Worst famous painter

[dashinvaine]

Who do you think is the worst or most over-rated famous painter in history?

[Baron Impossible]

van Gogh

[Maxine Schacker]

Have you ever seen his landscapes? Paintings of fields and orchards? There is no denying that his work has intensity and emotion and is artistically intelligent. He is also inventive. He often takes techniques used by the Japanese and translates them from ink to oil, and his composition and use of texture as an expressive element is daring and usually successful. I'm thinking of the painting of irises in a jug at the Met.

Art is not simply about surface representation. In fact the representation, in great art, is simply the equivalent of the melody in music. The potential for deep and subtle expression in one stroke of charcoal or paint is what we are losing.

Perhaps we are also losing our ability to go beneath the surface, which would be too sad to contemplate.

[romance]

Hitler

[Baron Impossible]

Have you ever seen his landscapes? Paintings of fields and orchards?...

Unfortunately yes, and I don't like them. My opinion.

[dashinvaine]

To clarify, I meant worst at painting, rather than worst human being who was also a painter. Hitler was a fair-to-middling artist (if rather stiff and soulless). It's unfortunate that he didn't stick to it, and steer clear of politics. Then no one would have heard of him.

[Elwell]

Anybody who posts in this thread.

[Farvus]

There is no such thing as worst or best painter.

[dashinvaine]

Anybody who posts in this thread.

Don't be so hard on yourself!

[Sascha Thau]

Stalin

[Dorkthrone]

Thomas Kinkaide?

[dashinvaine]

Matisse would be my hate-object of choice, I think. He sucks.

[Ilaekae]

Might I suggest dropping the bullshit and just rename this thread to what it should be?--

"What famous painter would you like to publicly bash because you're a narrow-minded cretin unable to understand the importance of anything in art beyond your own personal, limited and/or questionable tastes?"

[StreetBehemoth]

Do you really need to be a narrow minded cretin to bash Thomas Kinkaide?

[Pigeonkill]

I never really disliked any painter. But...

Thomas Kinkade - PAINTER OF LIGHT

I still actually think his work is neat...he's a marketing genius.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fMWOgLaRL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

It's just...sometimes I get the horrible case of the giggles when I see his work turned into snow globes, disney products...even stuff along towel racks...

EDIT: Dang it...StreetBehemoth beat me to it while I was googling images of his products

[StreetBehemoth]

I just think people get too high and mighty when they're on forums, lighten up. This is a thread about opinions. If you want to right a research paper on the quality of work don't do it here. I'm sure everyone on here, if they were in a group of friends and someone asked, "who's the most overblown artist ever" they would indulge in the conversation (imo).

[JJacks]

Bouguereau!!! I find his paintings silly, lazy, and just plain boring. Technique...what technique!? I honestly don't know why anyone would look at his paintings and not fall to floor instantly from the pure exhaustion of trying to understand how such a bad painter became so famous.

[Xeon_OND]

Elwell.

[Xeon_OND]

-Deleted by Xeon- ;)

[Elwell]

Thanks for having my back, but I assumed it was a joke. I'm sure it's true for somebody, though, and that's fine. I suggest people take a look at, say, the reviews on Amazon sometime. You'll find that the even most horrendous piece of crap is somebody's favorite something, while things that are considered classics are absolutely hated by somebody. As I've said before, the problem is that people often seem to confuse aesthetics with morality.

[dashinvaine]

By the way if we could refrain from personal attacks just because someone says they hate your favourite artist (in jest or otherwise) that would demonstrate tremenodous magnanimity. Perhaps we should stick to discussing over-rated artists who have already kicked the proverbial bucket.

[Craig D]

Bouguereau Technique...what technique!? .

You're "joking" too right??

You might not like his subject matter but he was a master painter.

Xeon
A one word reply in writing couldn't possibly be interpreted as a joke unless you wrote joke after. Either way it would not be funny.
And I think you're apologizing to the wrong person.

[jcpahl]

Bouguereau!!! I find his paintings silly, lazy, and just plain boring. Technique...what technique!? I honestly don't know why anyone would look at his paintings and not fall to floor instantly from the pure exhaustion of trying to understand how such a bad painter became so famous.

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/funny/1252852399258.jpg

[Aly Fell]

How about a favourite artist thread? You can find out people dislikes that way without the negative start. Individual artists get bashed enough in other places round here.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Bouguereau!!! I find his paintings silly, lazy, and just plain boring. Technique...what technique!?

lol... what? Try copying one.

[Vatsel]

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/funny/1252852399258.jpg

HAHA thanks for making my day

Also I wouldn't call Bouguereau's painting lazy or silly
The man had great skill

[dashinvaine]

I think Bouguereau would be better thought of if he had died before he was 30 and was only remembered for Dante et Virgile au Enfers rather than all those prettyfied nymphs and children.

[Xeon_OND]

Xeon
A one word reply in writing couldn't possibly be interpreted as a joke unless you wrote joke after. Either way it would not be funny.
And I think you're apologizing to the wrong person.
Lol, ok ok. :^^:

It was a moment of sheer folly on my part.

I sincerely apologize and say sorry to Elwell for this unfortunate incident! :yayca:

[Irishdrunk]

TBH, Sao got a lot of hype over nothing. She never attended any sort of art school, barely trains. And I find her contemporary style just "lazy". I know she's struggling without fingers, but she is hardly making an effort.

[dashinvaine]

How about a favourite artist thread? You can find out people dislikes that way without the negative start. Individual artists get bashed enough in other places round here.
Im all for those threads to, but you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

[arttorney]

Calling artists overrated might not be a personal attack if we withdraw to the defense of claiming it is actually an indictment of the terrible tastes of society at large, I suppose. Using the term "worst" in the thread title does strongly suggest the idea of a personal attack, though. How can we get away from that at this late date?

Here's mine:
:404:

[algenpfleger]

you've got to take the rough with the smooth.


So you're saying that for every good thread there needs to be a bad one to make up for it? That's bullshit dude.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

I think Bouguereau would be better thought of if he had died before he was 30 and was only remembered for Dante et Virgile au Enfers rather than all those prettyfied nymphs and children.

Look at any work from that time. I can't even keep track of all the masterfully painted women with butterfly wings that look like they were added in MSPaint. That stuff was the style of the day, Bouguereau didn't invent it and he was far from the only one to do it.

Besides, he painted a mean figure throughout his life. Would've been a damn shame if he'd died at 30 and we didn't get, say, Nymphs and Satyr.

[dashinvaine]

I didn't say it would be good if Bouguereau had died at that young age, but he would have been better remembered. If the Dante painting is anything to go by his earlier work had more bite! (Literally.) It was the later 'sentimental', idealized stuff that the 'modernists' reacted against for a long time. I rather like it myself. It's invariably subtle and sweet, perfectly drawn and faultlessly rendered. I'd rather look at the worst thing Bouguereau ever did than the best Matisse in the world. Matisse's draftmanship is, by contrast, completely inept, his colours vile and garish, his characters monstrous. You can't say he was in any more moral or PC, either, as he did female nudes, too, (including odalisques) but he made them so hideous they put you off your dinner! It was an insult to women. I can't believe anyone's ever held this stuff up as fine art, or that anyone ever paid him as an art teacher. It's just so bad!

[jcpahl]

"What famous painter would you like to publicly bash because you're a narrow-minded cretin unable to understand the importance of anything in art beyond your own personal, limited and/or questionable tastes?"

Anyway, I don't hate Picasso because I find his work distasteful. I don't actually hate him at all; I think he was an important figure in art history with some interesting work and some kick-ass quotes.

I'm just irritated that, if you ask a layman to name an artist, they'll say "Picasso" nine times out of ten. And, rightly or wrongly, they believe that any 5-year-old could paint like Picasso, because that's what his work looked like, was his admitted goal. They think that's what artists do; and I suspect that's one of the reasons that most people think "artist" isn't a real job.

Anyway, I know nobody cares, but them's my thoughts on Picasso. He was just too successful and famous for my own good. :P

Matisse's draftmanship is, by contrast, completely inept, his colours vile and garish, his characters monstrous... I can't believe anyone's ever held this stuff up as fine art, or that anyone ever paid him as an art teacher. It's just so bad!

Case in point; I had two different art professors in college that directly said that Matisse was a better draftsman than Michelangelo. RAGGGGE

[JJacks]

lol... what? Try copying one.

Why would I ever want to waste my time on that? You copy paintings to learn something and there's nothing to be learned from him. I do a lot of de Kooning studies though.

[dashinvaine]

I do a lot of de Kooning studies though.
Good way of cleaning your brushes.

[jcpahl]

Why would I ever want to waste my time on that? You copy paintings to learn something and there's nothing to be learned from him. I do a lot of de Kooning studies though.

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/funny/1253296880868.jpg

[dashinvaine]

Case in point; I had two different art professors in college that directly said that Matisse was a better draftsman than Michelangelo. RAGGGGE

Michelangelo couldn't draw women either- maybe that's what they were driving at. There again he had the excuse of not being into that.

[dashinvaine]

Michelangelo was great, don't get me wrong, but his females tend to look like muscular men with breasts tacked on as an afterthought. Examples include his Cumaean Sibyl and Eve in the Sistine Chapel, and even more so his statue Night from the Medici Chapel in Florence.

Matisse, though... Yuck.

[andymania]

Wow...........................Bougereau a shitty painter..........................Matisse a lousy draughtsman.............there are some really SCARY views in this post.

[JJacks]

EDIT - This was a double post but I will add that I believe there is much more worth in trying to understand these artist and why they had an impact on so many than dismissing them and just believing the emergence of their art was just an unfortunate event in history.

[andymania]

oh...jjacks..you were kidding on Bougie?? i WASNT SURE.....nevermind. retract previous comment

[JJacks]

Oh no, my first post was gone because I guess Elwell was deleting the post I was editing to make it not be a double post. OH WELLS. hahaha.

Anyways art is cool.

[JJacks]

I wasn't talking about you in particular. It's just a trend I noticed. I just don't agree with what you said about the title of "artist" being more respected if history was altered. It's not like we can debate about it though.

[jcpahl]

Michelangelo was great, don't get me wrong, but his females tend to look like muscular men with breasts tacked on as an afterthought.

That's because he used male models. He could have drawn women if he wanted to, I'm pretty sure. Look at his La Pieta, for instance.

[squidmonk3j]

Thanks for having my back, but I assumed it was a joke. I'm sure it's true for somebody, though, and that's fine. I suggest people take a look at, say, the reviews on Amazon sometime. You'll find that the even most horrendous piece of crap is somebody's favorite something, while things that are considered classics are absolutely hated by somebody. As I've said before, the problem is that people often seem to confuse aesthetics with morality.

If more people were at least -aware- of this notion, the world would be a better place.

[dashinvaine]

...I believe there is much more worth in trying to understand these artist and why they had an impact on so many than dismissing them and just believing the emergence of their art was just an unfortunate event in history.

Just because something new came along that- for a while- was taken seriously as a viable replacement for what came before, it doesn't mean it should be respected by postetity. Otherwise we might still have spiritualism instead of religion (and crackpots convincing people they speak to the dead) or totalitarianism instead of constitutional democracy. If we can reject a lot of the revolutionary and radical political and mystic creeds that cropped up during the first half of the 20th century, why not the aberant art movements too?

This leads to mention of the irony that what actually clinched cultural domination for 'modernism' was that it was rejected by the totalitarian regimes as degenerate. This is the one thing they got right, in my view, but anyway their favouring of a form of classicism meant that classical realism got tarnished by association. Modernist types (like Mies van der Rohe) fled the repressive regimes that arose in Germany and Russia and dumped their horrible styles on the west.

[TASmith]

"Do you really need to be a narrow minded cretin to bash Thomas Kinkaide?"

No, but it helps. Look, when I first saw a book on him (the only art book in a mall bookshop) I cringed at the title: "artist of light". I thought, what arrogance? If anyone were to claim that title it'd be Monet, which he was copying to a degree, or Caravaggio. Or Da Vinci who practically invented chiaroscuro.

Here's the deal though. Kinkaide's better than me. I can realize it and accept it. Hopefully in ten years I'll be able to say otherwise. That's my goal, at least before I die. If you want to bash Kinkaide, do it about his dishonesty, selling copies as originals, etc.

As for a favorite artist thread, here's the only 5 star thread I've produced to date on CA. Please follow the rules when posting there:
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=133083

[Viridis]

I never really disliked any painter. But...

