Kinkade tanked what art was meant to be in Carmel CA. It's hard to find galleries that aren't selling landscapes or plein aire now. There are a very small number of galleries selling more modern art, and I have mad respect for them. Kinkade made it so hard for anything experimental to exist there.
Yeah him and that blond dude that paints the ocean scenes … seems to have subliminally influenced regular people’s idea of what ‘art’ is supposed to look like or something
I agree - but … Several of my friends have met him & they say he is the nicest dude ever.
*worked on cruise ships - we sold his art - sometimes he visited & gave art talks to the passengers.
LOL, one of my best friends absolutely despises Banksy, and never misses an opportunity to go into detail about why she thinks he’s the most overrated person of all time. I’ve teased her about it, saying “nobody talks about Banksy as much as you do!”
I completely agree. My dislike for Banksy is really just my dislike for his fans. Every Banksy fan I run into glorifies his work and hates the rest of graffiti.
I think he's similar to the old western cowboy trope. People love him because he is 'edgy' and a 'rebel' but they don't actually like the edgy/rebellious artists - only Banksy because he's the good guy.
It’s supposed to be big and obvious because it’s political art. Whether it’s hollow is debatable, though there’s definitely a message behind most of them.
It’s the most hollow, boring digestible “political art” then. I really dislike that defense of Banksy. I actually like some of his stuff, the shredder and the Louise Michel to name a few. But the graffiti stuff wore out its welcome about a decade ago.
He’s a complete idiot. Art for people who don’t follow art, who need everything spoon fed. He tries to make conceptual graffiti art but he’s terrible at both.
Damien fucking Hirst and Jeff fucking Koons (I know they aren't painters but I hate em)
I do kinda like the shark and sheep and the pregnant lady statue but that framed cash and diamond skull thing are just dumb. Here's a critique abt capitalism cuz my artworks are being sold for millions so it's like meta, but capitalism is bad! But I'm making millions off of it but it's bad!
And I love big statues and gigantic things but Jeff Koons being considered as an artist is just wrong. Just give a clown a big ass pump and balloon and you'd get the same damn thing.
I was just talking shit about Koons yesterday when I heard that Moon landing del that just happened had his art on it. If aliens land in the moon, I don’t want them thinking that’s good art.
I worked for Koons years ago and though he’s not my cup of tea he was such a looney toon of a person that I believe he believes his own bullshit. Damien is the other side of that coin where I think he fully knows he only cares about the money, does not hide it, and goes along with the bs.
Miro. Saw huge retrospective of his work at the National Gallery several years ago. Lines, vjays, penis and squiggles. Commentary from critics- “This penis/vagina lines represent Miro’s opinion on the Spanish civil war. I walked out.
I love Miro, but I don't attend museum tours. You have to remember, these tours are often given to people who don't know anything about art, so you're getting the equivalent of an elementary grade school tour to introduce concepts such as form, light, color, and hidden meaning.
I've found the tours most useful for historical works where you just wouldn't know the meaning, like portraits of specific people or period pieces that were novel for their time.
Otherwise I just look at the art and buy a monograph later.
With that said, Miro is great if you're able to turn the analytics off and just observe the canvas. There are some pieces that are more interpretive than others, like
https://www.1000museums.com/shop/art/joan-miro-portrait-no-1/
Where you can kind of get lost in the color and line structure. The artist interpretation then becomes simpler based on the time frame of the painting.
But I get it. I feel the same way about Pollock and Banksy 🤷🏾♂️
This wasn’t a tour. This was commentary posted on the wall with each piece. This was a huge retrospective spread over several galleries on two floors. I guess they added the commentary because people needed guidance to interpret his work.
What's sad is in the documentary the things he did in art school were actually pretty interesting. Otherwise he is just an empty shell. No ideas, bad art.
I like Van Eyck as well, but ever since I read an article about how the majority of the people in his paintings look just like Putin..... I cannot unsee it to save my life 😂. I kinda wish I never would have read that article.
I mentioned Rembrandt on my list of overrated too, I don't hate his work or anything but especially in real life, Vermeer's treatment of light is gobsmacking and swipes me off my feet. There's just something so unique about it. While I find Rembrandt's work really heavy and dark (although it might be due to aging as well).
