huge amount of creativity, inteligence (ofc. Im talking about good art, there's no real art, only good and bad art, remember that), sense of style, and many, many. So you're doing two jobs. You're architect, and a worker. You should look at collection like at work of scientist. They get payed a lot of money too. If their work is good. You know why they get payed so much money, and im talking specialy about artists? Cuz it can be well know later, and worth, much, but much, more money. Like patents of scientist. That's why artworks worth so much money. Clear and simple logic. And btw. Maybe you ain't see it, bu art is creating culture, everything that is around you. So. Give some respect, to creatorss that... making peoples lives realy.. and evolving their lives.

And what should you spend you're money on? If we are talking in a consumer sense(not charitable) , art, cars, property... How is any consumer good more important than the other.

Uncultured swine

The irony in your comment is priceless

It was absolutely absurd that a living artist had to prove that he didn’t paint something. Even the signature on the painting was spelt differently. I hope Doug got his costs back from the claimant.

That case was absurd. Doig had to prove he was never in prison and did not paint a particular picture. Doig won and was awarded $2.5 million.

I believe that Doig is referring more to the challenge of understanding what it means when we designate something a 'masterpiece', espcially with so little time elapsed after the production of the work. 'Contemporary' means now, and for a piece to be truly understood as a masterpiece requires a little historical distancing. Some pieces are ignored or even actively rejected in the artist's lifetime, only to be accepted as a 'masterpiece' many years later. If you subscribe to any idea that the hierarchy and elitism of the traditional art establishment has been sufficiently toppled (you may do, you may not, but many contemporary artists act upon that premise) you will also have problems with designating a 'contemporary' artwork a 'masterpiece'. The ideas of 'masters' producing 'masterpieces' certainly fills me with a certain feeling of trepidation, but then I suscribe to a more democratic approach to artistic production. Differnent folks, different strokes. Personally, I tend to find these ideas often correlate to crediting 'competance' as the sole requirement of 'masterpiece' or genius, something which I guess you are quite happy to do.

Stop talking nonsense, masterpieces become so when they stand the test of time. Contemporary work is just that, contemporary. Give work time to be remembered or forgotten.