Thomas Kinkade - PAINTER OF LIGHT


Hear, hear! That guy annoys me so much. How many kitschy paintings of happy little cottages does the world need?

Also on the same level of kitsch is that guy who does those paintings of sea life-- you know the ones, with the sunsets and the dolphins and orcas and a bunch of other sea life improbably close together.

[SavageGoldfish]

Perhaps instead of calling it "worst famous painter" should have said "your least favourite painter" or something similar, might have avoided some of these nasty little run-ins, since "worst" is mostly a matter of personal opinion...

I mean, look at the "abstract expressionism" movement. I dislike abstract expressionism intensely. Anyone who can vomit paint onto a canvas and be called a master, genius, whatever, pisses me off. Or like some paintings I've seen, with a canvas painted one colour, with one dot, square, stripe, etc, that are sold for thousands. WTF? The only reason that modern art "style" was such a hit was because *gasp* it was new, it was ballsy, it had never been seen before, so on and so forth.

Though one of my least favourites of all time has to be Andy Warhol. He just makes me angry. And the fact that he's got his own museum is even more insulting.

[jcpahl]

Hear, hear! That guy annoys me so much. How many kitschy paintings of happy little cottages does the world need?

Also on the same level of kitsch is that guy who does those paintings of sea life-- you know the ones, with the sunsets and the dolphins and orcas and a bunch of other sea life improbably close together.

We're a forum of mainly concept artists and illustrators; we draw robots and monsters for a living. I'm not sure we have room to talk about kitsch. :P

[armando]

Pollock. Barnett Newman.

[ZenzybaR]

My knowledge of past and modern artists is quite poor so forgive me if i sound ignorant, but i've just looked up Bouguereau and i'm uber impressed. It looks fantastic to me.

Anyone have a list of artists like this.

[Flake]

My knowledge of past and modern artists is quite poor so forgive me if i sound ignorant, but i've just looked up Bouguereau and i'm uber impressed. It looks fantastic to me.

Anyone have a list of artists like this.

You'll like a lot of these guys.
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/Reasons/museum1.asp

[dashinvaine]

http://www.artrenewal.org/ Plenty of classical art on that site - the obvious resource for Bouguereau fans. (I think someone only brought him up to bait me, as I may have expressed admiration for him in the past.)

[Black Spot]

Why the Matisse hate? He’s a lyrical colourist with great composition.

[ZenzybaR]

wow, this stuff is amazing, i feel like a fool having not seen it before now lol.
Are there books with this kind of stuff in them?

Since i'm being off topic, the only famous artist i know who's work i dislike is mike turner, i don't like the way he drew peoples very much. ^_^

[vampire cervix]

Probably Nicolae Grigorescu or any other romanian painter for that matter (not sure if any of them are famous in any other country), just because of the overt rural themes.

[KarylGilbertson]

JASON MANLEY!!! *runs and hides*

Obviously, I'm being facetious. Mr. Manley brings the mad skillz.

[KarylGilbertson]

Probably Nicolae Grigorescu or any other romanian painter for that matter (not sure if any of them are famous in any other country), just because of the overt rural themes.

Oh man I hear you... I live in a small town in Northern(ish) Canada, and our local art gallery (singular) is always filled with paintings of snowy rural landscapes and paintings of dilapidated farming equipment... *BARF*

[dashinvaine]

Why the Matisse hate? He’s a lyrical colourist with great composition.


I just really don't like Matisse's art. Like marmalade, I can't stomach it. It's like that, but in a world surrounded by experts who claim to consider marmalade the best thing since sliced bread. Like I say, I don't like his colours, I don't like his lines, and there's not much else to like!

[Muscari]

Andre Jones quite obviously...

... kidding kidding, please don't ban me :P

personally, i do dislike various artists and styles, but, what's that saying about glass houses and rocks again?

[Lamp]

I also find Matisse quite revolting. To me, he paints like he doesn't care about painting. If Matisse had never existed and a new artist showed up at CA who painted like that, I really believe they'd get torn apart. I certainly don't think anybody would call them a lyrical colourist.

[Anid Maro]

I also find Matisse quite revolting. To me, he paints like he doesn't care about painting. If Matisse had never existed and a new artist showed up at CA who painted like that, I really believe they'd get torn apart. I certainly don't think anybody would call them a lyrical colourist.

Eh, sort of. I'm certain he'd get several critiques about lighting, realistic colors, form, and so on if he posted in the WIP or Sketchbook sections; not so much for failures on his own part but more because CA.org tends to lean towards a Classical-Realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Realism) style. Adoration of 19th century Academic artists like Bouguereau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau) and Gerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me) is very common around here.

However, should our modern Matisse post in the Finished Works section I would think far more comments would be made regarding what he did right and you might very well see "lyrical colourist" tossed about. CA.org may lean strongly towards classical styles, but in general it is quite excellent at setting aside subjective tastes for objective comment where appropriate.

You can see the same result regarding anime styled art; where in critique appropriate sections posters will come down about anatomy and lighting, while in places like Finished Works posters will set aside opinions and taste to look for what they can objectively acknowledge as good work.

[dashinvaine]

I also find Matisse quite revolting. To me, he paints like he doesn't care about painting. If Matisse had never existed and a new artist showed up at CA who painted like that, I really believe they'd get torn apart. I certainly don't think anybody would call them a lyrical colourist.

That's exactly it, in my view! It only makes him seem more dreadful that he actually studied under Bouguereau, albeit briefly.

[dashinvaine]

what's that saying about glass houses and rocks again?

I did have that in mind when I belatedly specified not only famous artists but ones that have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

[JJacks]

Just because something new came along that- for a while- was taken seriously as a viable replacement for what came before, it doesn't mean it should be respected by postetity. Otherwise we might still have spiritualism instead of religion (and crackpots convincing people they speak to the dead) or totalitarianism instead of constitutional democracy. If we can reject a lot of the revolutionary and radical political and mystic creeds that cropped up during the first half of the 20th century, why not the aberant art movements too?

This leads to mention of the irony that what actually clinched cultural domination for 'modernism' was that it was rejected by the totalitarian regimes as degenerate. This is the one thing they got right, in my view, but anyway their favouring of a form of classicism meant that classical realism got tarnished by association. Modernist types (like Mies van der Rohe) fled the repressive regimes that arose in Germany and Russia and dumped their horrible styles on the west.

Um...these art movements weren't that simple that they just happened and it was over. It wasn't like New Coke or Disco. These new ideas changed the course of art history.

One a side note, we are artists so we should know our history but what is important to our discipline can mean nothing to the general population. Many people on the street never heard of Matisse and only know of Picasso through pop-culture references.

I always felt like these new explorations into art were a response to the political and economical turmoil of the time and that's why it connected to so many people. I don't think it has anything to do with negative stigma against more classical paintings.

[Taneli]

We're a forum of mainly concept artists and illustrators; we draw robots and monsters for a living. I'm not sure we have room to talk about kitsch. :P

It's not about the subject, it's how you realize it.

[Jovian M]

Could change the name of this thread to best marketing geniuses, in some cases.

I don't particularly understand some of the hate towards certain artists, though. D=

[Eric Young]

All the deviant art furry/anime artists.

[dashinvaine]

Um...these art movements weren't that simple that they just happened and it was over. It wasn't like New Coke or Disco. These new ideas changed the course of art history.
Neither were the dodgy regimes and fraudulent mystic manifestations that I alluded to...

One a side note, we are artists so we should know our history but what is important to our discipline can mean nothing to the general population. Many people on the street never heard of Matisse and only know of Picasso through pop-culture references.
Of course we should know our history. That doesn't mean no one has the right to express an honest contempt for what happened in any particular period. As regards art, if anything, it was the classicists that fell victim to the contempt (and whitewash) of the triumphant modernists. The full picture of nineteenth century art is hardly covered in the main, and many an art major has graduated having never heard of the most celebrated academic painters, having been fed a diet of impressionists expressionists.

I always felt like these new explorations into art were a response to the political and economical turmoil of the time and that's why it connected to so many people. I don't think it has anything to do with negative stigma against more classical paintings.
Well, the theories behind it all could be debated ad nauseam, for now I'm judging it the grounds of aesthetic preference. Art stands or falls by aesthetics rather than ideology. Ugly, inhumane times are no excuse for ugly, inhumane art. Italy suffered civil wars, civic riots, revolutions, assassinations, foreign invasions, demagoguery, despotism and theological tyranny throughout the Renaissance. It was not that much different from the twentieth century, yet still the artists of that time though humanity worthy of exquisite art.

[Aly Fell]

Dash - Are you saying that classical realism is the pinacle of artistic achievment? That all other forms of expressive art are irrelevant?

[Elwell]

Passionate, absolutist, purely aesthetic opinions are the luxury of the amateur.

[AsaB]

Just a little something to add to the Matisse discussion!
I don't think it's fair to say he was a horrendous painter just because he chose to adhere to a certain style, Fauvism. True, it's not for everyone (I don't like it either), but if you look past that, you can see he was actually a trained artist. Other non-Fauvism works by him reveal his draftsmanship and eye for composition and colour. (Even earlier work (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Reading_henri_matisse.jpg) clearly show he's able to do realistic art.) But mainly it's his cut-outs that demonstrate this point. Not everyone who know Matisse are familiar with those works, which he did very late in his life. My favourite Matisse works are these cut-outs, since I really don't care for Fauvism at all. We have two copies on my wall here at home, one has been there longer than I, so I knew Matisse as a cut-out artist before I saw his paintings. I guess that had some influence on me!

I actually just got home from St.Petersburg last week where I visited the Hermitage, where I saw a few of Matisse's work like The Dance, The Red Room, Music and more. I'm still no fan of his painting style, but seeing them up close (some are huge!), was a positive experience nonetheless.

[Vermis]

Passionate, absolutist, purely aesthetic opinions are the luxury of the amateur.

Elwell, no offence (well, that's a lie), but on a forum with some of the most pretentious, overwrought and nonsensical quotes I've seen, that one just about takes the biscuit.

[Shydrow]

Do i count? I did like 3 paintings and i hate them all and in my own mind im famous so i vote for me as worst painter of the year.

[jcpahl]

It's not about the subject, it's how you realize it.

That's probably true in a lot of cases. But I think what Kinkaide is doing is basically what we all want to do; make a living with our art. He paints what sells; I'd feel like a hypocrite to begrudge him that.

Elwell, no offence (well, that's a lie), but on a forum with some of the most pretentious, overwrought and nonsensical quotes I've seen, that one just about takes the biscuit.

Naw. Amateurs have the luxury of never having to compromise, because they're doing their work just for them. Professionals have to work for others as well as themselves, so must compromise. It makes perfect sense.

[Farvus]

I like Matisse cut-outs more than his paintings too. It's so far from realistic and yet very pleasant to look at.

The reason why I lately start to appreciate the avant-garde movements like post-impressionism or cubism is because it goes into very foundation of how things could be analyzed, simplified or designed. Maybe for doing cute realistic pin-up illustration it's not helpful but when you create worlds from scratch, there's more need for broader range of different aesthetics. It's some sort of hunger for being exposed to different types of textures, shapes, color combination, moods and things other than just beautiful body combined with shiny draperies.

[dashinvaine]

Just a little something to add to the Matisse discussion!
I don't think it's fair to say he was a horrendous painter just because he chose to adhere to a certain style, Fauvism. True, it's not for everyone (I don't like it either), but if you look past that, you can see he was actually a trained artist. Other non-Fauvism works by him reveal his draftsmanship and eye for composition and colour. (Even earlier work (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Reading_henri_matisse.jpg) clearly show he's able to do realistic art.) But mainly it's his cut-outs that demonstrate this point. Not everyone who know Matisse are familiar with those works, which he did very late in his life. My favourite Matisse works are these cut-outs, since I really don't care for Fauvism at all. We have two copies on my wall here at home, one has been there longer than I, so I knew Matisse as a cut-out artist before I saw his paintings. I guess that had some influence on me!

I actually just got home from St.Petersburg last week where I visited the Hermitage, where I saw a few of Matisse's work like The Dance, The Red Room, Music and more. I'm still no fan of his painting style, but seeing them up close (some are huge!), was a positive experience nonetheless.

