Post your funny pictures here!!! part Deux

[drunkenshoe]

If he was 5 years old, then his 'art' would be decent.

LOL, are you serious?

[Mike Cl]

LOL, are you serious?

Yep.

[drunkenshoe]

Ooof, Mike. I understand the matter of taste. But when you start to suggest what art is or isn't with the worst cliché, you get into Baruch territory. The last person I had this conversation was pr128.

[Mike Cl]

Ooof, Mike. I understand the matter of taste. But when you start to suggest what art is or isn't with the worst cliché, you get into Baruch territory. The last person I had this conversation was pr128.

None of what I said was meant to apply or appeal to anyone but me.  Art, like beauty, is a personal thing.  What you may consider art I may consider trash.  I realize that.  Same with food--that is the best stuff I have ever tasted!!--and I spit it out.  And visa versa.  When in an art museum, (like the Smithsonian or Louvre--yes, I've been to both), I may tell someone that I really love or hate a piece, but I do not put anyone down for what they like or don't like.  There is no explaining 'taste' in anything;  I can't even tell you why I have whatever taste I do have.  I simply do not like anything I've seen Picasso do that I like.  You may love all of it, and that is okay with me.

[Hydra009]

There is some logic to it - a trash bin wouldn't be mistaken for art (probably).  So there's a very fuzzy boundary between art and non-art.  And like food, I delight in some stuff that others might turn their nose down on, and then there's stuff that's hugely popular that I can't for the life of me understand the appeal.  Like chipmunk stuffed in quail stuffed in bengal tiger smothered in organic catsup bizarre.

[Mike Cl]

Who would have thought a can of Campbell's soup would be art?  Better know that if I had it, it would be sold! :)

[Blackleaf]

[Dark Lightning]

^Sickening, but true. I simply amazes me that people would vote against their own best interests.

[Dark Lightning]

There is some logic to it - a trash bin wouldn't be mistaken for art (probably).  So there's a very fuzzy boundary between art and non-art.  And like food, I delight in some stuff that others might turn their nose down on, and then there's stuff that's hugely popular that I can't for the life of me understand the appeal.  Like chipmunk stuffed in quail stuffed in bengal tiger smothered in organic catsup bizarre.

IK,R? Catsup? WTF? :P

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LOL, are you serious?

Pollock is bollocks. He's a parody of an artist.

[drunkenshoe]

Art has very little to do with individual tastes or opinions. I didn't react because I 'love' Picasso, and 'oh my god how much art' it is. It's part of art history, and a huge net of culture, not what we call art today. I react to this because it is willfully ignorant and dumb to look at this -please note that it's 'this', not 'his'- as '5 year old's painting'. In any case, it's a good or a bad show -depends on how you look at it- about lack of historical perspective. Anyway, It's not about liking Picasso or Warhol. (Gawd, it is two places worlds away.) Cubism is about industrial revolution, abstract thought, unprecedented change in that time it affected everything from literature to music. Abstract thought. Are you aware what is about to arrive? Hint, his first name is Albert. Or 50 years later, in case of the famous soup can, it is about mass production and consumerism, even 'art's death'. Esp. the soup can is a bit like the pigeon and the board thing of the artworld.

Yeah, it looks like a world of its own, and I get that we take ourselves too seriously, think we are free from and above all that bullshit, but unfortunately we are not. Because the world; history, culture...do not work the way altright morons of the world think it does. Humanities, social sciences are not some pile of nonsense blah blah and blah blah we should remove. If we could do that, it would be the man in the high castle over a night.

So yeah, it is willfully ignorant to call Picasso's work '3 year old child's work' (putting the original version). And also it is not an expression of an opinion or a taste, it is a learned line because Picasso himself has said that it took blah years for him to learn to paint/draw like a 3 year old. Because he is perfectly able to draw or paint in traditional terms, or like 'artists'. Don't remember the details how/when/why he said that. He didn't talk much. But the point is, it is a learned reaction. And please remember there has been tons of negative propaganda about this man in for a long time in the states. Is that wrong? Because it always feels like there is a special case with him.

