I never claimed I liked the painting. I have no opinion, for all the reasons I’ve explained - I don’t consider myself competent to have an opinion on the matter.
If you consider all aesthetic considerations to be inherently completely subjective, then I don’t see why you would bother sharing your opinion anyway, since it’s inherently (under the belief that aesthetics are entirely subjective) irrelevant to anyone else.
You’re awfully bellicose and profane for somebody who claims to be bored. FTR, i don’t think you were really bored. I think you’re just an asshole who chose her words poorly. You received instructions that were an entirely reasonable response to your claimed boredom, and now you’re angry because you feel foolish. The option to leave before you make more of an asshole of yourself is still there, but don’t let me get in the way of your self-assholization.
Color is certainly one criterion, but certainly not the only one. And you’re not really describing the color use correctly. The blues are close to a primary color but the greens are not. They’re a risky choice, muted and naturalistic and an odd contrast to the electric vibrancy of the blue. And there’s some very complicated and interesting stuff going on in the blue field. It’s a luminous, watercolor-like effect which was probably fairly hard to pull off working in oils. It produces an interesting play between the three-dimensionality of the blue and the utter flatness of the green; as though the blue were actually a water-filled recess in the picture plane … .
What do you think of the composition as a whole? One of the things that I find appealing about this painting is the thematic echo between the hard horizontal line in the green and the blurry horizontal line in the blue. Almost like a reflection in water. Hmm … the more I look at it, the more “Bay” seems like an appropriate title. And what’s up with that little yellow hook? It’s an amazing visual anchor, isn’t it? At first you don’t see it, and then it snaps into view and the whole painting reorganizes itself around it.
Now, personally I’m not that crazy about this particular work. But you’re being mindlessly reductionist about how it functions artistically. And that’s why your opinion isn’t worth crap.
The article says that not only has the kid been disciplined by the school (he was kicked out of his charter school) AND his parents, but the principle has said that he “realizes” his mistake now. To me that means his ass was literally, if not figuratively, kicked.
He did a dumb thing. He’s paying the price. Sounds fair.
I’ll bet the musueam has insurance to cover the cost of restoration.
The painting sucks. But that is not really the point.
FTR, I don’t give a shit what you think. “That art is dumb - I could do it!” is an incredibly lame and boring statement. Predictable. A cliché, in fact, and I have every right to be bored by it.
Now, I suggest you get back to your asshole.
I wonder how long this thread could get if we find out the painting is at an IHOP?
Are you a cinemaphotographer? Do you comments on films? Are you literary critic? Do you comment on books? Are you a sommelier? Do you comment on wine?
Come off it. Art is not some special case where only special people get to comment.
Gosh, it’s almost like I didn’t already address the issue of most everyone having a background in watching movies and far fewer people having even remotely the same knowledge of art, and how movies are intentionally crafted for a mass audience and for the most part far less dependent on specialized understanding because they’re deliberately accessible.
Uh, did you miss the bit above where I specifically said I don’t know much of anything about wine and don’t pretend to?
Good thing I didn’t say that.
I actually like abstract art and I just don’t understand why this painting is worth $1.5m. I’m nothing even approaching an art expert, or even someone knowledgeable about art, I just see certain types of painting and like them. Some of Pollock’s paintings are great to me, because they exhibit amazingly creative use of color, and complimentary colors. In my complete layman’s eye’s, I can see the talent involved, I can see where it’s creative and representative of talent because of the precision and manner in which he used the colors. For a guy who did many of his paintings via brush drippings he really has a lot of precision and style.
“The Bay” featured here I can’t tell what sets it apart from a third grader’s watercolor.
Certainly not. But what you call comments came off as dismissive, petty, and ignorant. It’s almost like you didn’t even give it a chance at all, you just made a snap judgement. Do you have a right to do that? Sure, but then don’t be surprised if heaps of derision are dumped on you.
Far be it from me to try to improve on lissener’s excellent post, but I want to try to give my own uninformed take on abstract art, if I may.
Now keep in mind that I haven’t drawn or painted since junior high, about thirty years ago. But nine months ago, my girlfriend and I were looking through a store with cheap art supplies, and decided “Hey, let’s become artists!” It was a spur of the moment decision, but we’ve been pretty serious about it ever since. I’ve learned a great deal about a new subject, and about myself as well. I’d be hard pressed to think of anything more rewarding.
