Which famous works of art do you think are reallly just rubbish?

Geez. Most of what Picasso did. He was just nuts!

Ditto Picasso and Pollock. Post modern trash. And everything similar.

Pretty much any modern art and statuary.

Miro

Picasso

Warhol

Mondrian

I really don’t get the big deal about the Mona Lisa. I don’t consider it rubbish though.

Keith Haring (though I don’t know if anybody remembers him, if not then GOOD!)

@MadMadMax Pollock was the first thing to come to mind for me as well. Like ya some of it looks nice but at the end of the day, ya just threw paint at a fuckin canvas. I also can’t stand stuff like this as well. Ohh look ya drew a square, congratulations. Ohhhh a bright red line down a background of solid blue. IT’S SO DEEP AND INSPIRATIONAL !!!
> _< Give me a break.

Warhol.

And frankly, so much of ‘modern art’. I remember visiting MOMA and seeing 3 long sticks tied together in a teepee shape with a dead rabbit on the top – sorry, you’ll never convince me of the artistic value of that.

I’ve always viewed Andy Warhol’s soup can canvases with suspicion. He and Thomas Kinkade impress me more as brilliant marketers than they ever will as artists.

And whose the guy that used to do those crappy sports painting? All pink and abstract. People used to love his stuff and pay big bucks for stuff you should be able to buy in goodwill.

And whose the guy that used to do those crappy sports painting? All pink and abstract.

Leroy Neiman?

^^^^ Well, I have to say, it does take some talent to paint a face everyone would recognize, especially in the middle of that mess.

Yep! That was him Neiman Print

From an artistic standpoint, the “Mona Lisa” represented a new formula both for da Vinci and 16th-century portrait painting. Because the artist used a technique called sfumato, meaning “vanish” or “evaporate,” the subject of the painting, with her glowing skin, appears almost real. Critics agree, the Mona Lisa also conveys a powerful sense of harmony both in her features and against the background, a result of da Vinci’s understanding of anatomy and his ability to calculate perspective mathematically [source: PBS].

He used a method to create the background that was unique but I can’t remember the name of the methodology in order to research it right now.

Often the “art” is in the technique or related to the accomplishment or message at the time or in relationship to the political or social status of the time – not necessarily in the finished art.

Example: I am not a fan of Picasso’s famous work, but when I saw where he started (drawing realistically) and read his thoughts on deconstruction of form and looked at it in relation to other art being produced at the time — I can appreciate his work, even if I never find it attractive. I certainly would never call it “rubbish” as that is dismissive and closed minded.

There are actually several versions of the Mona Lisa. This is my favorite.

There are two authentic versions of the mona lisa I believe. The 2nd is in the Louvre.

http://monalisa.org/2012/08/16/compare-side-by-side/

”
The ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ and the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ situated side-by-side and to scale

Move the slider with your mouse to examine the paintings further. Notice the differences, but be sure to identify the striking similarities. Look carefully at the position of the hands, the fabric of the garment, the embroidery near the bust, and the age of the subject. The portraits are approximately eleven years apart, and interestingly, the woman in the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ appears to be about a decade older. Seize this unique opportunity to explore two of the finest masterpieces in art history!”

Duh, am thinking…am thinking…am thinking…

For me the diamond studded skull by Damien Hirst is pretty trashy.

@stanleybmanly wrote: I’ve always viewed Andy Warhol’s soup can canvases with suspicion. He and Thomas Kinkade impress me more as brilliant marketers than they ever will as artists.
_____________________________________________
Andy Warhol was a commercial artist – his stuff doesn’t bother me. But ThomasvKinkade was a sham and an abusive drunk who painted tacky tacky pastel colored repetitive crap images and sold on the basis his religion. He had the gall to take Rembrandt’s accolade “Painter of Light.” He was horrible and they still call him a ‘realist.” Anyone who thinks that crap is realism needs to get their eyes examined.

But then you can’t judge a painter by his character; there is always Caravaggio.

I have a problem understanding Mark Rothko but I am loathe to label famous art as rubbish just because I don’t respond to it.

