Worst Famous Painting Ever
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
eastsidebagel
Deity
Yeah, what he said. LOOK GUYS, I' ve drawn a square. IN YELLOW! Now gimme a million!
I think what summed it up for me is an artist standing outside a gallery with a painting which was literally just a white stripe on a black background. When professional art critics were told it had fetched £200,000 pounds or was by a famous artist their views changed markedly, than when they were told it was his painting and he had not exhibited it. Pretentious moi? When art is about reputation and money more than art, then its no longer art really.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Because you don't know the history. It's not particularly special compared to other stuff today except for the fact that it was the first of its kind and that it was super special compared to other stuff when it was painted.
It's because of the creepy girl in the middle of the painting who will end up killing everyone else there.
My submission:
That's what I was going to put up. I don't see any redeeming value.
Naked people are the polar opposite of smut. The human body is freakin' gorgeous and you can see it better without covering it with stupid pants. The people that painted these things knew that, and it's only because society has gotten ******ed and prudish that anyone sees anything wrong with naked humans.
Annex
Tyranny and Mutation
theskald
This is a picture of me.
OOH COMPLIMENTARY COLORS YOU KNOW WHO ELSE USES THAT ONLY TO MUCH GREATER EFFECT IS GOOD ARTISTS.
No apology.
Excuse me, Lucy, but pants are awesome. I think you owe pants an apology, especially jeans and pinstripes.
I get physically infuriated when I think of someone thinking this painting is deep or noteworthy or anything other than stupid and lame.
That is magnificant. Who would have thought a pipe is not a pipe. But clearly it is not. It is a penis. Yet the bowl has vaginal overtones. And they are connected as we are all connected in the lonely banality of our pathetic existance. Deep.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
You win.
I came here to post the pipe. Not much point save for showing my appreciation to the post I quoted.
What's the soup thing?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Its a comment on American mass consumption
Eh. I dunno if I'm any more impressed.
I got no gripe with optional pants. Mandatory pants are a problem.
Annex
Tyranny and Mutation
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
What is that thing, anyway?
theskald
This is a picture of me.
OH, okay. I will now read "stupid" as "mandatory" every time I see it in one of your posts.
Okay what I don't get is this: When was it that the only requirement for quality art was the premise of a given piece and nothing more? Why does this apply to visual, static art and nothing else?
Take prose for example. One may think up the best premise for a story ever, but it means nothing without good execution, and that means good writing. Normally, you need more than an idea to make something worthwhile
I do acknowledge that Chris Jordan has some neat ideas and I think he executes them well enough, so I'm not picking on him, I'm just wondering why our collective standards have become so low.
It's not a pipe, it's a representation of a pipe, no matter how much you try to deny it. You just don't understand high art.
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Mark Rothko
Marc Chagall
Marc Chagall
Perfection
The Great Head.
Why not? Why must art be representational?
In my mind, just as much music generally doesn't represent any sounds we hear in nature and still be art, abstract visual arts can do the same. The key discriminant of art here here being the aesthetic effect on the person.
Just because there is a lot of pretense about abstract art doesn't mean abstract art itself is nothing but pretense! The reason abstract art breeds pretense is because it is about the subjective experience one has when viewing it not how well it represents something (a much more objective criterion). That experience of course can be influenced by expectation and what others think.
This is not at all unique to abstract art, there are plenty of other subjective fields where this goes on, music, wine, literature, and food all have these same sorts of problems. Music, wine, literature, and food are all obviously good things that enrich our life despite the enormous amount pretense about them. I say the same thing is true about abstract art!
THEY DON'T USE IT LIKE IN VOICE OF FIRE! VOICE OF FIRE USES COMPLEMENTARY COLORS TO EXPLOIT THE AFTERIMAGE EFFECT A PERCEPTUAL EFFECT I'VE NEVER SEEN USED IN A PAINTING BEFORE.
SO PLEASE, CAN I HAVE THAT APOLOGY NOW?
Why no like? I like!Mark Rothko
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
Here's modern art that's done properly:
Just What Is It That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
general_kill
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,870
Gotta rework that analogy there, no one is complaining abstract art is not art because it does not occur in nature...
The abstract art version of music would be a 5 minute song consisting of a single note. Or a beep. Or a ring. Or some random crap sound recorded of god knows what that has no real significance unless someone told you a grammy winning artist composed it.
Btw, how much do you think that orange painting is worth? Without looking it up.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Black velvet Jesus and Elvis FTW.
Oh, you said 'famous':
Oh, you said 'famous':
Perfection
The Great Head.
I disagree with the analogy here, abstract art is neither grating, nor always highly simplistic.
My point here that one could characterize Music in as being nothing but a a bunch of artificially produced tones that don't represent anything and put into an assemblage and thus Carmen's sense not be art.
Since his objection can be applied about equally to music, it thus must be false (or we accept that most music is not art, which is absurd).
It's quite famous so it's probably worth at least a few million, maybe a few tens of millions. How much do you think the most expensive bottle of wine is worth?
The fact that these things may be overpriced because they play a role as status symbols doesn't make them not art.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
BTW I think that Chagall is great. Ditto for the Klee. They are both sheer genius. </nosarcasm>
Similar threads
