There’s some pretty dreadful Krisha art out there. This, for instance.
Some excellent examples in this previous thread.
One of my favorite websites of all time.
Anyone notice that the background color on that changes randomly? Even cooler. I want one.
It may be one of mine too. I keep getting those hysterical giggles like I get whenever I read Liliks and his Dorcas collection.
Ok, this is fun-- I get to vent. More historical heinousness.
You thought Fragonard was bad? How about his teacher, Boucher? Cupid a Captive being tied up by nymphs with daisy-chain chains
Or more Pre-Raphaelite hideousness: Jesus in his Father’s Carpentry Shop by Millais.
More Wm Holman Hunt with The Awakening Conscience and Light of the World Aiaghhhhh! I hate these guys so much. . .
The darling of the British Royal Academy of Art in the 1830-50s, Edwin Landseer, with Dignity and Impudence
The rococo was pretty foofy, but the Victorians are the cheesiest of them all. And this before the days of mass market schmaltz. This is lovingly handmade time-consuming one of a kind schmaltz.
Oh, man, I misread that as ‘Jesus the bugger’ and clicked expecting something a lot more interesting than that…
That is awesome! Only $10. Kinda hard to justify putting it up in the house, but it’d look good in my garage.
I don’t know if he is a bugger, but I don’t like the look in the eye of this Jesus. And what is with the bondage cherub in the backround?
Witness the horror that is Nativity Pets
I don’t think that necessarily qualifies for my totally arbitrary criteria: it’s meant to be disturbing, and is thus insincere.
I choked on my wine. That’s fucking brilliant. I am seriously considering buying it.
Really? I can never tell if an artist just sucks, or if they have a fondness for satire. I’m betting pet lady doesn’t have satirical bone in her body, though.
This sculpture is just wrong, on so many levels. May not be SFW. Or anyone, really. Link. Scroll all the way down for the full effect.
I have to say that as deeply grotesque as that guy’s stuff is, I’m kind of digging it. They’re obviously meant to be gross and disturbing and even if what they represent is repulsive, the actual compositions are sort of interesting.
ETA: Whoa, that Good vs. Evil sculpture is…wow. So evil is a skinny brunette and good is a pregnant, half-naked blonde with sparkles on her nipples? Huh?
Mommy why is good fairy poking bad fairy there?
Well, at least the bad fairy looks to be rather…happy about the poking? That dreamy smile and back arching don’t really scream “vanquished evil,” do they?
Actually, what we have is a deeply weird rendering of John the Baptist doing his eponymous baptizing of Jesus, on whom the Holy Spirit is descending. (Well, it’s supposed to descend, preferably in the form of a dove; in this version it seems to be trying to crawl up his crotch.) If I remember my Bible correctly Jesus was a grown man at the time, hardly a beardless youth with a lavish 70s-rock perm. As for the nudity, it might be less jarring if John wasn’t so girlishly clutching his animal-skin robes to his chest. And what animal gave THAT skin, anyway? He looks like he’s stuffed his dress with dried seaweed.
How about some genuinely insane art? Some, er, “guests” at the Royal Bethlem Hospital drew some stuff. These two blue cats are a highlight.
Ah, OK, that kind of explains it. Didn’t realise the Italian model guy was meant to be Jesus.
I should, however, point out that I found this picture while looking for pictures of the small village on the south coast of England where my family is from. The background to the baptism is indeed that village. Which adds an extra WTF to the interpretation.
This print I referenced in the “Godawful Book Covers” thread ought to be in the running.
From the postures, I’m guessing the subtitle to that beautifully executed creation is two ghostly voices saying “We beseech you, RESIGN!”