• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Worst Famous Painting Ever

Fifty

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
10,649
Location
an ecovillage in madagascar
What do you consider the worst painting ever that has achieved genuine and wide-spread praise as being a piece of high art.

Don't nitpick on what "high art" means. If you don't understand what I mean by "high art" don't post here.

Also, you aren't allowed to choose The Mona Lisa, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

My entry:



I get physically infuriated when I think of someone thinking this painting is deep or noteworthy or anything other than stupid and lame.
 
Spoiler Boredom Incarnate :
 
Fifty maybe you just hate pretension and are lashing out at the art world because it has pretension coming out its ears?

Anyway I think everything by Jackson Pollock falls under this category. :)
 
Anyway I think everything by Jackson Pollock falls under this category.

Its metaphysically impossible for more than one thing to fall under a superlative like this unless those things are related to each other via an identity relation which the various paintings of Jackson Pollock are not.

In other words, YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE!
 
Anyways, since my previous post is not technically a painting, I'm going to have to go with Benefits Supervisor Sleeping by Lucian Freud.

(I refuse to post it here)

Virtually every piece of Modern Art. Don't let me pick one, they're all junk.
Wrong Salvador Dalí was a pimp.
 
Its metaphysically impossible for more than one thing to fall under a superlative like this unless those things are related to each other via an identity relation which the various paintings of Jackson Pollock are not.

In other words, YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE!

Okay, do a google search for Jackson Pollock, look at the first image that comes up, and there you go.
 
I think those blocky looking paintings are completely stupid and pointless. I looked it up and I guess the artist is Mondrian.

Spoiler :
 
Yeah, de Stijl sucks.
 
de Stijl is visually attractive. Mondrian artwork would look very nice in my apartment. (well my kitchen area, might not go so good with my big bulky leather couches in my living room), Benefits Supervisor Sleeping on the other hand...
 
de Stijl is visually attractive. Mondrian artwork would look very nice in my apartment. (well my kitchen area, might not go so good with my big bulky leather couches in my living room), Benefits Supervisor Sleeping on the other hand...

I dunno, Perf. I think it would be a wonderful piece to defend your home with in the event of a break-in.
 
I dunno, Perf. I think it would be a wonderful piece to defend your home with in the event of a break-in.
no way, it's all flimsy 'n crap. Besides, at the millions of dollars it's worth I could just get some antique ceremonial weaponry.
 
Mine would have to be Paul Klee's Twittering Machine

The idea or whatever is cool, but what the hell man

 
If anyone could elaborate to me, why exactly those "paintings" of that kind are so special, I'd give this person 100 bucks. Seriously, every mediocre-talented 10-year-old is capable of imitating such worthlessness!
Because Mondrian thought of it first.

$100 please.

Also, there are combinations of blocks that would be unattractive, so that adds an element of skill.
 
Anyways, since my previous post is not technically a painting, I'm going to have to go with Benefits Supervisor Sleeping by Lucian Freud.
:lol: At any rate she certainly is unattractive.
 
hey eastsidebagel maybe art is something that can be expressed with or without talent yeah i'm pretty sure that can happen
 
Top Bottom