Famous works of art that you [del]hate[/del] don’t care for: Pretty much all of them. Art doesn’t seem to move me, although I can see how it might pretty up a room a bit, providing it matches the sofa.
I do like photos of cats, though.
I’ve expressed my deep dislike of every single thing by Ford Maddox Brown and William Holman Hunt in another thread. Also late Kandinsky (when someone gives him a compass and protractor) and everything in painting called “Purism”-- the Leger and later Picasso stuff when they head off on some crazy classicizing project. I dislike all classicizing projects to some extent.
Nava, where did your bizarre factoid about Guernica being a print matrix come from? Where. . . where did you come up with that? Citation?
Also, just looked at Matisse’s Snail. To give the man a break, I think that’s done at a late point in his life when his hands weren’t working and he was composing collages with his toes. Not joking.
I wouldn’t say I hated any art, but I am not a fan of Jackson Pollock’s work. I like stuff that looks like stuff. Anything abstract I generally just don’t “get.” It rarely provokes any reaction beyond, “Huh?”
I love just about anything by van Gogh or Rembrandt, however.
[QUOTE=DustyButt]
Jean-Michel Basquiat … anything by him.
I just can’t get into it, however, I liked his graffiti.
And, as far as **Barn Art ** goes… what ever works for you, man.
[/QUOTE]
Hear Hear. My vote for shittiest well known artist of all time. I think he must have known it, and had a big laugh at the rich and famous fawning over shit he scrawled on a piece of paper in two minutes. Nothing he produced shows even the most basic knoweldge of art. Dimesionality and spatiality are beyond him. And compare his one dimesional legendary graffiti with the cool vibrant stuff painted by hoodlum teens on boxcars.
Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avigon is, to my mind, utter shit. Whores with faces of African masks. Oh, those wild negroes, with their primitive vitality, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I have some firsthand experience with writers. They’re not hoodlums; they’re nice kids. True, gangsters will do graffiti, but it’s just garbage: gang names and symbols, obscenities, etc.
The stuff you’re referring to is done by individuals or crews of kids who are not at all into crime (except, obviously, painting on somebody else’s property). They take their art seriously, and many morph into serious artists. On the whole, they have a well-developed moral sense: overdoing drugs, treating women badly or irresponsibly, writing obscenities, and stuff like that is seriously frowned on. It’s an interesting subculture, really.
I don’t care for the YBAs myself - the ones I’ve seen in person (Hirst, Emin, Harvey) as well as bits I’ve only seen in catalogues all uniformly left me unmoved. Which is odd, because I like some other conceptual artists.
Funnily enough, I don’t like most Stuckist art I’ve seen either. I can grok the Manifesto, but the actual art, not so much. I’ll make an exception for Vine.
[QUOTE=capybara]
Also, just looked at Matisse’s Snail. To give the man a break, I think that’s done at a late point in his life when his hands weren’t working and he was composing collages with his toes. Not joking.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s right. (I read some biographical stuff on Matisse last year for a presentation I needed to give in a kids’ art class). He was essentially bedridden, but still want to work with shape and color.
Oh yeah!!!
If you don’t like the Mona Lisa, and VanGogh makes you puke, this should be a special treat!
That’s not Art. This is Art.
[QUOTE=silenus]
It’s hard to articulate. Abstract Expressionism is so varied. Some artists leave me cold, while Pollock’s works seem to click with my psyche. I like Impressionism, and it seems to me that Pollock just took that a mile or two further. I’d love to have a copy of Lavender Mist for the living room, but it just wouldn’t go with the rest of the decor (which is Early-American White Trash).
[/QUOTE]
You might like to see some items from my “Late 20th Centruy Yard Sale” collection.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I’ve never really understood why everyone thinks Michaelangelo’s David is such a masterpiece, either- it strikes me as an uninspiring but competent sculpture of a young chap who must have been posing on a very cold day.
[/QUOTE]
Have you seen it in IRL? Before I had that opportunity, I had more or less the same opinion of it. It was a nice statue, but that was it. When I actually saw it I was truly impressed.
Sculpture in particular isn’t that well suited to portrayal in books.