Fair enough, but the way my old art tutors carried on, Matisse's cut out snail was the best thing since the Last Supper. They seemed to seriously think that that this sort of thing should be taken seriously as the culmination of centuries of artistic and philosophical development. If you please... For a long time I thought there was something wrong with me to be sceptical about this, and certainly there was a lot of pressure to adhere to the modernist line. I'm pretty sure I was right all along, however.

Matisse's snail is not a work of art. It is actually more like something a four-year-old child would bring home from playgroup. Now lots of the things that tots bring back from kindergarten are pleasing enough objects, especially to their mums, but are they really to be bracketed with the Old Masters? Comparable to the refinement of technique, the layers of symbolism, the depth of emotion found in mature masterpieces? Come on! The 'snail' is manifestly the product of little time, effort, skill or thought. The piece itself, inane though it is, is less offensive than all the propaganda around it, making it out to be great cultural treasure. It's a travesty.

I'm not saying that classical realism is the only valid art form. Some sophisticated stylizations are appealing, for example those found in medieval illuminations (I'm more Gothic than Classical in my taste, truth to tell), in Ancient Egyptian art, Art Nouveau figurines and Japanese prints. (Abstraction similarly, especially the intricate geometric designs in Islamic art). The type of distortions developed by the Fauvists were, however, largely horrible.

[andymania]

comparing matisse with realists is like comparing a hummer with a lamborghini. two different worlds. I'm quite sure Matisse could paint traditionally like his predecessors. JCpahl, I love people with different views and opinions and I do not find them "terrifying". Just sometimes the lack of understanding and knowledge behind an opinion can scare me.

[dashinvaine]

It's more like comparing a skateboard and a lamborghini... Except in a mad world where the skateboard is valued the same as the sports car, despite the vast difference in what goes into making it.

[Aly Fell]

Hi Dash. Fair enough... you’re entitled to your point of view and I don’t have an issue with that, no matter how much I think the opposite. It just appears that from some of your statements you have more of a problem with the ‘art world’ rather than the artists, who merely set out to project a personal vision. To dismiss all as ugly or inhumane is an incredibly sad perspective and misses SO much. And to infer all modernist art is in some kind of conspiracy to eradicate classical painting, or at least was, is not really true. Art is subject to the same waves of fashion as all artistic expression, no matter what certain people enunciate throughout history. I count us very lucky that people like Walter Gropius, Maz Ernst, Marc Chagall left Germany and France before the War and came to the UK and US to continue their work.

Would you dismiss Joan Miro for example? I recently went to a Miro exhibition and was fascinated by his composition. You can see a direct connection with modern artists like Tim Biskup and Mark Ryden in Miros work. Art is a living breathing thing, and sometimes it breathes in and sometimes it breathes out. It just depends where you're standing when you get caught in the draft I guess.

I’m not having a go at you, just puzzling your point of view.

[Viridis]

;2444901']All the deviant art furry/anime artists.

Let's not generalize here. You can't discount an entire genre just off the bat. Not all furry/anthro artists are drawing porn or whatever-- some of them are pretty skilled! (Not to mention, of course, that drawing "animal people" goes back to ancient times.)

And anime-- well, like it or not, anime is currently a huge influence on a lot of popular art. People are reading manga and playing video games, a lot of which are also influenced by anime-- see Final Fantasy and the like.

Here's a pretty good collection of some of the better-known anthro artists:
http://bestiarycards.com/
And its sister project: http://endangeredark.com/gallery

(And yes, many of those artists are on deviantart.)

I won't link to anime examples, but there are plenty of them out there.

Deviantart is like anything-- mostly full of crap, but with some really good artists out there. Really, what more do you expect from a totally free/open site?

[Xeon_OND]

;2444901']All the deviant art furry/anime artists.
Now, I gotta disagree with you here. I know a lot of CA folks, for some reason, seems to dislike or despise anime / manga style art.

I dunno, but it's a wonderful style, even though the proportions may not adhere to those anatomy books etc. IMO, manga style blows western cartooning style into the abyss.

Here's one of the better artist on DeviantArt: http://celesse.deviantart.com/gallery

Look through all her work. She's got her own style even though she draws manga, and her shit are cute as hell. Now, not everyone in CA can draw like that. ;)

* In my OWN PERSONAL opinion* (Do not be offended), the worst "painters" are those folks who splash globs of white, black, blue, green, yellow paint all over a canvas with their eyes closed, and call it art, and framed the thing up in some arty-farty art museum. Those are not artists; they're heretics.

[dashinvaine]

Posh,
I've got more admiration for Picasso, who had the guts to stay put in Nazi-occupied Paris, despite being well known for his left-wing views. I very-much like the dreamlike work of Ernst and Chagal, even so, and I never said otherwise. Chagal I would call a lyrical colourist, and Ernst's bird people always intrigued me.

Miro's paintings look like absent-minded doodles, which they were, but they are well coloured in in tones that just avoid garishness. One might scribble that sort of madness unconsciously while on the phone to someone boring, but I'm not sure how I would rate it as art. I'd go so far as to say I enjoy it as a change from and foil to the stuff I am usually into, but I wouldn't want to live with it all the time. As for Gropius, I don't care for him. Bauhaus style can go into Room 101 as far as I'm concerned. If it only came down to stylistic considerations, I'd rather have seen London be rebuilt by Albert Speer than the modernist dogs who actually did redevelope it, surrounding St Pauls with ghastly concrete boxes, for example. How many post-war schools and office blocks and colleges are shoddy rehashes of Gropius's style? Compare those to what the Victorians could throw up (like Royal Holloway) and they seem even lamer.

[Xeon_OND]

Deviantart is like anything-- mostly full of crap, but with some really good artists out there. Really, what more do you expect from a totally free/open site?
CA is a totally free / open site too, but how is it that the majority of folks here can draw / paint so well? CA is really the total opposite of DA. :D

[AsaB]

Fair enough, but the way my old art tutors carried on, Matisse's cut out snail was the best thing since the Last Supper. They seemed to seriously think that that this sort of thing should be taken seriously as the culmination of centuries of artistic and philosophical development. If you please... For a long time I thought there was something wrong with me to be sceptical about this, and certainly there was a lot of pressure to adhere to the modernist line. I'm pretty sure I was right all along, however.
You realize your teacher feels just as passionately about his opinion regarding Matisse's snail as you do about yours? There's no "being right" when discussing art, it's too subjective a matter to state any kind of absolutes or truths. We can all talk about this back and forth but that most likely won't change any opinions here.

Matisse's snail is not a work of art.
the worst "painters" are those folks who splash globs of white, black, blue, green, yellow paint all over a canvas with their eyes closed, and call it art, and framed the thing up in some arty-farty art museum. Those are not artists; they're heretics.
Seems like you two have it all figured out!
So what is art then? Could you please share? I'm actually kind of curious :P

It's a pet peeve of mine when people make big statements about what art is and isn't. Sure, everyone should feel absolutely free to state their opinions. But when you're bashing certain works, at least have the courtesy of calling it "bad art". By saying in 100% confidence that something isn't art at all is naive.

[dashinvaine]

CA is a totally free / open site too, but how is it that the majority of folks here can draw / paint so well? CA is really the total opposite of DA. :D


I don't agree with that. There are hundreds of brilliant artists on DA, including this lot... http://www.dashinvaine.deviantart.com/myfriends/

[dashinvaine]

Seems like you two have it all figured out!
So what is art then? Could you please share? I'm actually kind of curious :P

It's a pet peeve of mine when people make big statements about what art is and isn't. Sure, everyone should feel absolutely free to state their opinions. But when you're bashing certain works, at least have the courtesy of calling it "bad art". By saying in 100% confidence that something isn't art at all is naive.

Just because I know that a bucket of shit is not God, it doesn't mean I know what God is!

[Aly Fell]

Posh,
I've got more admiration for Picasso, who had the guts to stay put in Nazi-occupied Paris, despite being well known for his left-wing views. I very-much like the dreamlike work of Ernst and Chagal, even so, and I never said otherwise. Chagal I would call a lyrical colourist, and Ernst's bird people always intrigued me.

Miro's paintings look like absent-minded doodles, which they were, but they are well coloured in in tones that just avoid garishness. One might scribble that sort of madness unconsciously while on the phone to someone boring, but I'm not sure how I would rate it as art. I'd go so far as to say I enjoy it as a change from and foil to the stuff I am usually into, but I wouldn't want to live with it all the time. As for Gropius, I don't care for him. Bauhaus style can go into Room 101 as far as I'm concerned. If it only came down to stylistic considerations, I'd rather have seen London be rebuilt by Albert Speer than the modernist dogs who actually did redevelope it, surrounding St Pauls with ghastly concrete boxes, for example. How many post-war schools and office blocks and colleges are shoddy rehashes of Gropius's style? Compare those to what the Victorians could throw up (like Royal Holloway) and they seem even lamer.

Picasso wasn’t Jewish. Chagall was, and Ernst and Gropius were German. Ernst escaped from the Gestapo. He gets my respect. It was stay and die, or leave and live... Nothing to do with guts really.

As for Speer, you’d like Manchester’s Piccadilly Gardens now, it looks like the Albert Speer Memorial Park since they redesigned it a few years back. Speer’s designs were pretentious, aggrandising, egotistical crap. There, you got an artist I don’t like out of me! I have fulfilled the objective of this thread! :)

[kev ferrara]

Miro's designs are not absent minded, no more than any designer does his work "absently."

It should be clear by now that opinions are not objective realities. An appreciation of that fact will benefit all.

[dashinvaine]

Posh-
Picasso was a professed Communist, though, and such political dissenters were also put in concentration camps. And he'd already painted Guernica so might have been considered a marked man.

I'm glad to have got a name out of you. I wasn't saying Speer would be my first choice, (I'd have tried to reincarnate Pugin) but the modernists took some beating when it came to arrogant brutality in architecture. The Royal National Theatre on the South Bank theatre just needs some guns sticking out of it and it would looks like part of Rommel's Atlantic wall. The Royal Festival Hall's only marginally softer on the eye.

Kev- from what I gather Miro got himself into a transcendent state when he painted through such techniques as extreme sleep deprivation. Obviously I don't suggest that he always doodled randomly, but that was seen by the Surrealists as a way of accessing the subconscious. Freudian theory was the flavour of the month.

[Eric Young]

Now, I gotta disagree with you here. I know a lot of CA folks, for some reason, seems to dislike or despise anime / manga style art.

I dunno, but it's a wonderful style, even though the proportions may not adhere to those anatomy books etc. IMO, manga style blows western cartooning style into the abyss.

My apologies, I should of been more specific. I meant all the kids on deviant art who only draw anime and furry and think they are the greatest artists in the world for it. I know there are a lot of great artists on deviant art, I even have my own deviant art account. And yeah some anime is really good but in my opinion the classic anime is far better then 90% of what's out today.

Anyway to not try and derail this thread, in my opinion I think Jackson Pollock is the worlds most overrated artists. I respect him personally for the ideas he had and was trying to get across but his art really is pointless. He's only famous because he died kinda young and tragically in a car accident. After that his work went from being worthless to worth millions overnight.

[dashinvaine]

;2445758'] Jackson Pollock... He's only famous because he died kinda young and tragically in a car accident. After that his work went from being worthless to worth millions overnight.

The bit of tarmac he splattered was probably his greatest work.

[FraserMcT]

The bit of tarmac he splattered was probably his greatest work.
Not meaning to offend you, but please get over yourself.
Your opinions aren't the only ones that matter. By stating it as fact, it is not only ignorant- but just plain rude!
Different people like different things. You can say who you like in your personal opinion, but don't disregard their work as utter garbage.

[Anid Maro]

When it comes to Pollock I feel a grave sense of disappointment upon seeing his paintings. Not because I think they're crap, but because I didn't get to watch him make it. Viewing a Pollock painting is like rushing down to see the circus only to see them packing up at the end of the day, I get to see the tents and the occasional animal or performer pass by but I know I missed all the real fun.

[dashinvaine]

Fraser- I didn't state it as fact, that's what the word 'probably' means, and I made that last comment only as a joke, albeit a tasteless one. There again that's just how one of his contemporaries famously described Pollock's work, not art but a joke in bad taste. If I'm not always right, I'm usually forthright, so you get over it. I don't require anyone to give a damn about my opinion, nor am I stopping anyone else voicing theirs.

[Elwell]

;2445758']He's only famous because he died kinda young and tragically in a car accident. After that his work went from being worthless to worth millions overnight.

