MOSTEST HATED painting or painter

Post Reply New Topic

What emo kids with huge eyes, sounds cool, do you have a link or something ?

LOL! I'd actually like to see a link just to satisfy my curiosity. I was around for 8 of the 10 years in question and I want to see if they're familiar.

What was the name of the documentary? I try to catch as many of those as I can. I recently saw a good one on Alice Neel directed by her grandson (Alice Neel 2007).

I specifically dislike those sculptures too. What a waste they are of human time and intellect.

About the 'emo kids with the huge eyes,' I've heard of them but I've never seen them, and I never caught the artist's name. Maybe it's Margaret Keane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane
http://fashionrules.com/category/fashio ... -beholder/

I don't remember the name of it, just this sequence with her walking around a museum wear sort of a peasant dress kinda thingy and a headwrap and commenting on paintings. She just shook her head at Pollock and didn't consider it art and then moved on to a simple Rothko (if I am remembering this one correctly) and praised it. I was a tad disappointed; it was such a pleasure to see her scoff at Pollock that I guess I hoped she'd have no use for Rothko either. I don't think too much of his work, looks like something from Sesame Street, but at least it would be nicer to see on the wall than one of those drip festivals.

She's a crack-up anyhow. I have a book with some of her paintings and text written by the artist herself. She refers to the established art community as "the men" which is appropriate considering when she got her start. "The men said..." and so on, usually something to the effect that she just couldn't be doing what she was doing, it wasn't art, whatever. Some dude in her art school insisted that she needed to paint with the Impressionist technique, which did not amuse her (me either, can't get the hang of the colors). Her comments were simple without being dull.

I have looked up in the IMDB possible documentaries, and since I am sure it was NOT one about Stieglitz, it was most assuredly about her, this seems to be the only possibility:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0930579/

The date it aired seems consistent with how long it has been since I saw it.

Thanks. Funnily enough, the "similar titles" results on Netflix include a Pollock documentary.

I've always thought that Rothko was okay. At least he had some other interests (he played piano and went to Harvard), although when it came to painting he wasn't a natural. And it's clear what he stood for.

Rectangles! And by the looks of things, sometimes he stood for squares. But from what I've seen of Pollock, he stood mostly for media attention.

But that's just one reason to like artists like O'Keefe... like me, they stand for "I think I'll paint that. It looks neat. Might be fun." Yeah, I suppose sometimes we have deeper reasons, but the paintings I most enjoy painting are the "this looks so cool, I wanna paint it" paintings.

Paintings can be viewed as representations of reality or as a form of reality themselves. People who only accept the former lose a lot of delight in neglecting the latter.

Not sure what your point is. Are you aiming at anyone in particular or just making an observation? For my part, I don't think my disinterest in the drippings of one "artist" or the endless quadrilaterals of another constitutes a widespread neglect of abstract art. I create both abstract and representational pieces and appreciate both... with some exceptions. And I regularly delight in alternate painted realities. I have kids.

If you had another point, I apologize, but I'm not getting it. I miss the point with ugly regularity, so that's no surprise. I just know that I'm pretty sure I can live a long, happy, delight-filled life without appreciating Jackson Pollock. Rothko I can take or leave. Both may have been fully sincere in what they created. But it doesn't speak to me in either instance.

Well, I'm just saying that I do appreciate both abstract and representational work. Just not those guys. Though I'm wondering, which would this be:

[img][650:800]http://www.mdhc.org/images/photos/38_Stella.jpg[/img]

It's "Brooklyn Bridge" by Joseph Stella.

Sand, those comments are inappropriate and illogical. Irishwhistle gave no indication (before your comment) as to whether she only admires realistic or representational art. Even if she chose to dismiss most or all non-objective art, that doesn't mean that she is ignorant of it -- and her remarks have indicated that that is not the case.

The same goes for the earlier comment that "some people have a disinclination to learn." People are allowed to learn about an artist and then form a negative opinion. If it were otherwise, there would be nothing edifying about art.

My comments were entirely appropriate. Art is a process of creation and presentation of a point of view. Those who disdain any work through misunderstanding the approach miss out on the possibilities of understanding something fruitful. It is important through the experience of various art forms to be open minded and permit exploration. Some of the finest pieces of well appreciated music caused riots when first performed because of a lack of understanding. Art is not always easy to comprehend. It requires background and understanding and effort. And these can be very rewarding.

Let me elaborate a bit more. One of the most frequent criticisms of abstract artists is that their work looks as if it could be done by a child or a raging chimpanzee. In other words what supposedly disqualifies a work is that the artist does not display some sort of formal training or indication the he or she did not sweat over its completion, a sort of aesthetic approach to the Protestant work ethic. But any combination of line and form and color on a surface can, no matter what its method of creation, display a wonderful complexity in all the basic standards of appreciation. That Pollock or some three year old might use gravity and viscosity instead of pencils, charcoal, or brushes to attain the final result is irrelevant. If the completed work conveys a wonderful feeling of color or line or rhythm that in itself is gratifying. A wonderful sunset is frequently a beautiful effect and that is pretty much random but it still is beautiful and deserves some sort of respect. Art is valuable i that it lets you understand there is beauty and fascination in the entire world and it leads you in different ways to appreciate it. It is a mistake to disdain the opportunities offered.

Actually, curiously enough, no effort is really required to recognize what image before your eyes says to you, "We understand one another." I stand by that as a fact. Understanding and background and effort don't mean jack if you don't like what you see. Jackson Pollock could be dripping or throwing paint in front of airplane motors because he had a vision from God and I still would not, on viewing it, care much for his work. There's really no refuting that. I have learned an appreciation of Cubism I once lacked... but I still don't really connect with Cubist art. I consider the sincere brushstrokes of the humblest late-blooming Grandma to have merit if they're sincere. But it does not mean they're relevant to me. I give my 3-year-old's work the same consideration. If she was actually trying and not just spitting milk on the paper, anyway. I've got my standards.

In short, I don't give a flying crap about the execution, education, or friggin' work ethic of the artist. I don't care for Pollock's drippings because it does not convey a sense of anything to me, and because he strikes me as being a bit of a phony, so eager to perform for reporters. I don't think much of trendy art. But if he and his fans are happy, fine for them. Rothko, I know nothing about. But I don't really care for his canvases; they too convey nothing to me. I could look at them for a week between reading from his autobiography and I still would prefer something else.

I know you're just expressing your opinion, but I draw the line at your implying what my opinion is. And I indeed never said that I regularly rejected any kind of art because of the approach. I look at the art first. I decide then. If I like, I may look into it further.

Jackie Mason once said that he had no interest in foods if it was necessary to "acquire a taste" for them. If you do acquire a taste for something, that's fine. But we don't all have to. It's a visual medium,. It should do it's job on the eyes. The rest, technique, meaning, etc, is gravy.

And after all, this is a least liked painter thread.

This is an important discussion and I in no way imply that you should change your taste, merely that you not consider the efforts of the artists as an exploration of something worth considering and not reject them as total frauds.

I don't blame you. Rothko's blocks of color are just nothing special. I don't know why people buy that. It would be easy to make something like that yourself is you really want it in your living room. Hirst's work is nauseating.

As for my personal hates- Warhol. I really hate his art. I do love his Dracula and Frankenstein movies though- those are classics!! !!

Honest, I don't remember the artists' name, but they were really sentimental, hotel-wall sort of pictures of kids, mainly, to me they looked more like depressed lemurs... I really didn't want to know, they just...annoyed me for some reason...