Appropriated art
 

What do we think of this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hem-for-90000/

It's silly crap by a clever con-man, and all it shows is that it is impossible to underestimate the gullibility and stupidity of the art-buying public. There is a level of naivete - and money - which is frightening; and the hucksters are taking advantage of it. And I've also seen some powerful shows of real art at Gagosian's Chelsea gallery. Go figure.

I'm sure you are right, Michael, but is it any different from the famous urinal? Let's have a show of Alma-Tadema. I like Alma-Tadema.

Do people buy art in the US as a tax right off, $90,000 is a huge amount for this sort of found art.
The one that made $90,000 is a good photo portrait but I have no idea why it commands such a price.
It's incredibly mean and uncaring of the artist not to get permission and not to give the original photographers ( I presume they are all selfies) a percentage of the profits.
Same goes for the gallery, (who usually take 40% of the sale price).
The idea, using found images, goes back to Warhol, it's not at all original.

The difference between a "found art" urinal and these is - the urinal was intended as a utilitarian item and re-visualized - that's the whole point of it as art - if forces us to see it in a new way. These images were created as art by the original photographers in the first place. Their costumes, the lighting, the staging, the make up, everything has been designed for the photo-shoot by the original artists. Look at this one - is this just a quick snapshot? No, it's definitely designed!
http://1vze7o2h8a2b2tyahl3i0t68.wpen...3.06.30-PM.png
That's why these are not "found art" these are straight-up stolen. This thief has been sued for this kind of thing before.

The group who created these images are now selling the exact same images for $90
http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/...r-90-1.2412157

John, by all means start a thread about Alma-Tadema. I like it too.