Famous works of art that you hate

Cafe Society
221

Ok, clearly I should drop out of this. I just wanted to end with this to fessie:

It does seem clear to me that you don’t really want to argue about whether art is subjective or not, that you find great value in art and want to share that. I think that’s great.

However, I am compelled to point out that on this thread, you (and DianaG) have greatly hurt your cause, at least in my case. Far from reading your postings and coming away feeling like I could stand to learn something about art, I see an attitude that is elitist, egotistic, snobish in the extreme, completely close-minded, and makes me want to run in the opposite direction.

I said earlier that if you and I were standing in front of a painting, that I could doubtless learn a lot from you. I also see that, after listening to you, if I were to say, “I think this painting is XYZ”, your response would be something like, “That’s interesting, but you’re wrong. It’s actually ABC. And here’s why . . .”

If I were then to say, “Yeah, I can see how someone might see that, but I still think it’s XYZ”.

Your postings here leave me believing that you would respond something like, “Well, saying that just shows how ignorant you are, and how much you need to be educated in the realities of art. I mean, everyone who knows anything about art can see absolutely that this painting is in no way XYZ, it’s obviously ABC.”

Thanks but no thanks.

As constructive criticism, had you, on the other hand, responded in the beginning with something like, “Yes, of course judgements about art are subjective, but there’s a world you can learn about art that can enhance your appreciation of it.” or somesuch, you likely could have engaged me in an interesting discussion. Just my (uneducated) two cents.

And my poor little brain can’t even imagine the vitriol that DianaG would heap on me for being such an ignoramus as to think there could be XYZ in our hypothetical painting . . .

222

Roadfood, I don’t think that’s at all fair - you wrote I don’t know how many megabytes of criticism of ME, refuting every point rather than considering that I might have something valuable to say. I’m glad I finally gave up the debate format and just explained myself straight out, so that you could hear me.

And IMHO, I think you’re doing a whole lot of projecting with all this elitist talk. There are a lot of really lousy art teachers in the world, and I get the impression you might’ve had some. You’re clearly someone who analyzes through dissection, and since (a lot of) art is about synthesis, I would bet you found it an especially challenging subject. Personally, I flunked college logic (and just about failed hs algebra) - people’s brains work in different ways.

I don’t go lurking around museums, waiting to “enlighten” unsuspecting visitors, and most of my friends and family have art on their walls that I don’t care for. So what?

I am an “Artist Activist” though - since I’m not a museum-quality Genius or avante-garde rebel, I found something else to do. I sell cheap, quick portrait drawings to anyone who wants them. And I try my damndest to give them an excellent product, worth far more than the $10 they’ve paid. I want to do something that moves them, something they’ll cherish. When I’ve really hit the mark, I can see it in their reaction to the finished work. That’s my payoff. And everything I have to say about art is right there in the piece I’ve created.

223

I tried to stay out, I really did, but this just bugs me. How is it unfair? You have made it VERY clear on this thread that you believe there are objective criteria, and therefore a right and a wrong. You’ve made it VERY clear that Kinkade is a bad artist. You’ve made it very clear that there is no room in your world for differing opinions about Kinkade’s work, because in your world it just IS bad, period.

So, therefore, I have every reason to believe that if you and I were standing in front of a Kinkade and I had the audacity to say, “This is a really good painting,” that you would tell me how wrong I was (and, of course, “educate” me as to why I was wrong). That you would NOT have any room in your world for any view other than that Kinkade is a bad artist. That you would firmly believe that the only possible way I could believe otherwise would be that I was a poor, unfortunate, uneducated, philistine who needed the benefit of being educated in art. But accept that my opinion had any validity? You’ve done everything on this thread to demonstrate quite clearly that that just isn’t within your capacity.

Heck, you can’t even believe that it’s possible for someone to hold a differing opinion than what is accepted by the Legitimate Art World, unless there’s something wrong with them. You can only believe, in your incredibly condesending way, that I must have had lousy art teachers, and found art “an especially challenging subject”. What unmitigated gall.