I’ve seen David IRL. Impressive, but not awesome. That superlative I save for the Pieta of St. Peter’s and his Moses.
[QUOTE=kelly5078]
I have some firsthand experience with writers. They’re not hoodlums; they’re nice kids. True, gangsters will do graffiti, but it’s just garbage: gang names and symbols, obscenities, etc.
The stuff you’re referring to is done by individuals or crews of kids who are not at all into crime (except, obviously, painting on somebody else’s property). They take their art seriously, and many morph into serious artists. On the whole, they have a well-developed moral sense: overdoing drugs, treating women badly or irresponsibly, writing obscenities, and stuff like that is seriously frowned on. It’s an interesting subculture, really.
[/QUOTE]
Gotcha- I think its cool too. And I only meant hoodlums becasue of the vandalism part, even though I think its cool vandalism. 
And I just opened a dictionary and found that hoodlum (**violent ** criminal) is not the proper word choice in this context. My bad
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I’ve never really understood why everyone thinks Michaelangelo’s David is such a masterpiece, either- it strikes me as an uninspiring but competent sculpture of a young chap who must have been posing on a very cold day.
[/QUOTE]
I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I actually get shivers when I see a real in the flesh Michaelangelo sculpture. Check out the Pieta the next time you’re in St. Peters. He’s the greatest sculptor of the human form of all time. No once else is qualified to sharpen his chisel (and no, that’s not meant to have any sexual innuendo). I’ve tried my hand at sculpting marble, and it’s harder than Michaelangelo makes it look. Of course, I wasn’t working with the legendary Carrara marble, so that must be it.
I’d also be skeptical if a 1:1 replica could come close to reproducing the magnificence of the David. It would be informative to show the original and copy side by side. I’m quite confident I could tell the difference. Most artwork I can conceive of reproducing (not well, mind you), but the sculptures of Michaelangelo are otherworldly.
[QUOTE=Slithy Tove]
I don’t like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I don’t bad-mouth it at every opportunity; in fact I keep my mouth shut. But, since you asked, I’ll say here that it’s not a coincidence that someone barely out of her adolescence would design a piece that fed an entire nation’s desire for self-pity.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be interested to hear more about this opinion.
I’ve always understood that the VVM transformed the whole category of ‘War Memorial’ by making something that you interact with & that sustains multiple readings, rather than something heroic on a pedestal that you view from afar.
Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. Too long; too repetitive; simplistic melodies; strange chord voicings that don’t work; overwrought and self-indulgent. Blech!
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
I’d be interested to hear more about this opinion.
I’ve always understood that the VVM transformed the whole category of ‘War Memorial’ by making something that you interact with & that sustains multiple readings, rather than something heroic on a pedestal that you view from afar.
[/QUOTE]
That’s only if you draw a strict line between a war memorial and a war cemetery. The list of names at the Somme, or at Punchbowl in Honolulu dwarf the Vietnam memorial. Plus, I’m not a great fan of the interactive in memorials - my communion with the murdered of Oklahoma City would not require me to sit on a chiar.
It’s just my opinion that the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial has, like much other Modern Art, conceit at its heart; in particular that it reflects the true sadness of war while all memorials before it before it were vainglorious. YMMV.
[QUOTE=Nava]
I was coming to indicate a general allergy to Picasso and Miró, but that particular post touches on one of my specific problems with the Guernica.
It’s not a painting. It’s a printing plank. The fact that people insist in treating it as a painting means that it’s actually unfinished, since nobody has ever done an actual printing run for fear of damaging it. That’s like marrying a porn star and never having sex.
Being a printing plank, it’s a negative. I’ve heard critics say that “one of the sources of its strength is that it has movement from right to left instead of the usual occidental convention, from left to right.” No, dumbass, and when you say things like that you’re a dumbass no matter how much you get paid for saying them: you’re looking at it the wrong way! If anybody ever actually finished it, the figures would move from left to right.
And of course, once printed the light and dark areas would look totally different.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give me a reference for this? I’m curious because Gombrich, amongst others, doesn’t think it worth mentioning.
Re: Guernica
Not that I’ve seen it in real life, and there have been some negative images made by other artists for their own purposes, but I’ve never heard that the work is thatunfinished.