This is demonstrably false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock):
Pollock's most famous paintings were made during the "drip period" between 1947 and 1950. He rocketed to popular status following an August 8, 1949 four-page spread in Life Magazine that asked, "Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?" At the peak of his fame, Pollock abruptly abandoned the drip style.

Pollock's work after 1951 was darker in color, including a collection painted in black on unprimed canvases. This was followed by a return to color, and he reintroduced figurative elements. During this period Pollock had moved to a more commercial gallery and there was great demand from collectors for new paintings.

[SavageGoldfish]

;2445758']
Anyway to not try and derail this thread, in my opinion I think Jackson Pollock is the worlds most overrated artists. I respect him personally for the ideas he had and was trying to get across but his art really is pointless. He's only famous because he died kinda young and tragically in a car accident. After that his work went from being worthless to worth millions overnight.

I used to hate Jackson Pollock alot more in the past. I'm still not overly fond of the guy, but his paintings are very colourful and in a way pleasing to look at...but nothing I would call a masterpiece or would think would be worth millions....(in fact, they look kind of like my painting table does....drips, splatters, smears....)

Though I have come to have a little more respect for "modern art" after befriending an artist who paints in an abstract style. Sure, it doesn't have the intense detail or realism that I personally like, but it is kind of neat to look at. And getting to see some of the creative process behind it, too, sort of gives you a different outlook.

[jcpahl]

"Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?"

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/funny/raaaaaeg3261761jd5.jpg

[Ilaekae]

I love watching all the people who are still pissed that they took "Ozzie and Harriet" off the air...

[kev ferrara]

Kev- from what I gather Miro got himself into a transcendent state when he painted through such techniques as extreme sleep deprivation. Obviously I don't suggest that he always doodled randomly, but that was seen by the Surrealists as a way of accessing the subconscious. Freudian theory was the flavour of the month.

Miro was neither the first nor the last to fall into a kind of trance-like state when creating. I would go so far as to say that any artist worth his salt attains this state when working. It is one of the reasons artists make art.

And accessing the subconscious is exactly the point of it.

It should be continually recalled that "The Subconscious" is just another word for "The Imagination"... which was already a rebranding of what was previously known as "The Soul."

[dashinvaine]

I don't think the subconscious is the same as the imagination. The imagination is real and primarily conscious. It is the ability to project the mind and conjure ideas and images. The subconscious is theoretical, being supposedly part of the mind operating on a level one is unaware of, and connected to suppressed feelings and desires. Neither are identifiable with soul, which is the spiritual and vital force said to be a supernatural component of someone's makeup. If it exists it is linked to the whole mind, including the conscious intellect, as much as to the subconscious and the imagination.

[Oblivia Enna]

This is a huge flame war, but to your original post which could be reworded to: 'Who do you think is the most overrated artist?'

My response to this question would be Andy Warhol. While he was important in transforming our culture even today, his skills in painting were severely lacking, and I don't believe he really had 'fresh' ideas at all. It's just... no.

[Dave_]

I hate hater hater hater haters!
Why so negative?


I do hate Damien Hirst, making 'art' purely to earn money, I'm fine with him doing it, if you got a good way to make ridiculous ammounts of cash for little effort, why not? But calling yourself an artist then is a big nono.

[KarylGilbertson]

I hate hater hater hater haters!
Why so negative?


I do hate Damien Hirst, making 'art' purely to earn money, I'm fine with him doing it, if you got a good way to make ridiculous ammounts of cash for little effort, why not? But calling yourself an artist then is a big nono.

While I agree with you that DH is a tosser and needs a good ass-kicking, I will say this: I don't think DH would be able to make large amounts of cash for little effort UNLESS he convinced a certain number of gullible people (with large wallets) that he was an artist, and what he pisses around with is art.

[kev ferrara]

I don't think the subconscious is the same as the imagination. The imagination is real and primarily conscious. It is the ability to project the mind and conjure ideas and images. The subconscious is theoretical, being supposedly part of the mind operating on a level one is unaware of, and connected to suppressed feelings and desires. Neither are identifiable with soul, which is the spiritual and vital force said to be a supernatural component of someone's makeup. If it exists it is linked to the whole mind, including the conscious intellect, as much as to the subconscious and the imagination.

From my perspective, you are listing secondary associations and outright misconceptions regarding the particular technological use of each word within their respective disciplines. These misconceptions seem more widely known than the principled historical usages -- often within the disciplines themselves and for various reasons, including the need to procure and retain followers with mumbo jumbo, actual superstitiousness and fantasy, difficult philosophical language, and the need for outside "educators" to have something interesting and bumper sticker simple to relay about the topic.

I offer no proof of this assertion, as it would take months to explicate.

Sorry,
kev

[jcpahl]

From my perspective, you are listing secondary associations and outright misconceptions regarding the particular technological use of each word within their respective disciplines. These misconceptions seem more widely known than the principled historical usages -- often within the disciplines themselves and for various reasons, including the need to procure and retain followers with mumbo jumbo, actual superstitiousness and fantasy, difficult philosophical language, and the need for outside "educators" to have something interesting and bumper sticker simple to relay about the topic.

I offer no proof of this assertion, as it would take months to explicate.

Sorry,
kev

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/funny/dumb.jpg

[Xeon_OND]

Seems like you two have it all figured out!
So what is art then? Could you please share? I'm actually kind of curious :P

It's a pet peeve of mine when people make big statements about what art is and isn't. Sure, everyone should feel absolutely free to state their opinions. But when you're bashing certain works, at least have the courtesy of calling it "bad art". By saying in 100% confidence that something isn't art at all is naive.

From my own naive perspective, below 2 pictures from your own sketchbook is REAL ART which is marvelous:
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=770075&d=1252086922

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=785867&d=1253729351

And below is also art (very cute, btw! :D):
http://www.lagmonster.info/wtc/humorpics/kid_war_drawing.jpg

Now, let's take a look at the piece below:
http://www.modernartimages.com/images/abstract/abstract-expressionism-eyesoftime.jpg
(what's that? Colorful amoebas? Topsy-turvy colorful hills?)

And this:
http://galerieverdun.com/abstract_art.jpg
(Apparently, the artist walked too fast and accidentally kicked his paint bottles and they spilled all over the paper)

I'm sorry if I offended modern abstract artists / lovers here, but I'm a die-hard who belongs to the anti-abstract-art camp since I was a kid. I'm sorry, but it can't be changed. It's like how some people are racists / perfectionists / nationalists their whole life. :^^:

[armando]

I hate hater hater hater haters!
Why so negative?


I do hate Damien Hirst, making 'art' purely to earn money, I'm fine with him doing it, if you got a good way to make ridiculous ammounts of cash for little effort, why not? But calling yourself an artist then is a big nono.

lol. "It's okay to rip people off. But pretending to be an artist? No way!".

[Notophthalmus]

I suggest any anti-abstract-expressionists here read Kurt Vonnegut's Bluebeard. It might give you a little more insight into or sympathy for these artists, and it's Vonnegut, so it's really funny and enjoyable to read too. Vonnegut's approach to their art is of course idiosyncratic but also very simple and powerful.

[Elwell]

Xeon, no offense to AsaB, but that last piece you posted is definitely the strongest one.

[Farvus]

(what's that? Colorful amoebas? Topsy-turvy colorful hills?)


Organic shapes.

Apparently, the artist walked too fast and accidentally kicked his paint bottles and they spilled all over the paper)

He accidentally kicked his paint bottles and he accidentally made pretty good composition.

[Noah Bradley]

He accidentally kicked his paint bottles and he accidentally made pretty good composition.

...and good colors, and edges, and texture.

Who is that? It's really a nice piece. :)

[hitnrun]

In my *opinion* who is the worst/most over hyped painter? There are many artists whose "work" I can't say I have much of an appreciation for. Then again, theres just as many whose work I love and others hate.

Heck, in my art history class this semester, I sit in front of two girls who both hate art and "don't get it". I would try explaining it to them, but my art history class this time around isn't about Western art, it's all about roman/greek architecture, vases, sarcophagii, etc.. So I can't really explain anything to them - I don't know anything about it.

[OmenSpirits]

Are they hot?

If so...opportunity knocks but once money! :D

[hitnrun]

Are they hot?

If so...opportunity knocks but once money! :D

*sigh* the one is sort of attractive, but I'm there for a lecture on art history.

[Demo]

Id also like to know who's piece that last one is im pretty hard to please when it comes to pieces like that but that certainly has my attention.

Hitnrun I feel for u im in a very very similar situation, but hay isn't that Greek and Roman stuff top notch I don't think u can fully appreciate it until you learn a little about it.

[hitnrun]

Well, I learn about it, and I understand the significance of everything my professor goes over.. But it's just *not* what I'm interested in.

[KarylGilbertson]

@hitnrun some of that stuff you have to see in real life to appreciate... for instance, I wasn't really into it either, but once I saw some of those vases in real life... the amount of detail they cram into those things is AMAZING.

[ikken]

And this:
http://galerieverdun.com/abstract_art.jpg
(Apparently, the artist walked too fast and accidentally kicked his paint bottles and they spilled all over the paper)

I will give you $ 10 if making a master-copy of this piece will teach you nothing about value, texture and control over media.

[m0n3y]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule2

this thread made me think of these very honest critiques.

[Kaycy is tanning]

Hitler

He's the most underrated of all. I always heard his paintings were bad until I saw them, they're lovely. Whichever bias you have for or against him, at the end of the day someone is going to have to admit that his painting skills is something most can only dream to have. Luckily we are able to discuss these paintings in class, unlike some schools who prefer to lie about his talent if it suits them.

[Kaycy is tanning]

Bouguereau!!! I find his paintings silly, lazy, and just plain boring. Technique...what technique!? I honestly don't know why anyone would look at his paintings and not fall to floor instantly from the pure exhaustion of trying to understand how such a bad painter became so famous.

Agree, I never liked his super finish look.

[dashinvaine]

From my perspective, you are listing secondary associations and outright misconceptions regarding the particular technological use of each word within their respective disciplines. These misconceptions seem more widely known than the principled historical usages -- often within the disciplines themselves and for various reasons, including the need to procure and retain followers with mumbo jumbo, actual superstitiousness and fantasy, difficult philosophical language, and the need for outside "educators" to have something interesting and bumper sticker simple to relay about the topic.

I offer no proof of this assertion, as it would take months to explicate.

Sorry,
kev

Hmmmmm.

[AsaB]

Xeon - Thanks for the shout-out, always appreciated, but I must agree with others here that the last piece you posted is a very strong one. I'm not trying to sway your opinion here, you seem to have your mind set on detesting abstract art, so that's that. But a quick piece of advise, don't make such absolute statements regarding other artists and their art. What you said about the abstract artist was simply rude. At least respect their style and opinion, even though you don't agree. And that goes for everything else, frankly!

Btw, said abstract piece is by Curtis Verdun, more can be found over here. (http://galerieverdun.com/art_cv/s-the_color_red.htm) It's a part of a series, so there are more in the same style, definitely worth a look.

[dashinvaine]

Agree, I never liked his super finish look.

Regarding Bouguereau, I don't see how you can agree with someone calling something lazy, and at the same time call it super finished. I actually quite liked the abstract piece by Curtis Verdun. His Modigliani-esque brother also does some nice stuff. This, however, is what I call Art:

[bhanu]

I dont like many artists, but my time is far too important to waste on shit I hate.
I dig pollock alot though, but kline is my fav. abstract expressionist.
and I do like some of Hirst's stuff too, but not all .

Edit- It was sad too that bernie fuchs thread in Longe barely made it to second page while this hate thread is still going strong after 5 pages.

[hitnrun]

@hitnrun some of that stuff you have to see in real life to appreciate... for instance, I wasn't really into it either, but once I saw some of those vases in real life... the amount of detail they cram into those things is AMAZING.

That makes sense because I've seen a few Frida Kahlo paintings in books and was more with the attitude of "meh", but then I saw some in real life and I was quite impressed by them. Actually seeing an older artifact such as a greek water jug and thinking about it is way different than reading about it.

Plus, I'm the same artist who believes not all art has meaning, yet the story and meaning behind Frida Kahlo's work is exactly why I like some of it.

Dash The image you posted is also the type of art I have one of my greatest appreciations for. I love the style, the shading and the concept.

Oh and while I haven't read though every page, I see I am not alone in thinking Jackson Pollock's stuff is "pointless". I've heard a few reasons as to why he was so famous. One reason being he just did "drip paintings" - his lack of representational forms was apparently something some people liked. His art was "natural". I also heard his wife was a gallery promoter so for him, publicity was easy to get.

