Worst Famous Painting Ever

[aelf]

If old are new are both bourgeois, then there's little difference between them At least old has some qualities that have stood the test of time.

 

[musekick]

Sorry; I just don't like Picasso.

 

[LucyDuke]

Advertising executives are artists too you know.

If there were such thing as cosmic justice, they'd be the starving ones.

Ugh! Seeing those pieces of old art makes me so grateful for our modern artists!

Have you ever been to an old house? They're disgusting. A McDonald's, though not the best place to be, is much more refreshing and lively in terms of ambiance.

That's how I feel about art old and new.

What type of old house are you referring to?

 

[Mirc]

Ugh! Seeing those pieces of old art makes me so grateful for our modern artists!

Have you ever been to an old house? They're disgusting. A McDonald's, though not the best place to be, is much more refreshing and lively in terms of ambiance.

That's how I feel about art old and new.

If that's not sarcasm, I have to say I'm sorry there are people who think like this...

A McDonalds? As opposed to... say, those buildings?

Spoiler :

 

[holy king]

i havent seen a piece of art in this thread that i'd really consider bad so far...

 

[Dachs]

The soup can picture is deliberately so lifeless and talentless - the capitalist consumption it represents is equally talentless, lifeless and disgusting.

Conspicuous consumption has generated some of the greatest artworks in history. It basically defined the economics of a great deal of the Hellenistic age, for example. The Dying Gaul ain't talentless, lifeless, or disgusting.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, and I'm guessing without a painting that isolates the after-image effect and nothing else we'll be at an impasse, but it's worth a shot.

Paintings with a chiaroscuro effect going on tend to love this kind of contrast. A couple that I found on wikipedia:

Spoiler :

If you don't see it then I guess there's no helping it. In addition afterimages produced by staring at a certain point of an image for an extended period have been a popular element of optical illusions for centuries, all done better than VoF, so there's that.

These two examples are not chiaroscuro, but rather tenebroso. Chiaroscuro is a shadowy effect that gives a form shape, makes you "want to feel behind it." The shadows are just that, shadows, and the form is still visible. Tenebroso, on the other hand, is when light and dark are juxtaposed in such start contrast that the difference between light and dark actually gives shape to the form itself.

This is chiaroscuro:

Spoiler :

And this is tenebroso:

Spoiler :

 

[aelf]

Conspicuous consumption has generated some of the greatest artworks in history. It basically defined the economics of a great deal of the Hellenistic age, for example. The Dying Gaul ain't talentless, lifeless, or disgusting.

How can you attribute the inspiration for the artwork to anything but the Galatians themselves?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How can you attribute the inspiration for the artwork to anything but the Galatians themselves?

What he means is that some art, like this Dying Gaul, was produced to be sold on an open art market, and not paid for beforehand by a patron. After Christianity came about, this sort of thing disappeared until the late Renaissance.

 

[aelf]

What he means is that some art, like this Dying Gaul, was produced to be sold on an open art market, and not paid for beforehand by a patron. After Christianity came about, this sort of thing disappeared until the late Renaissance.

Well, that is if one thinks that money/economics is the prime motivator for art anyway...

 

[Mowque]

Well, that is if one thinks that money/economics is the prime motivator for art anyway...

I'm sure it has something to do with it, but i'm not an art expert.

 

[aelf]

I'm sure it has something to do with it, but i'm not an art expert.

Art that is motivated by money would likely suck, and would certainly suck in principle. Art for money is self-defeating because it breeds a culture of art for money, which eventually kills art.

 

[general_kill]

Sorry; I just don't like Picasso.

Don't apologize, that painting sucks.

 

[musekick]

Art that is motivated by money would likely suck, and would certainly suck in principle. Art for money is self-defeating because it breeds a culture of art for money, which eventually kills art.

What about advertisements? Those are some of the best-known pieces of art ever created.

 

[aelf]

What about advertisements? Those are some of the best-known pieces of art ever created.

What?

 

[Mirc]

Art that is motivated by money would likely suck, and would certainly suck in principle. Art for money is self-defeating because it breeds a culture of art for money, which eventually kills art.

Do you mean art that is motivated by a desire to earn money?

Because there's usually no way to separate art from the act of making money. Art takes time, huge amounts of time to be exact. There's no way someone would dedicate some six hours of every single day of their lives to something from which they would not earn money. Unless you live in a paradise where everything is free, almost nobody will have the means to make art without needing to support themselves in the process. Of course there are exceptions, like Cezanne, who sat in his castle, with his huge inheritance, and painted, but if you limit art to people like him, the result would be devastating!

 

[musekick]

What about advertisements? Those are some of the best-known pieces of art ever created.

What?

Artists, Advertising, and the Borders of Art by Michele Helene Bogart.
Read it. Or at least Google the summary.

 

[aelf]

Do you mean art that is motivated by a desire to earn money?

Because there's usually no way to separate art from the act of making money. Art takes time, huge amounts of time to be exact. There's no way someone would dedicate some six hours of every single day of their lives to something from which they would not earn money. Unless you live in a paradise where everything is free, almost nobody will have the means to make art without needing to support themselves in the process. Of course there are exceptions, like Cezanne, who sat in his castle, with his huge inheritance, and painted, but if you limit art to people like him, the result would be devastating!

Artists, Advertising, and the Borders of Art by Michele Helene Bogart.
Read it. Or at least Google the summary.

Of course artists expect to make a living; sure, they should get paid. This is so obvious that I find it insulting that anyone should even bother to bring this up.

But the content still depends on inspiration, not money nor client demands. If the client allows the artist a free hand and the artist draws his inspiration from somewhere, then it's quite normal. If it's the client has demands like "You must have a Coca Cola bottle at the centre, and it must cover at least 33% of the picture. It must be of a certain colour and you must show happy people enjoying Coca Cola all around" then it's crap. The inspiration for art cannot be money. If the artist can find no inspiration whatsoever, taking on the assignment would mean producing crappy art. I'm not saying you can't create bad art, but it is going to be bad art.

Now if people are only motivated to create art for money, then that's bad. It's going to create a culture that kills art.

 

[Mirc]

But the content still depends on inspiration, not money nor client demands. If the client allows the artist a free hand and the artist draws his inspiration from somewhere, then it's quite normal. If it's the client has demands like "You must have a Coca Cola bottle at the centre, and it must cover at least 33% of the picture. It must be of a certain colour and you must show happy people enjoying Coca Cola all around" then it's crap. The inspiration for art cannot be money. If the artist can find no inspiration whatsoever, taking on the assignment would mean producing crappy art. I'm not saying you can't make bad art, but it is going to be bad art.

Ah, that's certain, I completely agree with that. I was just unsure about what you said (hence the question at the beginning of my post ).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, that is if one thinks that money/economics is the prime motivator for art anyway...

Art that is motivated by money would likely suck, and would certainly suck in principle. Art for money is self-defeating because it breeds a culture of art for money, which eventually kills art.

Dude, almost all art is motivated by money.