« Streetwalker: Floral Like it's 1999
Fashionista Main
Previous entry »
News Jul 16, 2008 @ 1:38pm

Is the Art Worth More Than the Clothes?

by Britt Aboutaleb

ysl couture spring 2001.jpgStart saving your pennies.

Christie’s just announced that they’ll be auctioning off Yves Saint Laurent’s weighty art collection come February of 2009.

Without identifying exactly which pieces will be up for grabs, they’ve estimated the total value at around $600 million. We do know that his and Berge’s collection includes works by Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse, Goya and, of course, since he was a fashion person, Warhol.

We expect the people who walk away with the paintings to be the same as those who’ve walked away with his couture.

And, well, lucky them.

Permalink |
(1) recommend this (7) Comments

Posted in News and Christie's, Couture, Yves Saint Laurent

« Streetwalker: Floral Like it's 1999
Fashionista Main
Previous entry »

Comments

avatar
1

posted by guest

Jul 16, 2008 2:38PM

What is with the industry's OBSESSION with Warhol? I'm an art history student and also want to work in the industry, but for all those who worship the ground he walked on, you are being DUPED...he didn't even do most of his stuff (hence The Factory) and merits nothing more than a page in any art texbook. Much more interesting are the Mondrian, Goya, etc.

avatar
2

posted by guest

Jul 16, 2008 3:02PM

I totally agree with the Warhol comment- he didn't make most of 'his' work, his assistants did it all!

avatar
3

posted by guest

Jul 16, 2008 4:00PM

that's the most simplistic assessment of warhol's work i've ever heard...

yawn...

ironic that comment is posted on a fashion website. is marc jacobs (or insert pretty much any other established designer's name here) less of an artist because he doesn't regularly put pin to fabric himself?

avatar
4

posted by guest

Jul 17, 2008 8:25AM

It's different in this case...most people assume that just because their M by MJ t-shirt says Marc Jacobs on it does not mean that it has been graced by his presence, or God forbid, touched by him. Whereas, one would hope that a Matisse had indeed been made by him. There is also the terminology "school of," "in the manner of," etc. that had it been applied to Warhol's work would have cleared any confusion as to what exactly he made and what others made for him.

those who LOVE LOVE LOVE Warhol clearly know little to nothing about art history as a whole. There are hundreds of more exciting, revolutionary artists who are less well known. Marcel Duchamp, the Duanier Rosseau, Kandinsky, Malevich all contributed more to specific movements than Warhol did to Pop Art...so what did he contribute? some pretty screen prints of celebrities and iconic americana imagery...nothing more. While Duchamp's "Fountain" is merely a urinal turned sideways and marked "R.Mutt," his work was revolutionary in that he challenged the notion of art--is anything art? and he started the Dada movement.

maybe you should do some reading. Xoxo

avatar
5

posted by guest

Jul 17, 2008 10:25AM

or, maybe you should have a more open mind, instead of just regurgitating what they teach you in art school...

6

posted by kenya

Jul 17, 2008 10:45AM

we all know art people are smart and stuff. but as jimi hendrix once said, "blah blah, woof woof"

avatar
7

posted by guest

Jul 17, 2008 11:34AM

Sweetie I don't go to art school, graphic design is not for me.

And trust me, I did have an open mind...I used to be the classic Warhol slave in high school, and had posters of andyisms on my wall. Only after entering the major did I realize that outside commerical art, no one gives 2 shits about Warhol...he did something for art but not a lot.

Post Your Comment