[bhanu]

I bet if one of the masters of art were to read this thread, they'd die laughing.
Or maybe just say"wtf?"

[Xeon_OND]

Xeon, no offense to AsaB, but that last piece you posted is definitely the strongest one.
Come to think of it, it's not a bad piece. It's still nothing compared to real art, but it would make a good background for certain xBox 360 games DVD case. In fact, it would be nice to turn this into a skin and encase a game console with it.

...and good colors, and edges, and texture. Who is that? It's really a nice piece. :)
I dunno....I just went to Yahoo image search and searched for "abstract art" and it was there somewhere on the 1st or 2nd page. :D

I think giving these abstract art a different name altogether, such as "Abstractism" or "Contemporary designing" would be better (leaving out the word "art" totally). :^^:

[Aly Fell]

At the risk of having something as absurd as an opinion, that image is still 'real art' Xeon, just not your cup of tea! :)

Dash - It's a technically beautiful image, and like most Bouguereau, shouldn't be seen at 900 wide pixels on a computer screen, but rather in a gallery glowering down at you, but it doesn't 'move' me. I find it emotionally rather... sterile. Posh p0rn for repressed Victorians! There is more excitement for me in a Leyendecker sketch or a Mucha ad for cigarette papers!

Have to say I'd not seen that Bouguereau before though.

[dashinvaine]

You might just as well call the Sistine Chapel gay porn for renaissance priests, or Botticelli's Venus a posh pin-up girl for Medici princes. It's true up to a point, as but then so would be calling Pollock's stuff tacky wallpaper for pretentious parvenu modernists. I don't think the Victorians were that repressed, (not the French anyway), anymore than were the ancient Greeks who first dreamt up this sort of thing.

[Aly Fell]

You might just as well call the Sistine Chapel gay porn for renaissance priests, or Botticelli's Venus a posh pin-up girl for Medici princes. It's true up to a point, as but then so would be calling Pollock's stuff tacky wallpaper for pretentious parvenu modernists.
I might well indeed say that! :) But it isn't a competition. And I am being facetious to an extent but those descriptions of the Sistine Chapel and Botticelli aren't a hundred miles from the truth. The coy erotisization of particularly Venus is obvious. And as for Adam and Eve on the Sistine Chapel, it'd make Sid James blush! Have you ever been to La Specola in Florence? If you are interested to see how artists even at a purely medical level sexualised their models, just look at the expressions on the 'dead' wax sculpts of anatomical figures, specifically the highly stylised women. Any excuse to show sexual bliss! Anyway... I digress...

[Baron Impossible]

FYI - The site http://galerieverdun.com_ as linked above has been identified as having a malicious s/w download on at least one of its pages. Just so as you know.

[arttorney]

...

Oh and while I haven't read though every page, I see I am not alone in thinking Jackson Pollock's stuff is "pointless". I've heard a few reasons as to why he was so famous. One reason being he just did "drip paintings" - his lack of representational forms was apparently something some people liked. His art was "natural". I also heard his wife was a gallery promoter so for him, publicity was easy to get.
His wife was abstract expressionist painter Lee Krasner. She promoted him in the sense of interfacing with galleries on his behalf in competing with other abstract expressionists for wall space, but it was Clement Greenberg and Peggy Guggenheim who were more influential in selling him to the public at large. Read the Wikipedia entry for Clement Greenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg and you will get a good idea for the point the abstract expressionists were trying to make. A lot has happened politically and socially since then, and there are now other points to be made, but at the time there were people who didn't consider that stuff pointless. (Or is it the same points that need to be made and they just did not sink in? Consumerism does seem to have led us down a bad path.)

[Taneli]

I think giving these abstract art a different name altogether, such as "Abstractism" or "Contemporary designing" would be better (leaving out the word "art" totally). :^^:

The word "art" is dangerous, I try to avoid it for the time being because I haven't even read books with different definitions.

This is how I think now. You either like a painting, a drawing, a piece of work, or you don't. Of course it's not all black and white but that's another matter. If some painting evokes a bigger emotional response than other, it is because of the observer's background, values, preference of style etc. It is not more "art" than the other painting but an interpretation and/or subject better suited for the observer, interpretation being a lot more important. Or at least for the more curious observer who doesn't dismiss a work just because he or she doesn't like the subject. As uninformed as I am, I believe there are many better ways to waste time than discussing if something is art or not. For example: improving your own work, reading a book or books about how some people define the word "art" before discussing it, or going to the toilet.

[KarylGilbertson]

The best way I've heard "art" defined is:

"Art is anything being looked at from an art perspective."

That is to say, it is the context in which it is being interpreted that makes it art or not. Someone spending 17 years on an epic painting, if the painter says it is art and people look at it and interpret it as art, then it is art. Even if not everyone agrees, or likes it. In the same fashion, if someone goes into a gallery, knocks a hole into the wall with a hammer and says that it is art, and people look at it and interpret it as art, then it is also art. Even if not everyone agrees, or likes it.

You may not agree with this definition, and that is fine... However, in my opinion this definition includes all the wonderful art the masters have made over the centuries, and still leaves room for the abstract, the weird installation people, and hilarious artists like Marcel Duchamp and his readymades (a personal favourite of mine).

[dashinvaine]

I might well indeed say that! :) But it isn't a competition. And I am being facetious to an extent but those descriptions of the Sistine Chapel and Botticelli aren't a hundred miles from the truth. The coy erotisization of particularly Venus is obvious. And as for Adam and Eve on the Sistine Chapel, it'd make Sid James blush! Have you ever been to La Specola in Florence? If you are interested to see how artists even at a purely medical level sexualised their models, just look at the expressions on the 'dead' wax sculpts of anatomical figures, specifically the highly stylised women. Any excuse to show sexual bliss! Anyway... I digress...

Oh yes, the educational waxworks being brought to the pitch of ecstacy by their own disection...

By the way some classical painters do tend to leave me cold, despite their technical skill, especially Ingres, David and Reynolds. I usually find plenty of soul in a Bouguereau however, as well as perfect artistry.

[m0n3y]

You might just as well call the Sistine Chapel gay porn for renaissance priests, or Botticelli's Venus a posh pin-up girl for Medici princes. It's true up to a point, as but then so would be calling Pollock's stuff tacky wallpaper for pretentious parvenu modernists. I don't think the Victorians were that repressed, (not the French anyway), anymore than were the ancient Greeks who first dreamt up this sort of thing.

Do you really believe that or are you just saying it because you are offended that someone might say something untoward about an artist you admire?

quite possibly one of the stupidist things ive read someone say about michelangelo.

[dashinvaine]

The best way I've heard "art" defined is:

"Art is anything being looked at from an art perspective."

That is to say, it is the context in which it is being interpreted that makes it art or not. Someone spending 17 years on an epic painting, if the painter says it is art and people look at it and interpret it as art, then it is art. Even if not everyone agrees, or likes it. In the same fashion, if someone goes into a gallery, knocks a hole into the wall with a hammer and says that it is art, and people look at it and interpret it as art, then it is also art. Even if not everyone agrees, or likes it.

You may not agree with this definition, and that is fine... However, in my opinion this definition includes all the wonderful art the masters have made over the centuries, and still leaves room for the abstract, the weird installation people, and hilarious artists like Marcel Duchamp and his readymades (a personal favourite of mine).

I agree with none of that, and I hate Duchamp even more than Matisse, on philosophical rather than aesthetic grounds. This univeralism and relativism leads to absurdity- Duchamp's claim that something was art because he said it was amounted to pure unadulterated bollocks. Duchamp, by the end, was no artist, he was just a provocative buffoon. If everything and anything can be called art, placed in the right context, then a bucket of shit can be called God if placed on heaven't throne. A monkey can be called a doctor if given a stethoscope and desk. A canoe can be called a car if parked in a garrage. Do you see my point? it doesn't work like that.

If you could identify a year as the year art died, it would probably be 1917. That year Waterhouse breathed his last and the coward Duchamp exhibited his crapper.

[KarylGilbertson]

I agree with none of that, and I hate Duchamp even more than Matisse, on philosophical rather than aesthetic grounds. This univeralism and relativism leads to absurdity- Duchamp's claim that something was art because he said it was amounted to pure unadulterated bollocks. Duchamp, by the end, was no artist, he was just a provocative buffoon. If everything and anything can be called art, placed in the right context, then a bucket of shit can be called God if placed on heaven't throne. A monkey can be called a doctor if given a stethoscope and desk. A canoe can be called a car if parked in a garrage. Do you see my point? it doesn't work like that.

If you could identify a year as the year art died, it would probably be 1917. That year Waterhouse breathed his last and the coward Duchamp exhibited his crapper.

I like Duchamp precisely because he IS trying to be provocative-- he's looking at all the elitist up-tight "high" artists and art critics and saying, "hey you assholes, lighten up." I love that about him and his work.

And I disagree with your comparisons. Just because one word is defined in such a way does not mean all words have to be defined similarly. You're being intentionally absurd in order to make the definition seem that way also.

[dashinvaine]

Do you really believe that or are you just saying it because you are offended that someone might say something untoward about an artist you admire?

quite possibly one of the stupidist things ive read someone say about michelangelo.

No, obviously I was being as facetious as Poshspice was when alluding to Bouguereau's comparable masterpiece as posh porn for buttoned-up Victorian. An element of erotic content obviously doesn't negate an artwork's aesthetic value, nor mean it has no spiritual or philosophical meaning either. It's all wrapped up together, often. Different beholders may be receptive to different elements. The Sistine Chapel ceiling was a work of profound spiritual devotion and meditation, yet you can't deny that Michaelangelo was a homosexual, (as indeed some of the clergy were also likely to have been) and that there are more muscular male nudes writhing all over that particular masterpiece than are strictly necessary in an illustration of the Genesis myth.

[dashinvaine]

I like Duchamp precisely because he IS trying to be provocative-- he's looking at all the elitist up-tight "high" artists and art critics and saying, "hey you assholes, lighten up." I love that about him and his work.

And I disagree with your comparisons. Just because one word is defined in such a way does not mean all words have to be defined similarly. You're being intentionally absurd in order to make the definition seem that way also.

In one breath you profess admiration for intentional absurdity, in the next you appear to criticize it. It makes me wonder about the strength your convictions...

[KarylGilbertson]

Who hasn't thought about the confines of "high" art and the elitism present in certain artists and critics. Anyone who ever liked comic books, or animation, or even concept art which is not really "fine art" from a traditional stand-point has felt the sting of some asshole in a turtleneck being like, "that's not real art." Therefore, Duchamp can be seen as a sort of hero, as one who deliberately takes aim at these sorts of elitists and just has fun with them. Besides, not only is his work provocative, but there is actual HUMOUR to it, so it can be enjoyed for more than just the "shock value".

And just as we like to make fun of those who we see as "elitist" or otherwise worthy of scorn, so do we dislike to be scorned ourselves. Maybe your intentional absurdity is the same as Duchamp's. But you're trying to make me look like a fool, and I don't have to like it :)

[dashinvaine]

He's not a hero because he's been made into an icon of the new elitist orthodoxy, which is wholly perverse. This is not irrelevant to the question of why for the past ninety-odd years representational artists have struggled to get a look in, and why representational art has been downgraded to 'illustration'. What before was universally esteemed as art came to be treat as a joke, and what before would have been dismissed as a silly joke came to be enshrined as art.

Anyone who thinks true art is anything to do with skill and technique and beauty and emotional depth rather than some abstract pseudo-philosophical/existential statement (often expressed by the most banal means) has no reason whatsoever to consider Duchamp a hero.

[KarylGilbertson]

What before was universally esteemed as art came to be treat as a joke, and what before would have been dismissed as a silly joke came to be enshrined as art.

You know, this is perverse. I think that both representational AND non-representational art are important. One is not better than the other. Both are valid forms of expression.

Anyone who thinks true art is anything to do with skill and technique and beauty and emotional depth rather than some abstract pseudo-philosophical/existential statement (often expressed by the most banal means) has no reason whatsoever to consider Duchamp a hero.

I like art that is made with skill and technique. A lot of abstract art is, but honestly I don't think it HAS to be, in order to be art. Art can make you think, or look at something in a different way. I don't think that art HAS to have some sort of deep emotional meaning to it. If it does that's great, but I don't see why the art police have to tear down something that was made simply for enjoyment, or fun, or whatever. How many times have each of us drawn a face, or a person, simply for the heck of it? Is this not art because it lacks some deeper meaning?

