MOSTEST HATED painting or painter

Post Reply New Topic

I just had to go look this up, and I'm sorry I did. If I am correct, the artist is Margaret Keane, and her work is liable to give me nightmares. Apparently, she did switch from sad-eyed kids to happy ones in the 70's (after various changes in her circumstances which she found cheering), and to be sure, the happy ones are rather pretty sometimes... but the sad ones really give me the willies. I suppose it's wondering what made the kid wear such a profound look of impenetrable sadness in those unnaturally huge, close-set eyes... yikes. I also feel as though it's reminding me of something terrible, goodness knows there are enough sad stories of childhood misfortune out there to blame for that.

Here's a whole bunch of her paintings, both happy and sad:

http://www.keane-eyes.com/

Her story is interesting ,though, since her paintings were being sold under her husband's name and apparently he tried to claim he'd painted them, so that she ended up in court contesting this and like something from a movie, the judge had them paint a picture right there in court. Well, this had to have been the best way to make the case because she cranked one out in one hour while her husband begged off claiming a sore shoulder... a veritable confession. How lame is that? You've claimed to have painted a pile of successful (if creepy) paintings and not only will the world now be waiting to get your new pieces should the courts rule in your favor but with all this at stake you refuse to paint one to save your life's work? Yeah, if any doubt remained that she painted them, that should take care of it. And he doesn't sound like a really bright fella, does he?

And admittedly, I do see some interesting things in her work, in what she was going for, but they'll never top my list of favorites. Not surprisingly, though, Tim Burton is a fan of hers! That explains Corpse Bride...

Ken Done. God I hate his "art"

*looks up Ken Done*
well it's...some of them are pretty good. i can understand the appeal in like two of his paintings but...okay, he actually makes a living off of this? gimme a brush, i'll paint some masterpieces.
this one's ya know fun to look at. it's the best one i found. a lot of fun bouncy colors.


now personally...i can see the appeal in pollock. i researched him for a class where we had to make a unique visual representation of an art genre. i chose abstract expressionism. his paintings seem to be alive in a sense.

i don't know of any artists that i hate, although i may add Ken Done to my list.

Well, hate is a pretty strong word. For my part, I listed art that I don't care for or that rubs me the wrong way. I don't hate any of it. Even if it made me angry, which might be considered a valid response if it was intended to inspire that, it still wouldn't be hate.

damn! those creepy puppies are a bit overpriced at $24 grand

Boccioni and his godawful Umberto - ugly and I once spent about 3 months trying to find out his name and the name of the sculpture because I forgot it and it stuck in my head and bugged me.
Also any of the brilliant artists who paint an entire canvas black and call it something like "Wild horses prancing around a meadow in nighttime." Though I could see myself painting one of those then spending hours and hours laughing at people who stand around trying to find the "deeper meaning."

Have you seen this Boccioni?

honestly i dont like da vinci. his work as a painter seems overrated.

I think he's really more admired for his inventions and technical skill. He also has merit more for when he did what he did than for whether it was better than anything that came along later. I'm not nuts about his paintings, either. He was very susceptible to the tendency of artists to make all their portraits looks like themselves. A skillful artist can overcome it. For my part, I just draw my kids so it doesn't show.

But this would fall under the heading mentioned earlier by Sand, of artists who have something to teach... at least I think that's what he was saying... even if you don't like them much. I personally think of da Vinci as a neighborhood character.

I presume you were adducing The Rite of Spring and so forth.

I know quite a bit about Pollock, which is frankly more than I would care to know. I know about how he was missing the tip of his right index finger, about Lee Krasner, about his being 4-F in WWII, about the materials he used (many people are unaware that besides using enamel he was an early adopter of acrylics), and about the theories pertaining to his work. I've read books about him, I've tried drip painting, I've seen the movie Pollock, and I even bought the soundtrack.

But I do not like him or his art, and I have every right to make that statement. If you disagreed, you could have told me why you thought that I was wrong; implying that I am ignorant amounts to an ad hominem attack, and in this case it was a bad guess.

It's quite amazing to me when I point out that much of the unappreciative attitudes towards a work is born from lack of understanding it is taken as an insult, since the obverse then becomes that all people who like the work are then somehow insulted. Insult has no part in it. It is mere inability to comprehend a point of view and that's merely sad.It is of little consequence if you are thoroughly informed about the artist or his methods or whether or not he was physiologically complete or his relationship to women or the army. If his work conveys nothing to you it means you do not grasp his appreciation of what he has done and I know no way to instill that. That he has done things worthwhile you will have to assume that those who do appreciate him are genuine in their feelings. And that you might be missing something.

one of the artist who i'm most iffy about is paul gauguin. he wasn't professionally trained so that he gives him some slack but still...

this is one of the paintings by him that i consider appealing.

Yeah, Gaugin... kinda neutral on Gaugin. He seemed happy, though... But I think of him like I think of Degas, or Toulouse-Latrec, or many others who found a favorite topic and painted many pictures of it, and now many years later we have not only the artistic merit to appreciate (if you do, that is) but all the historical value of seeing how things were at that time in that place. Don't have to love it to get that, I figure.

Now, as to Pollock, I think the trouble, Sand, is that you do have a way of stating what on the face of it is solid fact, but phrasing it in a manner that reads as insulting, despite what you may have intended. Phrases such as "mere inability to comprehend a point of view and that's merely sad" reads as a suggestion that a person is "sad" in the context of being a loser for being unable to understand a painting. There is further the implication that a person who came to mention an artist they don't like is now being put on the defensive by someone who also chose to come to the thread, knowing what it was about, as if seeking conflict. There is a fair amount of implied sneering in the overtones.

No one expects you, if you are fond of Pollock or any other artist, to stop doing so. On the contrary, it's ridiculous to even consider. It is not just, however, to assume that all who do not like that artist do so because they have never had a chance to appreciate what he was trying to say. The fact is, if a piece evokes an emotion or provokes thought, it has been successful. But that thought or emotion may be negative, and to suggest that only one reaction to a piece is valid, is absurd. If an artist refuses to allow people to have their own reactions, he might as well keep his pieces in a box.

Now you have a couple of people here who do not like what they've seen. You state that he has done things worthwhile, well, yes, apparently he has in the opinions of those who genuinely appreciate his work. And similarly, contrariwise, you have to assume that those who dislike his work are also genuine in their feelings. It's an emotional response, or intellectual, but most undoubtedly personal.

And you can suggest that those in the dislike camp might be missing something, but then it must also stand as fact that they might NOT be missing something. That's even-handed, that's fair. It's called agreeing to disagree. And if you are unable to do that, then there's nothing more to say. I know from experience that there are few things more frustrating conversationally than speaking to a person who must always be right, sometimes insolently so, to the point that they are unwilling or unable to make the simple statement, "Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion." We are. You are. It's part of having a functioning mind. Your opinion may be that you are always right. And my opinion will be that I doubt it.

Well, that is what is so provoking. If you want to talk about art you appreciate, start a thread about it. Coming to one such as this and telling the posters that their requested opinions betray them as ignorant and narrow-minded smacks of trolling. Read the topic.

And now I suppose we'll be hearing yet another re-hashing of the same thing, since all our responses have gotten that reaction. If that's all, I won't be bothering to respond. Because I can't make it any plainer why your words, if not your overall message, have given insult.

Like what you want. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you stop. And you can't instill appreciation in us, you're right. Especially the way you've gone about it.

It's not up to me to make anybody appreciate anything. I'm merely saying if you don't get it you are the loser and that makes me sad.