MOSTEST HATED painting or painter

Post Reply New Topic

Mark Rothko, hands down.

substance? none
indexical? none
iconic? none

Damien Hirst a close second.

I'm not an expert, but favourite ?

I don't like Klimnt, but that is merely subjective.

Jackson Pollock.

I don't think he had any real interest in or knowledge of painting or art, and he's really the epitome of the illiterate, anti-intellectual artist. I prefer Lee Krasner (his wife)'s paintings to his easily.

there are already too many "post your favorite X" threads

Jackson Pollack and Any Warhol and Any Photographer who thinks their converse shoes are suddenly a work of art.

I am an artist though, so I am suppose to "embrace" all types of art.

I don't really care for Picasso, to be honest; and I never have. I have always disliked how asymmetrical his paintings were.

From the replies you can see there is a large variety of taste. All of the artists mentioned had something to teach. Some people have a disinclination to learn.

I agree, that's why I said my reaction to Klimnt was subjective. It was not an comment on his ability. His imagery just triggers a negative feeling. I'm the same way about music. I respect ragtime as music, but every time I hear it it reminds me of my grandmother, who I believe had a personality disorder, and was holy hell to be around. Some painters, like Rothko don't come across as well in print. Standing before one is another matter. I love looking at art. I may think something is successful or not successful, but I will never dismiss an artist's intent.

I love this Picasso print:

Personally...Thomas Kinkaide.

I'd agree with Warhol. Though I find the man fascinating, his art is not.

There's a style I dislike (aside from the usual talentless excesses committed by 20th century artists) which I think is Italian early renaissance. The subjects are Biblical scenes, and the paintings are flat, tasteless, and lack any sense of reality. The people are usually quite static or standing in silly and unlifelike poses. Yuck!

This is what its like for me looking at modern art.

Hell yeah, let's keep it negative !

Whomever did those 'emo kids with the huge eyes' back in the 70s...

Jackson Pollock here, too. I really don't see that he was doing anything my 3-year-old couldn't do better. Except throw paint in front of airplane motors... she'd be blown over, after all, she's very short. Anyway, I don't see much to learn from that. I was thoroughly tickled to see a documentary about Georgia O'Keefe that showed her looking at a museum and rolling her eyes at Jackson Pollock. She did like Rothko, though. I don't care for Picasso though I could see learning something there. I just don't like looking at it. I really don't like the sculptures that turn up throughout cities and businesses, ones that look like they were made out of paperclips or similar. I recognize such as space-fillers, even pleasing ones, but to regard them as art objects is a bit much for me. I'm also not mad about Rubens because I'm just a mite too Rubenesque. But I don't hate many artists like I used too... I get now that it really is all in what speaks to you, or in what you meant to say when you created the piece. Maybe you just liked how it looked. Whatever. Go nuts.

What bothers me more are things like those sculptures. Situations that arise when you see inferior artists get superior attention. Yeah, there's a lot of professional jealously there, I admit that. But when I see a cartoon that is just so darned ugly but hugely popular, I have reaction similar to the one I have to inferior music assaulting my ears. I wonder, "Dang, was this person never talented, never trained, or did they just finally get tired of starving?" I hate to see something good displaced by something truly inferior. And yeah, there's inferior. There's Fanboy and Chum Chum, there's 3-D Garfield movies. There's Scrappy Doo. (I see a lot of animation these days)

And then I come across a big art sale in the mall with paintings piled unceremoniously and the pictures I see are things I would have been proud to have painted even if I hadn't called it art, and I wonder why I bother. I've pretty much concluded that my art is never going to buy me so much as one sam'ich. I have to make it for my own reasons.

So most hated art is a complicated thing to identify. I think the hardest thing to look at is a big, blobby student painting in progress. Especially one that you later find out is a poor copy of another that the artist admires.

I did once meet a wildlife artist who hated Kincaid with a passion. I suppose that made sense, he was more of a woodsy realist in his treatment of the subject matter. I'd like to walk into a Kincaid once in a while, but I dunno about putting one on my wall.

But in my experience, I've found artists themselves a lot more annoying than their art. Like Jerry, the pastel artist. Now he was a jerk.