Isn't a lot of art for the entertainment industry made with skill, but without a deeper meaning?

I personally dislike a lot of installation and performance art, because I think a lot of it is based simply on doing something weird and being offensive. Not only is there no effort, but there's no thought. That said, I know some people really like that stuff, and I'm not trying to lead a witch hunt to outlaw these art forms and put all these performance artists to death. I am not trying to get these genres left out of art history textbooks. It's not my cup of tea, but obviously some people dislike what I like, and how would I feel if they tried to get rid of all my favourite parts of the art world?

In the end, it's fine to prefer that one form of creative expression over another. It's fine to dislike certain genres of expression. Just don't get all art police on us and tell us that our opinions are wrong, and the art we choose to like shouldn't exist.

[Aly Fell]

If you could identify a year as the year art died, it would probably be 1917. That year Waterhouse breathed his last and the coward Duchamp exhibited his crapper.

Dash - With the greatest of respect, and I mean that, comments like this make me realise this debate is over. I'm off! TTFN

[dashinvaine]

I'm sorry to hear that, Poshspice, as I was enjoying the debate and more than respect your work and opinion. The statement about 1917 was not a view that I adhere to dogmatically, just something that occurred to me as a glib afterthought, not that I withdraw it. You must admit that Duchamp got away with his little stunt, classifying a mundane found object as art, and opening the door for the term to lose any real meaning. His precedent was followed, and art - in the received sense of the word - died.

[AsaB]

You must admit that Duchamp got away with his little stunt, classifying a mundane found object as art, and opening the door for the term to lose any real meaning. His precedent was followed, and art - in the received sense of the word - died.
Have you read anything about Duchamp and his intentions with his art? I doubt you would be making statements like this if you had. The whole idea behind Fountain was definitely not trying to classify toilet as art, but taunting the art scene at the time. That's whole thing is a fascinating read, I suggest you check it out if you haven't!

But art is constantly evolving and a lot of different and interesting styles have emerged in the passing century. So I think it's pretty unfair to claim that all art since 1917 shouldn't be classified as such. And what's that 'received sense of art'? I think everyone has got a pretty individual opinion on the matter!

I'm just saying, you might want to tone down those absolutes you've been stating here. We all have different opinions, and I respect that. But when debating them, a little humility goes a long way :)

[Chris Saksida]

I respect every kind of art; there are a lot of art and artists that I totally dislike, but respect, like music.

I don`t believe in "bad" or "good" art, art is expression so every piece is "good" if it reflects exactly what the artist wants to express.

If the art is honest and I don`t like it, I see it as just a matter of taste or that I don`t understand it.

So I think the only "bad" art there is is the art that is not HONEST, like the artists who claim that they are using their work as a way to express things, when in reality, they are just following a trend or using a gimmick to sell more.

So in the end, I can`t really know which artists are honest artists or not, I can only suspect.

[arteest101]

I'll give you my worst painting (or most irritating) of all time. Kazimir Malevich's Black Square. C'mon!

[BlackRaven]

I enjoy Duchamp's works a lot. I did some research on his works and have written 2 small paper when I was in college and have found his ideas and works very interesting. Of course, there will be many people that would considered his works nothing but stunts since technically he just pick something out and call it art. But the thing was that, some of these things were created with a purpose. But if we remove the purpose behind some of the items, would we look at it very differently. Would we notice the curves, the lines, colors, details, etc.? It questions our taste also since we are use to seeing things that are considered to be beautiful but when someone finds a urinal to be a beautiful, I would imagine some people would reject that idea and wouldn't considered as art. I don't know but the designer who created object like the urinal or a bicycle have put as much thought into the object but the only difference between him and an artist is the fact that he created it with a practical purpose in mind.

I feel that Duchamp's stunt help expand the world and perspective of people and not limited themselves. In this world, there are an infinite possibilities and it all depends how we look at it.

[Elwell]

Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many things died in 1917. Art was not one of them.

[JJacks]

The last thing I will say in this thread, and I am sorry if this sounds odd because I am doped on pain medication.

When I first started, I thought art was something so prestigious that I couldn't touch it, yet for the life of me I couldn't understand why some people were even considered artists. Squares on a canvas? I can do that.

I decided to learn more because I'm an art nerd. I learned that these artists who were so different from me on the surface were just like me. They explored their ideas and techniques with the same passion and tenacity as I did and I found their revelations fascinating. I'm very much a conceptual person when it comes to painting so a whole new world of thought was open to me.

I think when I stopped thinking about art as "us vs them," that when I really started to improve.

[hitnrun]

Meh, I can paint an entire canvas one color, but I don't call that a finished piece. I call it a toned canvas. It's a set up for the actual art. I've heard rumors that Canson does the same thing with paper.

--edit-- That isn't a shot at anyone on here. Let's just be clear about that.

[Farvus]

Black square square painting was never about skill but about certain idea behind it and experiment with geometry in composition. I think didn't really matter what technique he could use. Malevich could make it from paper cut-outs or sew it.

[dashinvaine]

Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many things died in 1917. Art was not one of them.

Exactly, the western world had gone mad. Who would have noticed if it was?

[Sascha Thau]

Meh, I can paint an entire canvas one color, but I don't call that a finished piece. I call it a toned canvas. It's a set up for the actual art. I've heard rumors that Canson does the same thing with paper.

--edit-- That isn't a shot at anyone on here. Let's just be clear about that.

Just as an information, nothing personal nor am I willing to descredit you. It's only food for thought: The Nazis thought literally the same about abstract art.

Degenerate art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art)

I think art has a lot to do with tolerance.

[dashinvaine]

That last point is irrelevant. The Nazis also thought Vokswagen Beetles were good cars, and they were right! I made the point about classical art being unjustly discredited because the Nazis happened to object to abstract expressionism. Hitler also hated meat and smoking and alcohol. Does that mean any sober, non-smoking vegetarian is potentially a mass-murdering Nazi demagogue? This line of reasoning is just hysterical.

For information, Winston Churchill (also a gifted amateur painter) also hated 'modern art'.

[Sascha Thau]

The only reasoning I made was that art has a lot to do with tolerance. :) Nazis were only 'tolerant' when they liked things.

[dashinvaine]

Well and good, but the abstractionists were as systematically intolerant of representational art once they gained the upper hand. This isn't just my opinion... http://www.classicalrealism.com/art/Times_Article.htm

The phrase 'Iron grip of modernism' rings very true in my experience.

[BlackRaven]

I do somewhat agree with the phrase of "Iron grip of modernism'. I do feel that when Modernism started out, it still has some roots with traditional art but later it evolved to something that I am even unsure about. It seems like today's artists are creating abstract art for the sake of being an abstract art or I guess trying to become avant-garde. It might be a generalized statement that I just made but it's how I feel.

I am not a big fan of much of modernism art and in particular in abstract art but I can not bring myself to hate it or disregard the period. I don't understand everything, but I do feel that I would at least try gain a better understand of it. To my understanding of abstract art , I feel that instead of trying to created story or a message, abstract art are trying to deal with the problem of art itself. What is true art? I think this is what abstract art is trying to explore was this issue that maybe art can reach beyond just depicting objects and subject. That the answer lies within the canvas itself.

It does sound like a lot of philosophical B...sh.... but I feel that I can't just look and judge art by technique without looking at the subject matter or even color. For me, when I study art history, I can't judge the movement based on the artists and the paintings that it produced without trying to understand the thought process behind these creations. I may not like everything but it doesn't mean I should disregard everything just because I don't like it.

But at the end, I think more and more people are going to rediscovered traditional art just like in the past when they have rediscovered Greek and Roman art. Art will evolve because people's taste or preference are changing. I think at the end, people will always will go back to representation art because it is what people could relate to the most though.

[Flake]

Winston Churchill (also a gifted amateur painter) also hated 'modern art'.

I like his painting better than Hitlers.

[ChristmasBunneh]

In general there are 2 types of art (for lack of a better word) I don't like.

1 is most of modern art. If a painter (that's what they are in essence really) paints one half of the canvas blue and the other say red and calls it art I definitely cringe. It doesn't mean I think it's ugly, oh no, it might look very nice, soothing on my bedroom wall, goes perfectly with my couch, but I don't think of it as art.

2nd is the average dA anime fanartist. I actually have nothing against fanart nor anime style, quite like certain niches of it, but if I get my inbox spammed with Hetalia chibi doodles with some witty dialogue I get quite pissed. I the creators did some proper works too, I'd dismiss it as funny doodles to kill boredom, but if it's the only thing they do and they get hundreds of thousands of pageviews off of it I start to lose hope in mankind.

But on topic, one of the most overhyped artist imho was Michelangelo. He's only known because of that fucking chapel ceiling. Sure he was good at what he did, but not extraordinary. There were better artists from that time who are less known because Michelangelo with his ceiling and gayness overshadows them.

[Flake]

one of the most overhyped artist imho was Michelangelo. He's only known because of that fucking chapel ceiling. Sure he was good at what he did, but not extraordinary. There were better artists from that time who are less known because Michelangelo with his ceiling and gayness overshadows them.

787859

[jcpahl]

But on topic, one of the most overhyped artist imho was Michelangelo. He's only known because of that fucking chapel ceiling. Sure he was good at what he did, but not extraordinary. .

Michelangelo not extraordinary? I disagree. He did a lot more than just the Sistine Chapel, you know; his sculpture, for instance, was simply mind-blowing.

His La Pieta has got to be one of the most beautiful works of art ever created by human hands.

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/By%20Various%20Artists/pieta.jpg

[Flake]

787877

.............................

[BlackRaven]

But on topic, one of the most overhyped artist imho was Michelangelo. He's only known because of that fucking chapel ceiling. Sure he was good at what he did, but not extraordinary. There were better artists from that time who are less known because Michelangelo with his ceiling and gayness overshadows them.

Please go back and do some research. Just because everyone else might associate him with the Sistine chapel, it doesn't mean that you have to do the same. He was a fantastic artist especially his sculptures. There is more to him than just the Sistine Chapel.

I love his work La Pieta but I also love this sculpture of Mosses also.

http://projectionsystems.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/6a00e553690e1b883401053641c9cd970b-800wi1.jpg

[jcpahl]

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/By%20Various%20Artists/michelangelo_libyan.jpg

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/By%20Various%20Artists/Michelangelo_The_Damned_Soul.jpg

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac24/jcpahlart/By%20Various%20Artists/Michelangelo_Study_for_an_ignudo_re.jpg

Michelangelo's contemporaries called him Il Divino; I think they had it right.

[Elwell]

His La Pieta has got to be one of the most beautiful works of art ever created by human hands.

Twenty-four year old human hands, at that.

[Flake]

I just spent about 20 minutes staring at pics of La Pieta thinking "How the hell do you do that with a chisel..?".

I couldn't do that in Zbrush..

[Anid Maro]

To be perfectly honest, I think y'all just got yer chains yanked on the Michelangelo thing.

Probably with Bouguereau too.

[Derek the Usurper]

Ban the heretic!

[Flake]

To be perfectly honest, I think y'all just got yer chains yanked on the Michelangelo thing.

Probably with Bouguereau too.

Boogie was a troll attempt, Mike sounded stupid enough to be real.

[Anid Maro]

Boogie was a troll attempt, Mike sounded stupid enough to be real.

Yeah, clearly on the Bouguereau. Here's what's tipping me off with Michelangelo though:

There were better artists from that time who are less known because Michelangelo with his ceiling and gayness overshadows them.

Other artists are overshadowed by the sheer power of Michelangelo's gayness? That's the sort of line that makes me want to say "I c wut u did thar, hur hur".

[Derek the Usurper]

I'm willing to bet they aren't even aware he was likely gay.

[Elwell]

Other artists are overshadowed by the sheer power of Michelangelo's gayness? That's the sort of line that makes me want to say "I c wut u did thar, hur hur".
To be fair, Michelangelo's gayness is pretty overpowering.

[dashinvaine]

I just spent about 20 minutes staring at pics of La Pieta thinking "How the hell do you do that with a chisel..?".

I couldn't do that in Zbrush..


It's a simple matter of chipping away all the stone that isn't needed... That's basically how Michelangelo described what he did, freeing a statue from a lump of marble. I once sketched the Pieta, stood in front of the original in St Peter's, and was similarly mystified about how such a thing could be created. Being ultra awesome doubtless helps.