One thing that became clear early on is that it’s not easy to paint purdy pitchers of things wot look like stuff. It takes far more skill to paint dogs playing poker than to simply slop some Hooker’s Green on blank paper. Obviously. And there was a huge temptation to do the latter and call myself an abstract artist. “This represents my anger towards green grocers. I call it ‘Kill My Grocer.’”
But soon enough something else became clear. Art is more than just painting purdy pitchers of things wot look like stuff. Even in fully representational art, there is color unity, lines, shared spaces, negative space, light and shadow, form, and composition. One cannot paint even a simple landscape without thinking of those things. In fact, they soon overtake the subject matter itself. They become more important than the subject. Now think about this: What if one removes the subject matter entirely, and leaves the techniques and emotions in place? Some very striking images may come out. What if one removes even some of the techniques, and just uses, say, shadows and composition? It will look less like things wot look like stuff, and more like just swatches of color.
And it is still art, sometimes brilliant art. To the untrained eye, it may look like nothing more than a disorganized mess, but it’s not something a four-year-old could do. There’s a lot of skill, insight, and inspiration there.
And yeah, a bit of education can make you appreciate it all the more. Nothing wrong with that. And yeah, when some lowbrow knuckledragger says “That’s something a four-year-old could have done”, it reflects poorly on the lowbrow knuckledragger.
Should artists pander to the tastes of said lowbrow knuckledraggers? Some do. They like money. But art is more than a popularity show. For many, it’s a personal journey inward. Purdy pitchers of things wot look like stuff seems like such a waste of time and energy. And if your abstracts do find an appreciative audience, that’s a wonderful bonus. If they command a high price, even better. (After 5 months of painting, I sold one of my pieces for $100. I was beaming.)
That’s my two cents, anyway.
I hope that kid is grounded until he’s 17. What a little prick. 12 was a while ago for me, but I remember distinctly being that age and visiting Washington DC with my class. We sure as hell all understood what was expected of us and there is no way in hell any of us would not have known how serious it was to deface a painting like that.
If it was my kid, I’d spank him within an inch of his life, ground him indefinitely and scare him into thinking he had to pay it all back personally. Maybe impress upon him the length of time he would need to work in order to pay for the damages.
“Lets see, your allowance is $50 a month, if you pay $25 a month, you’ll have paid off the $10,000 for repair in…June 2039. If you pay $50 a month it’ll only take until October 2022. You’d better get yourself a job, son.”
If sticking gum on valuable paintings is normal adolescent behavior, art museums would not be open for field trips. This young man may grow into a sterling adult, but his conduct that day was assholish and I have no doubt that he knew it.
He should be held liable for the cost of the restoration when he turns eighteen. It would be different if it had been an accident or if he were five years old. In the meantime, he should do some serious community service.
(Don’t make me pull credentials on y’all…) 
Then why bother to respond, sweetums? Quit now.
Well obviously, despite the protestations, it is far from normal as I can’t recall a similar event even though millions of teens each year attend museums.
I am amused by the posters who think the whole thing is not worthy of a pit thread because no permanent damage was done. Do you really believe that is what is important here? It’s only dumb luck, the little jerk didn’t know or care whether any damage was permanent, unless the paper failed to mention that he is an expert on the conservation of artworks.
Argh. Do we have to do the semantics thing? You said:
Does this, or does this not, indicate that you feel a degree of competency must be possessed in order to comment? Maybe I’ll go back and discuss some of the rest with you if you can display some honesty here.
Wow. I think I’ve only seen one better description of the basic idea abstract art, and that one took six pages to describe. Very well done.
Thanks! I tries my best.
Geez, thanks Mr. Art Man. Now that I know what abstract art really is, I feel like I’ve knapped my first flint and become a real Sapiens Sapiens. From now on, I’ll just nod and agree with the rest of the patricians.
Stow your purple flowery freshman art history definition. The simplest definition of art is a human synthesis designed to elicit feelings or emotion. So yeah, the blob thing is art, but it misses the mark with me. And if you read back, you will see I did offer a considered opinion.
Stop hijacking the thread, asshole. You don’t like abstract art. We get it. Go start another topic.
So glad I could elicit such an intelligent and insightful response from you. Really, we must get together some time and smash rocks. What to wear, what to wear? The buffalo hide, I think. 