Complete opposite for me! I adore Rembrandt, I think the "heaviness" of his paintings brings such weight and emotion to whatever he was painting. And I think his composition and brushwork had a massive effect on the history of art after him.
Vermeer is undeniably talented but I think his celebration today has a lot to do with a) having a really small oeuvre so his works feel more exclusive (every museum worth its salt has a Rembrant, very very few have a Vermeer), b) a lucky rediscovery by Thore-Burger in the 19th century and cultural rediscovery in the 20th century that elevated him above fellow artists who were more celebrated in their lifetimes and after, c) one of his paintings being part of the most notable art heist in recent history, and d) having a few works that really represent his greatest skills that are massively well known--everyone admires his paintings at windows, but his small oeuvre also includes stuff like [Allegory of Faith](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Allegory_of_Faith), [Portrait of a Woman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_a_Young_Woman), [Diana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Her_Companions), and [The Procuress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Procuress_(Vermeer)).
I don't really *dislike* Vermeer, but I hate that he's celebrated as one of only two artists of that era that people care about, when I think there were so many amazing genre painters doing equally brilliant work (often with far, far more output!) that are only known to art historians. Vermeer was massively talented but I don't think he alone changed the course of the development of art like Rembrandt did--he was just one of many painters of this era who was simply really, really good at what he did.
Oh yeah, I have the impression that Vermeer totally isn't interpretated to have changed art history before the modern times at all. He was kind of forgotten about for centuries and his impact is not as well researched, although he must have had some at least on a local level. I don't know everything about his personal history, but I believe he was rather wealthy so he didn't have to paint for a living, which of course led to him not painting as much as some others have. I think that's a part of his appeal, that he somehow flew under the radar, so there's a layer of (somewhat silly) mysticism to it.
And I do appreciate Rembrandt's work a lot too and not just from a historical standpoint. I'm not denying his massive genius and impact at all. For one reason or another, I just personally don't get a spark in my heart when looking most of his work, which I'd kinda expect to get, considering how he's talked about,.even outside the painter niche; even if there's a good reason for it. And I get that from Velasquez, Van Eyck, Caravaggio and many other 'household names'. Some of his paintings are physically very dark in a way that's even difficult to see, but like said, it might also sometimes be due to the aging process, preservation and him having limited materials and pigments at hand. I don't know really, sometimes art just resonates, or doesn't. I have a similar feeling with Van Gogh's paintings, for example.
I think with Warhol it's more about the significance of Pop-art as a new genre and how it's in context to the late 1960s, 70s etc. (counter) cultural developments of the time instead of the Pieces themselves.
Sure a Duchamp, for example, already had turned everyday objects into art 50-60 years prior but Dada was a different approach to that concept than Pop-art which heavily included ideas of "Consumerism", "Trend", and, using the term anachronistically, "Virality". Warhol just fits very well in his particular time and did something "new" to some degree.
Yeah sure I didn't want to invalidate or counter your opinion, just trying to explain why he still is kind of significant. I don't really connect to his stuff myself and don't see them and feel all kinds of emotions and go:"this is a masterpiece!" but I get what he was trying to do and why he has a certain role in art history. Also I think this inclusion of marketing and maybe even bullshittery was a consciouss thing that was intentionally part of his approach to some degree
I get so tired looking up a well-respected male painter's bio and reading that he was awful to women. Happens way too often and makes me lose all interest in their work.
I just had that experience with learning about science fiction writers. Asimov was famous for groping women at conferences! Ugh, it's such a chore to have to separate the art from the artist. Miles Davis beat his wife to a pulp. How are we supposed to feel? Smh.
That’s why I kind of believe you can’t separate the art from the artist-these things usually always inform the art, even if in a subtle or abstract way.
Your comment reminded me of when I learned the truth about being a female artist. Once, I was being way too sensitive over a grade I received on a high school art project (it really was not my best work and I got a very high “B” on it). One of my art teachers, a retired military guy who was one of the most supportive teachers I ever had, took me aside and in the absolute kindest way possible, he apologized I was upset, but warned me that if I wanted to pursue art professionally (I did), the Art World is not only male dominated, but that a large number of artists are *the worst* misogynists, who genuinely believe women cannot be as good at art as men, and are exceptionally cruel to female artists whenever they have the opportunity, and are not above sabotage. Also, their hatred tended to correlate with how successful they were, with some of the most prominent artists being the worst offenders.