[Ilaekae]

"To be fair, Michelangelo's gayness is pretty overpowering."

Eehhhh...I'd give him a shot if he took a decent shower...




ADD: Dash', I saw the Pieta when it was in New York in '64. It was one of the most incredible things in the world to stand in front of...I couldn't talk for an hour afterward.

[TASmith]

it's a damn good statue. going to Florence, though is where it's at for all of his early and later works. Il Bargello...

[ChristmasBunneh]

I stand by what I said. Certainly he was very good BUT still not extraordinary imo. I just don't like his stuff and if that makes me a narrow minded cretin then so be it.

[Camilla]

You gotta love this. One of the most overrated artists ever: Tal R.

His paintings are hideously expensive and he is exhibiting in famous galleries and museums all over the world. It is a great mystery to me how he managed to become as famous as he is. He must be a marketing genius.

http://www.kunstonline.dk/profil/pics/TAL_M_152.jpg

http://www.victoria-miro.com/artists/_16/

[Xeon_OND]

You gotta love this. One of the most overrated artists ever: Tal R.

His paintings are hideously expensive and he is exhibiting in famous galleries and museums all over the world. It is a great mystery to me how he managed to become as famous as he is. He must be a marketing genius.

http://www.kunstonline.dk/profil/pics/TAL_M_152.jpg

http://www.victoria-miro.com/artists/_16/
There was once a book on software marketing, and there's a quote which says "Marketing gods make software kings", which means folks who know how to sell their computer software are the true kings (e.g Bill Gates), and not those folks who are great at technical skills but poor at marketing.

In the pic above.....this is EXACTLY the same type of art me and my classmates did when we were in kindergarten (around 5 yrs old), where the teacher gets us to cut out color papers and paste them onto white canvas to compose a scene, like the pic above.

I think it's really cute that a big, grown man can make such cutesy art! :D I'm totally applauding this artist for his talent in generating hype and his foresight in art marketing. As the saying goes, "Marketing gods make kings of art". :yayca:

[Baron Impossible]

"Central to the work is Tal R's profound understanding of painterly tradition which simultaneously accommodates muscular, expressive brushstrokes used to describe people, objects or places, and a stabilising pictorial format informed in part by formalist abstraction."

Hmmm. It seems to me that Tal R and his fish have something in common

http://www.victoria-miro.com/usr/images/artworks/ondemand/6606_825.jpg

[KarylGilbertson]

OMFG... Tal R can suck it, just like that fish.

[TASmith]

OMG I like those images. This thread needs to be closed. My uncle once gave me good advice: for every ten things you want to say, edit nine of them. Just think for a moment how you look when you make these kinds of statements.

[Baron Impossible]

OMG I like those images. This thread needs to be closed. My uncle once gave me good advice: for every ten things you want to say, edit nine of them. Just think for a moment how you look when you make these kinds of statements.

My uncle told me never to lavish praise on a picture of a fish sucking a one-eyed holiday rep's cock. Different people, different advice I guess.

[jcpahl]

OMG I like those images. This thread needs to be closed.

Why does it need to be closed? Because people have differing opinions?

Here's some better advice: don't nanny people. Saying things you don't agree with is a fundamental human right.

[armando]

"Art is anything being looked at from an art perspective."


You can't define a word with the same word. Circular definition.

[KarylGilbertson]

YOU'RE a circular definition. :P haha jk

[OmenSpirits]

what was this thread about again?

RECAP PLEASE! In under 25 words or less.:D

[squidmonk3j]

what was this thread about again?

Apples vs oranges.

[Anid Maro]

Who's Again? I haven't seen that person post here yet.

[Camilla]

... and you have to sign up on a waiting list in order to acquire a Tal R painting, which costs more than $100.000 - no kiddin'!

And furthermore: "Tal R graduated from the Royal Danish Academy of Arts and is now a professor at the Dusseldorf Academy of Arts. One of Denmark’s most successful living artists, he has had solo shows in London, New York, Dublin, Berlin and was recently commissioned by the Danish Royal Family to decorate their winter residence, the Amalienborg Palace in Copenhagen."

[dashinvaine]

Jesus wept.:wtf:

[MidgardSerpent]

what was this thread about again?

RECAP PLEASE! In under 25 words or less.:D
Something about abstract art being the source of all evil, apparently.

[OmenSpirits]

Ah. Little bit of info, A LOT of opinion, and the argument ensues.

[artlmf]

Malevich. Oh how that black square fills me with fury. yes i get that it was different at the time, but just shoot me already.

[dashinvaine]

There's actually a Museum of Bad Art (aside from Tate Modern) http://www.museumofbadart.org/ The difference with this stuff is there aren't silly critics fawning over it.

[Black Spot]

Malevich. Oh how that black square fills me with fury. yes i get that it was different at the time, but just shoot me already.

I quite like it and I like the Bricks (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=508&searchid=9845); it made sense when viewed in the correct space.

[dashinvaine]

Ah the famous bricks...

'The sensation of these pieces was that they come above your ankles, as if you were wading in bricks', Andre has commented. 'It was like stepping from water of one depth to water of another depth.' This was the last in his series of Equivalent sculptures, each consisting of a rectangular configuration of 120 firebricks. Although the shape of each arrangement is different, they all have the same height, mass and volume, and are therefore 'equivalent' to each other.

Anyone smell something from the farmyard?

[Black Spot]

I have to ask. Have you actually seen any of this art being rubbished in person? Looking at small scale pictures that are not always true in colour or texture does not give you any sense at all of what it is about.

I didn't understand the fuss about Cezanne until I saw one in person. When I saw the Bricks I was prepared to giggle, but found I didn't want to. Go to more galleries and open your eyes.

[dashinvaine]

That is advisable, otherwise you can get a nasty injury tripping over piles of bricks... I believe I have seen the famous bricks, incidentally, and don't recall being overly moved. I've seen plenty of Cezannes in the flesh, too, and while not objecting to them certainly think he's grotesquely over-rated.

[Pezz]

I don't know about the worst, but the most boring award goes to: Josef Albers (at least most of his famous body of work).

It's spawned a saying in our art department at school. "Art Club Meeting on Tuesday: Be there, or be a Josef Albers painting!"

[dashinvaine]

That sort of thing is just a con. It's meaningless. It's the sort of thing some poseur critic stands in front of waxing lyrical with pseudo-intellectual drivel. Art scene groupies accuse you of narrow-mindedness if you express your honest contempt for it, as though only appreciating arrangements of squares of different colours qualifies one as culturally sophisticated.

[Pezz]

That sort of thing is just a con. It's meaningless. It's the sort of thing some poseur critic stands in front of waxing lyrical with pseudo-intellectual drivel. Art scene groupies accuse you of narrow-mindedness if you express your honest contempt for it, as though only appreciating arrangements of squares of different colours qualifies one as culturally sophisticated.

I'm just astounded at how... straight they are. Otherwise, bored.

[m0n3y]

That sort of thing is just a con. It's meaningless. It's the sort of thing some poseur critic stands in front of waxing lyrical with pseudo-intellectual drivel. Art scene groupies accuse you of narrow-mindedness if you express your honest contempt for it, as though only appreciating arrangements of squares of different colours qualifies one as culturally sophisticated.

Im curious how exactly this effects you. You seem to be posting quite often about this "Modern art conspiracy". I dont get excited by Josef Albers either because his art doesn't relate to my practice, so I dont give it a second thought.

[Anid Maro]

Well don't you see? It's an elaborate con game started by that famous cynic Picasso, after getting the critics in on his game they set the stage for other artists to create work up to the new modern standard.

Artists create this modern art as per what art critics state is good art, then art critics point to the art being created as a justification of their standard for good art, which is then followed by artists and so on. It's a circular and isolating situation where only members of the "in crowd" are really arteests.

Of course some outrage should be expressed, especially since nothing of this sort has ever been perpetuated before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Salon).

[CCThrom]

The funny thing is... even if you don't like something, or find it dry and uninteresting, there may be something to learn from it. I'm just sayin' coz Josef Albers' work really does relate directly to anyone who works with y'know color.

[Pezz]

The funny thing is... even if you don't like something, or find it dry and uninteresting, there may be something to learn from it. I'm just sayin' coz Josef Albers' work really does relate directly to anyone who works with y'know color.

Precisely why I said he's not the worst, just the most boring.

[CCThrom]

not the worst, just the most boring

No argument there... Albers is dry and academic to the extreme, although I can think of a few others that give him a run for the money. I was directing more at folks who say 'this doesn't interest me, therefore it is of no relevance'. The truth is, if you work in color at all, or graphic design... whether you know it or not, Albers is relevant. And I'm just using Albers as an example. You could fill in the blank with many other names and the idea is the same.

I guess Albers is just a bit of a hot button for me, since he is such an obvious example of what many people find objectionable about modernism... and yet there is so much thought behind that work. When there isn't thought behind it any more, THATs when I start getting riled up.

As a side note, many years ago I saw an Albers retrospective at the Guggenheim. In a million years, I never would have gone to that show if it hadn't been an assignment for class. And know what? I'm really glad they made me go. It brought me appreciation and respect for at least one artist I would not have given a second thought to.

[Black Spot]

The Fat Battery by Joseph Beuys Joseph Beuys (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=965&searchid=8943&tabview=image) is probably the worst piece of art I've seen. It made me feel physically sick by its horridness. Luckily, its decaying at a good rate.

[dashinvaine]

Albers' thought behind his trademark piece: I shall put a square on top of a square on top of a square, slapping down some colour inside the masking tape. And for my next trick, the very same thing in shades of orange. Get your cheque books out, all you art lovers!

The objectionable thing about this sort of phony art is it involves practically no skill or hard work in the execution. The elevation of abstraction entails the downgrading of technical ability, which is an inherent insult to traditional artists (such as I aspire to be). To paint a convincing-looking man is comparatively tricky. To paint a landscape isn't easy and to paint a horse is downright hard - and to combine the lot (as someone like George Stubbs did), now that takes thought and intellect (not to mention judgement and sensitivity). Yet a painting of a-square-on-a square-on-a-square is said to have thought behind it, it is said to be 'challenging' it is said to be high brow. You would seldom hear any such thing said about a painting of a man on a horse in a landscape. The abstract piece is afforded an aura of intellectual profundity for no other reason than its failure to signify anything. This is more absurd than abstruse!

As for colours, you can't paint a man on a horse in a landscape without colours any more than you can a square on a square on a square. To emphasize in the latter in a quality which is no more than a raw ingredient of the former seems to me a bit fatuous. Most objectionable to me, however, is the idea that 'modernism' is the natural successor and product of all the developments made in the noble history of art, and that it is the only legitimate form of expression in a given age. Modernism's very name reflects that arrogant claim. I'm sorry if I seem to go on about this, but I do feel modern figurative artists are the victims of an usurpation by these square-painting and brick stacking cretins.

[Craig D]

Maybe not the best example. the sense of realism and skill trails off a bit when you realize how out of proportion things are.

[Serpian]

This tread needs more pictures.

This is one of my favourite artists, Jacek Malczewski:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Bledne_kolo.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Malczewski_Jacek_Ludwik_Zelenski.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Malczewski_Jacek_Grosz_czynszowy.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Malczewski_Jacek_Melancholia.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Malczewski_Jacek_Prawo.jpg

I consider this great art. There is a lot of stuff that I don't consider great art, and a lot of stuff I don't consider art at all. But I think Bhanu's attitude is the best way to go about this:
I dont like many artists, but my time is far too important to waste on shit I hate.

I try to stick to what I like in terms of things I look on on the net, people I talk to, etc. The thing is: I want to paint like the old baroque masters, I want to paint like the 19th century naturalists, I want to paint like the American Golden Age Illustrators, I want to paint like Marko and Coro and Elwell and Donato Giancola and Greg Manchess and Dan dos Santos and Paul Bonner and many many more. That is a lot of painting to do. So I can't waste my time with stuff that doesn't help me achieve that goal. That isn't to say that I can't learn something from those that are maybe too simply grouped together as Modern artists.