No, in fact, I had fine art teachers, and have found nothing challenging about it at all, thank you. It’s elitist, narrow-minded, condesending people who can’t allow room for differences of opinion that I want no part of.

224

I’ve written 4 different, careful, thoughtful (I hoped) replies, and it’s just an absolute waste of time. You’ve made a lot of decisions about the person I am, based on your own fears and projections.

You go ahead and battle with that demon, because it belongs to you.

225

Dead center, an inch from the top? Look closer (use the 200% zoom), because that “apple” appears to have wings, head, and tail. It looks to me like a robin flying over the scene. Maybe it is more apple-ish IRL.

226

Wow, I think this thread has gotten too intense since I last dropped in. Why don’t we all just have a drink and try this again some other time with different parameters?
[HUGS EVERYONE]

227

We were doing better for a minute there, I thought Miller made some excellent points and he really opened my eyes, to things in other people and to things in myself.
Roadfood and I should probably have taken this to the Pit a while ago, because he’s treated this like a personal attack for several pages now.
I don’t know if I want to put any more energy into this.

Honestly, I was trying to be understanding - I figured he’d had his spirit crushed by some crap-ass teacher who mocked his work & that’s why he has this big “elitist” vendetta. They’re out there, I know they do it. Or somebody else had come along and made fun of his taste. It wasn’t me. I criticized Kinkade’s paintings because I don’t think they’re as good, visually, as he makes them out to be ---- I never said anything about his fans being “poor, unfortunate, uneducated” people. Shit, a person would have to have serious money to buy a bunch of his stuff, it ain’t cheap.

If you guys want to say that objective visual criteria has no meaning to you, fine. That’s entirely up to you.

Just don’t come bitching when somebody you don’t understand manages to have some success.

And I’ll quit bitching about Kinkade for the same reason.

228

Yeah, looks like a bird to me, too. And I wouldn’t say it locks the piece together, either. It does help define the apex of a nice compositional triangle, but the lighter tones in the center of the image are what join the painting together for me. Remove the bird, and it’s still a solid painting.

229

You really, really need to stop projecting your own crap onto me. I have no demons in this area, I just have a problem with people who have no understanding of the meaning of the word “objective”. I think I do understand better why that is, though; you said it yourself: you have trouble with logic. That tends to imply that you would also have trouble with the actual meaning of “objective”. I could try to educate you, but I don’t think you’d be receptive.

Hey, I know you won’t believe this, but I was trying to help you. As I said, I believe that you don’t really care about the debate about objectivity, you really want to turn people on to art. I jus pointed out that your postings here have the opposite effect. If you don’t care, no skin off my nose.

230

And I guess you still don’t, and probably never will, understand that what you thought was trying to be understanding was instead just amazingly condescending.

And if you’d said it that way from the start, we could have avoided this whole thing. “I don’t think”. That’s great, more power to you, have as strong an opinion about Kinkade as you want, have that opinion shared by everyone else in the L.A.W. Just don’t believe that it has some sort of reality, outside of people’s opinions.

True, but you said that about me, more than once. Ok, you didn’t specifically say the “poor, unfortunate” part, but you called me uneducated, and clearly implied that if only I would let myself be educated, I would obviously then see how right you are. That’s elitist (“I’m right, you’re just not educated enough to understand why”). But you’ll never see that, I’m sure.

231

Not only was this guy untalented, he was also CHEAP! (When he got a commission, he would buy up all the old cans of paint at the local hardware stores-stuff that was going to be thrown out.) That partly explains why his paintings are deteriorating/changing color-the cheap commercial pigments are fading out! I saw one of his “paintings” on display in a Hartford, CT hospital-it looked like he had thrown the paint onto the canvas-I must admit-jackso Pollock would have done better!

232

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

233

Cool, you can quote the dictionary. Now if you actually understood what you had quoted, it would be clear that judgements about art don’t fit that definition.