Worst Famous Painting Ever

[aelf]

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 ).

Yup, that's what I meant

I'm sorry, but art must stand for something nobler. Getting paid for it is one thing, but you can't force the necessary inspiration because you want money, and you certainly shouldn't create art for the sole purpose of money. That produces the kind of marketer-artist that is the bane of art.

 

[holy king]

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.

well someone has to feed the guy who spends the whole day in the cave painting the walls, and this someone is certainly not going to do so if he doesnt like the paintings.

 

[Mise]

I would rather go to McDonalds than look at any of those paintings.

 

[aelf]

well someone has to feed the guy who spends the whole day in the cave painting the walls, and this someone is certainly not going to do so if he doesnt like the paintings.

Liking for art should not be based on personal preferences and preconceptions. If you can't take a look at art with an open mind free of self-will then you can't truly appreciate art. This means the artist should have a free hand as much as possible.

 

[holy king]

Liking for art should not be based on personal preferences and preconceptions. If you can't take a look at art with an open mind free of self-will then you can't truly appreciate art. This means the artist should have a free hand as much as possible.

sorry, but if something is bad it's just bad.

i cant spend my whole time painting because i cant paint. period.

 

[aelf]

sorry, but if something is bad it's just bad.

i cant spend my whole time painting because i cant paint. period.

Not saying art can't be bad. Going with an open mind does not mean freeing yourself from the ability to judge.

 

[holy king]

Not saying art can't be bad. Going with an open mind does not mean freeing yourself from the ability to judge.

but even if i wanted to spend my whole time painting i couldnt, because i'd starve to death.
art is always dependent on someone else in the society to support it.

 

[aelf]

but even if i wanted to spend my whole time painting i couldnt, because i'd starve to death.
art is always dependent on someone else in the society to support it.

I already said that artists expect to get paid. Which part of that do you not get?

 

[Phlegmak]

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.

Liking for art should not be based on personal preferences and preconceptions. If you can't take a look at art with an open mind free of self-will then you can't truly appreciate art. This means the artist should have a free hand as much as possible.

The posts above are nonsense.

 

[aelf]

The posts above are nonsense.

Your post is nonsense.

 

[Aegis]

I read a news story a few years ago about an art gallery in Georgia that was displaying some new art from an unknown artist, and it was all the rage with it's visitors. Everyone was ranting & raving about the wonderful use of color in the random spattering of paint and admired the meaning of the paintings. Whoever this artist was, they were a genius!

And then everyone found out that this "celebrated artist" was only three years old. People stopped admiring their work.

 

[aelf]

I read a news story a few years ago about an art gallery in Georgia that was displaying some new art from an unknown artist, and it was all the rage with it's visitors. Everyone was ranting & raving about the wonderful use of color in the random spattering of paint and admired the meaning of the paintings. Whoever this artist was, they were a genius!

And then everyone found out that this "celebrated artist" was only three years old. People stopped admiring their work.

How old the artist is isn't really relevant. Granted a 3-year-old is very unlikely to produce a great work.

However, the fault is with people's standards of judgment. They come to appreciate art thinking what art, in this case avant garde art, is like or should be. As you can see, preconceived notions like that lead to ridiculous conclusions, and simple common sense might have told anyone that there's nothing great about the work. We're much better off appreciating art objectively.

 

[Aegis]

How old the artist is isn't really relevant. Granted a 3-year-old is very unlikely to produce a great work.

However, the fault is with people's standards of judgment. They come to appreciate art thinking what art, in this case avant garde art, is like or should be. As you can see, preconceived notions like that lead to ridiculous conclusions, and simple common sense might have told anyone that there's nothing great about the work. We're much better off appreciating art objectively.

And that's what's bad about modern art. It is followed by a hoity-toity culture that praises it because that's what they think they're supposed to do. It's trendy to like particular pieces because it was created by a famous artist, or because it sold for a lot of money.

The actual piece itself isn't important to them; it's the intended message. If people think that there is supposed to be a message, they think it's the cat's pajamas. There's no real way to tell modern art from established artists apart from random drawings/paintings done by children. That's a major downfall to modern art, imo.

Having clever and innovative ideas can be really amazing, but when it's executed with the skill of a child, that really detracts from the overall worth. That's my personal take on modern art.

 

[aelf]

That I do agree with

 

[LucyDuke]

but even if i wanted to spend my whole time painting i couldnt, because i'd starve to death.
art is always dependent on someone else in the society to support it.

That someone can be the artist. I don't make crap money doing what I do, but I create and I eat too.

 

[flyingchicken]

What type of old house are you referring to?

Hispanic-types, mostly.

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

Your tastes are not refined the way mine are.

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

Spoiler :

The first one's pretty okay. The last two are disgusting. All lack that squarish, colorful, and modern flair of McDonald's buildings.

 

[Hygro]

Well in that case the picture is worse now that I do understand it - elitist

Advertising executives are artists too you know.

If depicting something as is, is elitist, then what does that say about that which is depicted?

 

[warpus]

I see we're talking about modern art.

"Modern" art's purpose is not to be beautiful and/or appealing to the eye. The purpose of modern art is to exemplify some sort of esoteric aspect of art that shows off particular qualities of a certain school of thought, such as cubism, in a "oh wow, look at how he used that thing that we know about and understand because we're artists and we've taken 5 years worth of art theory and history"

It's like playing a game of civ not to win, but rather to highlight some peculiar aspect of the game in an interesting and thought-provoking way for those who understand the game on a complex enough level - say.. for example.. defeating an army of tanks with an army of spearmen using some sort of strange strategy that's related to some sort of well-understood yet somewhat esoteric strategy. Everyone who understands civ is going to go "oooh ahhhh!", and everybody else is going to go: "WTH, this doesn't make any sense, he's way behind in tech and is not going to win the game"

 

[Angst]

Bring back the Ouroboros!

 

[aelf]

It's like playing a game of civ not to win, but rather to highlight some peculiar aspect of the game in an interesting and thought-provoking way for those who understand the game on a complex enough level - say.. for example.. defeating an army of tanks with an army of spearmen using some sort of strange strategy that's related to some sort of well-understood yet somewhat esoteric strategy. Everyone who understands civ is going to go "oooh ahhhh!", and everybody else is going to go: "WTH, this doesn't make any sense, he's way behind in tech and is not going to win the game"

Well, people don't get paid for Civ. At least not in the thousands or millions.