But most importantly: this thread needs more pictures! Some Odd Nerdrum:
http://www.nerdrum.com/works/loving_couples/the_kiss.jpg
http://www.nerdrum.com/works/boats/man_in_boat.jpg
http://www.nerdrum.com/works/water/three_namegivers.jpg

And probably my favourite of his, the amazing: Murder of Andreas Baader:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BH9VhoGvE1k/ReOOAtDyFHI/AAAAAAAAACI/P6XDDTUkK9g/nerdrum6.jpg

[SavageGoldfish]

As for colours, you can't paint a man on a horse in a landscape without colours any more than you can a square on a square on a square. To emphasize in the latter in a quality which is no more than a raw ingredient of the former seems to me a bit fatuous. Most objectionable to me, however, is the idea that 'modernism' is the natural successor and product of all the developments made in the noble history of art, and that it is the only legitimate form of expression in a given age. Modernism's very name reflects that arrogant claim. I'm sorry if I seem to go on about this, but I do feel modern figurative artists are the victims of an usurpation by these square-painting and brick stacking cretins.

A lot of my art professors would go on about "Oh, not everybody can do that!" in regards to arrangements of coloured shapes by modern artists; their claim was that it takes a great eye and a lot of artistic thought to put together colours, etc, in an arrangement that looks good, as if that is supposed to be the pinnicle of colour theory. Some square-painting abstract artists' work is kind of neat-looking, but nothing I would ever think of as genius or masterful (I do somewhat like some of Piet Mondrian's paintings, however, nothing but black lines and white, red, and blue squares gets old pretty fast) However, painting solid coloured anythings doesn't take the kind of knowledge of colours, lighting, shadows, etc, that painting a realistic person's face, or matching the colours in a landscape, etc. Hence the reason why "modern" artists are usually looked on as people with no artistic skill. At least, that's my analysis of the thing.

[dashinvaine]

Serpian, I'm in ageement, but that many pictures of good stuff probably belong in a thread devoted to good stuff. Thanks anyway, though.

[Anid Maro]

Speaking of skill, difficulty, and Mondrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian)... who here has tried painting perfect squares and lines with oils on canvas? It's actually not all that easy, certainly it could be argued that applying formulaic painting techniques to achieve a likeness of a subject is just as "easy" (or "hard").

Personally I'll take organic shapes and lines over perfect geometry any day, so much easier for me to draw a beautiful curve than it is to draw an arrow straight line.

Anyhow, it's fine and dandy to not like certain types of artwork. That's called taste, and that is up to the individual. For example, I think that painting above with the man on the horse is extremely boring, lame, uninteresting. Still that is a nicely executed painting, I sure wouldn't call him a bad painter.

Now I'm not going to defend every piece of art that's been generated in the past century (man, I loathe Dada 'art'), but I have to say some of you people are giving whole generations of artists a far worse rap than is deserved.

Well, I'm done talking to myself. After eight pages, anybody who is still arguing the point is beyond approach. So I'm gonna go jaunt off elsewhere, later!

[dashinvaine]

I don't dislike Mondrien's designs, but still think they are over-rated. It may require a degree of concentration to paint a straight line, but masking tape is a huge help. To play the devil's advocate, that level of artistry is at least equalled by the labourers who paint window-frames and don't get any drips on the glass. On a related note, I know they had masking tape in Mondrien's time because it was put on windows to stop glass shattering inwards during the Blitz. Not that the Mondrien stuck around for that...

Incidentally that wasn't the best Stubbs, some of his horse paintings are awesome, and full of life and movement. This one in particular, which is life-size, and rather spectacular in the flesh ... http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40608000/jpg/_40608478_stubbs1_300_300.jpg
Also
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k6SB4qwGB6g/RjkwedIhREI/AAAAAAAAANs/dBr1EigNdvw/s400/Stubbs.jpg

[Anid Maro]

I like the last Stubbs painting you linked, but again that has less to do with his worth as an artist and more to do with my personal tastes.

Also, I'm aware that Mondrain did not draw out his lines and shapes freehand. Nor should he have, wouldn't have made any sense to do so. And yes you may liken it to the work of laborers who paint window-frames, just as I may liken the techniques of Stubbs to that of a commonplace illustrator. You say "yeah, he can draw some straight lines and squares, so what?" and I turn that very statement around to you and say "yeah, he can draw some horses and trees, so what?"

Technique alone is overrated. Certainly it is has its difficulties, however anybody can master it given enough dedication and work. For example there's this little village in China by the name of Dafen (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/workshop_of_the_world_fine_art.php) that I think proves my point quite nicely. Think of all of your favorite paintings, and then realize there's a kid in China who can replicate it exactly and sell it on the street. Given that fact, proficiency in technique seems to be an incredibly inappropriate yardstick with which to measure artists by.

Perhaps a better measure would be to understand what the artist was striving for and then judge if they succeeded in that goal. Of course, as I said, you are entitled to still dislike an artist even if they accomplished their goal (after all, you may not like their goal), but that is no basis to say they are a bad artist.

P.S. As an aside, here are some non 'squares 'n' cubes' paintings by Mondrain. This is the stuff he did before he made the paintings he's famous for. Not really relevant to my post, but I thought they'd be fun to share.

[BlackRaven]

I thought it might be interesting to post this other Mondrian's picture and you could compare it with the "Red Tree".

http://paintings.name/images/piet-mondrian/Mondrian-grey-tree.jpg

Mondrian's paintings are alright but this is probably the only one I would care.

http://christinamariefurtado.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fm1927broadway-boogie-woogie-posters.jpg

[Elwell]

The elevation of abstraction entails the downgrading of technical ability, which is an inherent insult to traditional artists (such as I aspire to be).
Dash, the thing is, many, many, many of the artists of the sort you aspire to be aren't insulted. The sort of us-against-them fanboy attitude that this thread has exemplified from the very beginning is just not that interesting to those who are actually doing it.

Remember, the abyss gazes also into you.

[Inimoulleb]

Andy Warhol anyone?

Granted, he can do a solid soup can, but his popart just seems so uninspired. And if I have to see another novice artist make another "Twenty - Five Colored Marilyns" type drawing again, fire will be involved.

I mean I went to a museam with my art class and I guess most everything in there was eithier Andy Warhol or Andrew Wyeth.
The teacher asked us which pictures were their favorites and everyone chose warhol, cause of the flashy colors and thick bold lines. However I was the only one choosing Wyeth....I mean hes a fantastic painter!

[Serpian]

On the contrary, dash, this thread needs more good pictures! Every thread anywhere always needs more pictures!

Jeremy Mayer, modern artist that I like:
http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jeremy-mayer-1.jpg
http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/jul2008/jeremyMayer2.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/jeremy%20mayer/urbanretro/urbanretro2/jeremy-mayer-typewriter-sculpture-2.jpg
http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/jul2008/jeremyMayer3.jpg

[Kiera]

I once heard that Dash's family was killed by modern art when he was 7. He swore revenge and 20 years later he tried to seriously hurt the image of modern art by arguing on an internet thread.


And I can't think of any really awful painter,
I just dislike the genre of 17th or 18th century european still-life painting.
A single painting is all nice and fine, a book with hundreds is also cool, but just once go through a gallery with trillions of these.
Yeah, flowers and food, I get it, life is vanity, yeah, allegories and skulls and such, you rendered the petals very nicely but it's all the same.
The surprise of "wow, that guy painted a skinned deer head" gets lost when you see 100 paintings that are the same right next to it.

[dashinvaine]

One of the assassins was critic Clement Greenberg, who pretty well wrote off as 'kitsch' nearly everything that wasn't abstract expressionism, especially academicsm, which he accused of predictability and a failure to engage with the important questions of the age. Perhaps he had a point, but I think he over-politicized the role of fine art. The Kantian idea that art must be self-critical, (more about process than outcome) is foreign to my way of thinking. The idea that art has a duty to make a political and social statement rather than be aesthetically pleasing is likewise not something with which I would automatically agree.

Still it's up to others what they want to value. That we have this idea of a lowly 'commonplace illustrator' also seems a shame, to me, and a result of cultural conditioning by modernists, who didn't rate technical virtuosity very highly.

I do rather like the last Mondrien. It is expressive of its period. It has a buzz about it.

[kelly x]

My least favorite artist is Sidney Polak for two reasons, although it looks fun to through and spatter paint on a large canvas and then probably roll into it in a drunken tizzy... his art is not lasting throughout the years, he painted with incompatible paints that "pop off" the chemistry did not add up with the paint he mixed. His 20' x 10' painting at Yale had so much of the paint fall off that they had to lay it flat, the janitor was sweeping up thousands of dollars of paint every morning...
I really don't like anything about the man or his art, I think this is the only artist I truly detest. I do think he had an interesting color pallet at times.

I think it's funny that I messed this up so I'll leave it... (Jackson Pollock, not poor Sidney)

[Elwell]

My least favorite artist is Sidney Polak
I'm confused, do you mean the abstract impressionist, the film director, or some Polish guy who lives in Australia?

[dashinvaine]

It sounds like you mean Jackson Pollock. Sydney Pollak was a film director and actor.

Edit- pipped to the post...

[kelly x]

Hahahaha, I love Sidney actually!!! Jackson is the guy I don't like.... Oooops! So filled with rage and hatred I messed up who I actually don't like.. Jackson Pollock is a tool. I'm going to d= :P ... edit and thanks!

[dashinvaine]

Easy mistake to make in a hurry. The rest of us should probably be off drawing, rather than flaunting our ability to differentiate between painters and people in the movies. On the subject, I can't stand all those flouncy cavalier portraits Dick Van Dyck did...

[Elwell]

...Or those fat chicks that Paul Reubens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee_Herman) paints!

[kelly x]

that's funny El Elwell, Rubens and Pee Wee Herman!!! Nice link, I get it ;)
It's like mixing up the Presidential election with the Presidential erection?!?!

[Baron Impossible]

It's like mixing up the Presidential election with the Presidential erection?!?!

Certain of your presidents made the same mistake

[kelly x]

Yes they did but it's not "sex" without intercourse?? Ha! haha

[Ilaekae]

...can we define "it's" here, please...

[CKLamb]

It's kind of funny...the more I paint, the more I understand how interrelated it all is and the more appreciative I am that we live in a time where all these venues for expression are completely viable. Pluralism is a wonderful thing, don't let yourself get boxed into something you might very well have to contradict yourself on later down the road. As far as being relevant to this thread, as time goes on...I like Lucien Freud a bit less...I'd still hang a piece on my wall, but I'm just not to fired up about his surfaces anymore...I'm sure I'll change my mind if you give me a few years. On the upside, I'm investing a lot more time staring at Antonio Lopez Garcia's work....brilliant.

[kelly x]

Ilaekae, If you don't know "it's"... So sorry :( :P

[Aeron]

Picasso, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and every artist attached to the minimalist movement.

[dashinvaine]

Less is More, apparently...

[Agathe]

Might I suggest dropping the bullshit and just rename this thread to what it should be?--

"What famous painter would you like to publicly bash because you're a narrow-minded cretin unable to understand the importance of anything in art beyond your own personal, limited and/or questionable tastes?"

holishit! that is dashinvaine all over. what a stupid thread by a stupid 'weed' (yes you dash!) of in this wonderfull community. everyone here obviously has an opinion on what great and bad art is. this is about as bad as the topic of what religion is the best/worst. see my quote below here dash write it down you need the advice more than anyone

[Agathe]

sorry about my negativeness above guys but it needed to be said. this is an artist community. giving positive/constructive feed back on other artists i may be sounding very hypocritical when i say this. but if you haven't got anything nice to say, then say nuthing at all. that includes myself.

[alesoun]

Actually, I like all sorts of art.. but... I ... just.. don't.. get.. Kandinski.

I don't know "Y" I don't get him (Oh, I've been waiting a long time to make that bad joke) ;)

[Elwell]

sorry about my negativeness above guys but it needed to be said.
Actually, no it didn't. This thread had mercifully died down to artistic malapropisms and Clinton jokes, and was in its way to sinking into the depths where it belonged, until you came along and yanked the stake from its heart. Nice going.

[Agathe]

well put. again sorry! for diggin this one up

[ZenitYerkes]

Anything at the Tate Museum/Bilbao or New York Guggenheim/any Modern Art Museum

Really. Since anybody can do abstract art everybody is a genius.

[Raoul Duke]

I HATE Jeff Koons! Not only is he a snarky, shallow, turd with bad taste, but he hires people to do all the work and thinking for him. He is art poison.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01179/arts-graphics-2007_1179096a.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42553000/jpg/_42553623_posterap416.jpg

[Raoul Duke]

Woops! I didn't see where this thread wound up before I posted.