@uberbatman I sometimes think that after the impressionists moved away from classical art and became very appreciated, there was this idea that art had to keep changing or it wasn’t art. So it became a vogue – a yearly new style. Ultimately it evolved into crap – literally cans of house paint thrown from five feet away onto a piece of MDF. They needed to prove that classical art was trash and anybody who was very drawn to drawing and painting realistically couldn’t get a show, could not get gallery representation, if they opened their own gallery, they couldn’t get an art review.

An older realist painter who died recently told me that in the 50’s or early 60’s, the Metropolitan Museum of Art agreed to give Andrew Wyeth a showing and most of the curators walked out in protest. The only reason he was able to pull it off is that first of all he was N.C. Wyeth’s son and secondly the family is richer than God. Wyeth Laboratories,
In some ways it’s still happening today and it’s a shame.

None. I am not of the opinion that my subjective response to an artwork is sufficient to determine whether or not anyone else should enjoy it.

Some people will buy a work of art because it’s by a famous artist and it costs a LOT of money and they’ll display it for their “friends,’ and gush over how transcendental it is and talk about how much it costs when, deep inside, they don’t get it either. My sister is like that.

@Dutchess_III Indeed. But that says more about the person than it does about the artwork.

There was a nude “Mona Lisa” found several years ago. Link

Personally this one is my fav.

The Bible? I consider fiction art so it should count.

Francis Bacon’s Lucien Frued tryptich.

Anything by Vito Acconci who was famous for his “piece” involving him laying under a bridge biting himself and masturbating. Nice, huh.

Jackson Pollack, of course.
Those paintings of single colors. All yellow, or all red. Nonsense.

Regarding those who said Picasso: He was a genuine genius. His work is remarkable. He doesn’t deserve such hatred.

Duchamp’s urinal. We learned about dadaism in art school- precious minutes of my life that I will never get back. Making this post is the first time I’ve used that knowledge since then.

In a world where personal opinion often serves to secure a definition, I have absolutely no idea. Picasso kind of sucks, but I don’t find his work to be ’‘rubbish’’. I don’t like it, but it doesn’t make it crap.

I agree most of Picasso’s work are rubbish. His drawings are even worse than mine when I was one year old!
And to add to the list, last year I saw a painting illustrated on a calendar. I completely forget its name and its creator, but all the painting had were hundreds of people who all look exactly alike and look like this guy standing randomly in front of a big “sky” background. Although I don’t remember its name, I do remember that the name was completely irrelevant to what was displayed.
My comment on the painting: “Film noir at its best”.
Can anybody link to the painting I describe? Thanks in advance.

Anyone who dismisses Picasso as rubbish should look at the totality of his oeuvre before dismissing him. Like Dali, he was a brilliant technician who chose to evolve in certain ways after mastering the form. Just because one doesn’t care for an artist or appreciate his work, doesn’t make it garbage.

^^ Exactly.

@janbb @cookieman Maybe some day I will come to appreciate Picasso. But right now I think I’m too young for his kind of art.

@Mimishu1995 That’s a much more reasonable statement.

@Mimishu1995: You don’t ever have to enjoy his art if it’s not your taste however, if you take the time to learn about his progression as an artist and the choices he made, you can at least appreciate where it all comes from.

Frankly, this approach is a good one when applied to all sorts of things that are produced. Art, music, food, writing, etc.

If you do this, you can say, “I don’t care for such-and-such because of X,Y, and Z” as opposed to, “I think that is rubbish”.

@cookieman I have already stated that to me his art looks worse than mine when I was one year old. But oh well, I think I need to choose my words more carefully next time.

@janbb Just because one doesn’t care for an artist or appreciate his work, doesn’t make it garbage.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I said, yeah.

@Symbeline My comment wasn’t in reaction to yours at all.

“It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry ‘I could have thought of that’ is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn’t, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too.”
—Douglas Adams

@SavoirFaire Haha nice. Never thought of that, seewut ah did thar but makes sense.

Not related to people who say they knew that something was going to happen, but they only say this after it did. Still, made me think of that.

I don’t think any of it is rubbish. I might not like much of it, but that is besides the point.

Is art appreciation in some way related to the technical ability required to generate the art? If so, then we could theoretically write a program to analyze art and develop ratings. It would take the whole subjective experience out of it completely.

Whether or not a piece of art resonates with me is in no way related to the skill required to create that art.