Famous works of art that you hate

At the risk of flogging a dead horse ( :smiley: ), I have to add my request for a “cite!” to those of Struan, panamajack, and pulykamell. If what you say here is true, it’s one of the most bizarre coverups in modern art history – and I can scarcely fault the art critics that you denigrate!.

I know that you grew up around 100km from the town of Guernica, Nava, and have probably had access to stories and sources that no other Doper has, but the “canonical” process of the creation of Guernica has been documented such as was the case for very few other paintings, and if it’s really “the wrong way round” then Picasso only had himself to blame (or was creating a massive sick joke that would only have been funny to himself).

Background here (and, frankly, every other web or print source I’ve ever seen):
[ul]
[li]Picasso was commissioned to paint a large mural for the Spanish Pavilion at the 1937 Paris International Exposition. He already knew the space involved, and had a definite timeline in which to paint it.[/li][li]He started off with a series of smaller works (The Dream and Lie of Franco), then…[/li][li]April 26, 1937, Nazi planes (allied with Franco in the ongoing Spanish Civil War) devastated Guernica in one of the world’s first aerial bombardments of an urban area.[/li][li]May 1, 1937, Picasso made his first sketches for Guernica. The overall process was photographed and otherwise documented by his lover Dora Maar, and other artists came and viewed the work in progress. [/li][li]July 12, 1937, the Spanish Pavilion was officially opened, and Guernica, an oil painting on a large canvas (over 25ft x 11ft), was first seen by the public in the location and at the time that were both known at its conception.[/li][li]After the Exposition, it traveled around Europe and the Americas (but not to Spain until after Picasso – and Franco! – were both dead), ending up in MOMA in New York until 1981, when it was “repatriated” (!) to the Prado in Madrid, then in 1991 to the Museo Reina Sofía.[/li][li]In the nearly 36 years between Guernica’s creation and Picasso’s death in 1973, he became wealthy, influential, and possibly the world’s most famous living artist. He had ample opportunity to right any wrong, and to correct his critics in their analyses.[/li][/ul]
If Guernica had been created in total privacy, using printing-friendly materials, and he’d died before revealing it to another artist, I suppose the “reverse image” idea might make some bizarre sense. But, given the canonical story and the number of people who saw the work in development, Occam’s razor must surely lead us to assume that the work that we see today is as Picasso intended.

[Or, was he just too embarrassed to tell everyone that his most famous work was backwards, and that he’d chosen stupid materials for his “printing plank” but ran out of time before the deadline?]

[I’ve always been moved by **Guernica**, and when I finally saw it in Madrid I was stunned afresh. That thing is **huge**!]

[Aargh! ran out of time on my Edit Window… This adds onto my post immediately above.]

Okay, Nava, I think I might have found the source of confusion. Picasso’s first sketches for the 1937 Paris Exposition, The dream and lie of Franco, contain certain elements, similar images to which ended up “reversed” in Guernica. Note, however, that the text of those images are reversed, so that’s the “printing plank”.

However, that doesn’t mean that Guernica is backwards, just that Picasso incorporated some earlier themes in his larger masterpiece because they fitted his artistic vision for Guernica.

If that’s the explanation for your claim, then maybe the “dumbass” critics deserve a (virtual) apology… :wink:

Shrug

Everyone is allowed to like McDonalds better than Le Cinq, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no inherent difference in quality, it means that one’s palate is unrefined.

It’s not actually a character flaw to prefer McDonalds or Flour Power, so why is there this defensive need to insist that they’re “just as good!!!”. If someone tried to convince you that Payless specials are “just as good” as Ferragmos, you’d laugh at them. Buy the Payless if you like, and be happy with them, but don’t kid yourself.

I do NOT like Gauguin’s work, any of it. I hate his palette and his figures seem static and dull. The fact that he gave syphilis to half of Haiti (or wherever it was) doesn’t help.

I really don’t care for Chagall. The dreamy qualities don’t reach me, and I don’t like his palette, either. Those blue stained glass windows at the Art Institute, I always wish they were something I could like, they’re so large.

A lot of the work done for the Church** (Medieval, pre-Renaissance, post-Renaissance) looks like graphic design to me. Things like this , and this kind of thing.

And if it’s got “Magi” in the title, I’m outta here!

I can appreciate the technical skill (cripes, these people made their own paint) and witness the development of things like perspective. It works really well as a DESIGN, but I don’t get any sense of emotion. Usually when I’m in a museum I walk past all that stuff as fast as I can.

** I’m thinking of lesser-known artists, of course, not the Great Masters.

No, it means the one suits one’s palate better than the other. That’s it. That may change with experience, but that means nothing.

Seriously, why do you have this need to trumpet your subjective tastes as somehow objectively superior to another’s? I mean, I find Big Brother to be boring, pointless, lowest-common-denominator, actively-IQ-lowering trash, and if someone says it’s the height of television I’ll certainly have thoughts about them, but that’s as far as it goes.