Rockwell on the other hand, just learned to illustrate, but they called him an artist out of charity.

[drunkenshoe]

There is some logic to it - a trash bin wouldn't be mistaken for art (probably).  So there's a very fuzzy boundary between art and non-art.  And like food, I delight in some stuff that others might turn their nose down on, and then there's stuff that's hugely popular that I can't for the life of me understand the appeal.  Like chipmunk stuffed in quail stuffed in bengal tiger smothered in organic catsup bizarre.

I don't know about the food, but you'd make a decent art connoisseur. I swear, I'm saying that lovingly.

[Hydra009]

I could, but I think I'd have to dial up my arrogance and elitism to hitherto undreamt of levels, like that art critic in Candyman.  :P

But in seriousness, here's the kind of art I go for:
1) realistic/semi-relatistic human anatomy (at least somewhat naturalistic, though I can make exceptions for especially vivid works)
2) colors!
3) conveys an emotion

That's what I'm looking for.  That's why I like Mona Lisa and Starry Night and The Scream and that's why I don't like almost anything Picasso has put out.  Because I have no clue what he's going for, so whatever he was trying to convey is lost on me.  Like speaking Chinese, I'm sure someone understands, but it ain't me.  Yes, he's a part of history.  But everything's a part of history.  So that alone doesn't mean much to me.

[Mike Cl]

Shoe, I understand you love history, as do I, but your interest is probably more diverse than my interest in it.  As Hydra says, everything is history.  And art is a very important segment of world history even before there was 'history'.  Art is an important part of a societies or groups zeitgeist--and an individual's thoughts and his/her self expression.  But when you say: "Art has very little to do with individual tastes or opinions." I disagree.  As an art and art history critic, I fully understand why you would say that.  But, yes, I am fully aware of my willful ignorance in the area of art history; and I don't expect I will do anything about it, either.  At my age I focus on what interests me (I am willfully ignorant of much much more than just art but I will not remedy that except in a few small areas.)  I am not an art critic nor act like one even among friends.  I love art, but I love a piece, hate a piece or most often fall in the middle.  In Picasso's case, a few I hate and the rest is simply 'art', and don't feel strongly one way or the other.  It is obvious that he was an important artist but I don't care enough to dig into his history or where he fits into the puzzle of art history.  My love of art is intensely personal in that I know what I like or dislike and I can often explain to myself why.  Two of my most pleasurable days was spent in the Smithsonian art gallery and the Louvre.  I appreciated all the art  (not just the paintings), hated some and loved some.  For me art is what rings a bell in me and is very much like 'fine' wine or food.  My wife is an excellent cook and enjoys using spices and combo's of spices, many of which I've not heard of.  I enjoy her cooking--but sometimes I simply want a bowl of beans and I'll add the salt myself.   

[drunkenshoe]

I could, but I think I'd have to dial up my arrogance and elitism to hitherto undreamt of levels, like that art critic in Candyman.  :P

Nah, you could be a rebellious one. :P For a moment I put you in France. Gawd. You'd be out in some protest weekly.

But in seriousness, here's the kind of art I go for:
1) realistic/semi-relatistic human anatomy (at least somewhat naturalistic, though I can make exceptions for especially vivid works)
2) colors!
3) conveys an emotion

That's what I'm looking for.  That's why I like Mona Lisa and Starry Night and The Scream and that's why I don't like almost anything Picasso has put out.  Because I have no clue what he's going for, so whatever he was trying to convey is lost on me.  Like speaking Chinese, I'm sure someone understands, but it ain't me.  Yes, he's a part of history.  But everything's a part of history.  So that alone doesn't mean much to me.

When I said history, I didn't mean something that general, lol. Yeah I get it. But trust me it is not that alien, nowhere near difficult (I know you didn't think you think that way) and don't be surprised if you like it when you are sixty. :D It's pretty enjoyable.