No clue what either is, but unless there is an actual and meaningful difference in quality, I very much doubt it.

I think she was talking about shoes. I know that Payless is a discount shoe store, anyway. I’m assuming that Ferragmos is a type of high-end shoe. Or a Klingon warrior-king.

I’m not sure there are any famous works of art that I could say that I “hate”. Maybe Thomas Kinkade’s works, if you consider them art.

That said, I can’t really think of any famous works of art that have a positive emotional affect on me greater than, “That’s kinda pretty”. Well, ok, I do like “Dogs Playing Poker”. It’s so ridiculously cheesy that it makes me laugh.

Huh? This just plain doesn’t make sense.

To say that art = eliciting an emotional response, and then to say there are no “rules” – well, didn’t you just create a rule?
In terms of “rules”, there are principles of visual communication. They are taught to students. If there was nothing “objective” to art, then there wouldn’t be any such thing as art education, because there’s be nothing to learn. Which, apparently, is what some people believe, since they think art ed = being hit upside the head with “you ought to like this”.

There’s plenty of Good Art that I don’t like, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it qualifies as Art - it’s just a matter of taste and preferences, and different meanings.
MartiniEnfield, re: Michelangelo’s David - he’s breathing. That’s what’s so amazing.

Double-huh? This is what doesn’t make sense. How do you create a rule for this?

Sure there is. Everything from colour theory to nuts-and-bolts stuff like anatomy. If there were something objective to art, we’d all like the same art.

This is what I am saying.

(Reply to fessie)

Exactly. There is a difference between appreciating something and liking something. It took several Art History classes and years of experience before I learned to appreciate a lot of Modern Art. I still don’t like it, mind you, but I can appreciate it in a way I couldn’t before. To claim that your (generic “you”) palate is the equivelent to that of someone trained in the field is the height of plebian arrogance. There is a difference. A burger created ba a master chef is better than one from McDonalds. I may not like it better. But it likely is better. People have to get over the whole “If it doesn’t do anything for me, it must not be Art” attitude. Your (again with the generic “you”) tastes do not define either the subject or reality.

“The height of plebeian arrogance”? Did I fall asleep and time started moving backwards and I woke up in the 19th century?

16th, actually. :smiley:

Oh, that’s all right then.

Well, then, baseball must be entirely subjective and without rules as well, since no player has ever been unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame.

What field of human endeavor is or has ever been entirely universal?
It always drives me bananas on here to discuss this, because people who’ve never studied the field presume to have knowledge equal to people who have. Why should that be? That’s like me looking at a page of chemistry formulae and declaring the symbols meaningless, just a bunch of jabber. How arrogant would that be?
BTW, there’s plenty of new stuff that I don’t like, either - and I think critics and historians can (at times) go waaaay off into the hinterlands with their verbage. That guy at the NYTimes (Rothstein?) really gets on my nerves - I wrote and told him so once, and they actually printed it. He was going completely the other direction and arguing that True Art is by its nature exclusive. I call b.s., art belongs to everyone (even if they don’t all like all of it).

As another example, I really like Christo’s wraps, but at a display of photographs of his work I had the opportunity to read more about the theory behind it - yuck! Turned me off completely, way too ethereal and political. But I still like his work, I just prefer my own interpretation.

“At the risk of flogging a dead horse ( ), I have to add my request for a “cite!” to those of Struan, panamajack, and pulykamell.”

(sniffle. I snottily asked for a cite way back in post #22… . I’m clearly ahead of my time and underappreciated)

If you really can’t see the milewide chasm between this and what we’ve been talking about, I see no point in responding.

And if you really can’t explain it, then why DO you keep responding?

You insist that the value of any given piece of art is defined by your reaction to it. Explain to me why Roger Clemens has inherent value despite my revulsion.

I’ve got to agree with the OP about Van Gogh. The sunflower paintings are OK, I guess, but I don’t see why they’re so famous. I’ve seen better art at flea markets and garage sales. Starry Night is even worse. It looks like a bad acid trip.

I can and have.

Its value to me is defined by my reaction to it, yes.

Show me where I claimed that he did, and I will.

:eek: Oh no you didn’t! :wink:

“Starry Night” remains, along with Kandinsky and some Rothko works, one of those near religious experiences I occasionally have with art. I remember seeing it for the first time, MOMA, spring of '97 and being absolutely floored. This work was yet another example (in the other thread, I cite Rothko) of a painting, any painting, needing to be seen in person. “Starry Night” is a three-dimensional work with forceful jabs of paint, and no printing process can recreate the vibrancy of the colors. The painting seems to move and shimmer with all the swirls, red-yellow contrast, deep recesses of paint.

The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam was such an experience for me. Returning the next day on mushrooms…