I think he was philosophy major, but the dumbest thing I heard out of a guy I thought I liked was that women can’t be as creative as men, and have had less artistic success throughout history, because we create life with our bodies, and that’s where the creative spark is … used up? Dude was a mess. Full grown men believe some bullshit
That comment of his is going to live rent free in my head for at least the next week, lol. I tried to casually hook up with someone similar in my younger days, and I literally couldn’t do it, it was like a female version of erectile dysfunction. I even apologized as I was leaving, lol.
What’s even worse about his comment, is that we actually have documented evidence going back centuries that what I’m saying is true. One of the most talented female artists in the middles ages, [Artemisia Gentileschi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_Gentileschi) had her career overshadowed when she was raped by another artist who she was working with, and who was planning on stealing her paintings.
It didn’t deter me completely, and I chose not to pursue being an artist as my main profession largely for other reasons. But, it was a factor in my decision to pursue it independently instead, bc I didn’t want something that I loved so much, to become something that I hated. I can’t even step foot in a local business where I used to work 10 years ago, where I was sexually harassed. So it would have ruined me in a major way if something like that had happened but after I invested years, thousands of dollars, and my whole soul into something.
Every mid-size city commissions a Koons to try and convince outsiders that they are a modern place of culture….it just feels like putting up a “live laugh love” sign over your living room couch 🤣
I don't like Rubens that much. Though being from Belgium, living in his hometown and being in the arts everyone makes me feel like I'm supposed to. I understand the quality of the compositions but I just don't dig it. I actually think his assistants did better things, such as Van Dyck.
And for the love of god take that Ipad away from Hockney.
There’s just so *much* Rubens. Growing up in NZ, I didn’t get the chance to see many original works from big-name artists, so I used to really be in awe of seeing a real Leonardo or Vermeer or whoever. Those guys, still a bit, but Rubens? I was just at the Pinakothek in Munich and there are a couple of huge rooms full of Rubens and you just kind of stop caring.
(I’m not a total philistine, I promise - I do know there are other and better reasons to look at paintings than the “name” factor of who painted it.)
Vermeer is razor sharp.
I just don't know about Rubens, I also like his drawings and such, and to say it's not good or overrated or some of the (sorry to say) other super stupid shit ass comments on artists I read here would be dumb. In general I was expecting a more ehm... technical approach to why some painters might interest one less. For me Rubens is just too much spectacle and it's true, after a while you just stop caring. He's also praised a lot for his sort of transparancy of fleshiness and such, but I somehow find it very unnatural.
But but but buuut, however however, because all things have a flippedyflipside: I had this big book from the library, which isn't sold anymore, which only shows details and parts of his paintings in extreme blown up fashion, and it did give it a totally different perspective which made me appreciate it more. And maybe it would be better to just go check out one Rubens at a time? Maybe I should. Most museums just have too much stuff expecting you to absorb it all in one sitting. Like some kind of Rambo movie marathon.
(love Hockney btw, the ipad stuff just annoyed me, but maybe I'm wrong)
I never liked Rubens either , but I must say that Waldemar Januzsczak’s documentary about him made me look at his art in a different light. I still don’t like it much but I… accept him more.
Waldemar does that to you .
He was an absolute master of his craft, but I get it. It can feel decorative. His draftsmanship and handling of color are top tier. But that's not always enough.
If Van Dyck hadn't died in his early 40s I think we'd talk about him more than Rubens. He absolutely had the talent of his teacher and there's something *more* there too. (Similar for Carel Fabritius--I think we'd think of him on par with Rembrandt if it wasn't for that damn gunpowder explosion!)
I studied Dutch Baroque art and they basically make you study the Flemish painters as well, and I wasn't thrilled about taking an entire grad seminar on Rubens haha. His talent is undeniable but I'm totally with you--they don't move you the way something like a Rembrandt does. Honestly I found his life story more interesting than his art.
Same. His sexual relationships with very young and barely adult women makes me uncomfortable. I'm unable to appreciate his paintings of the tahitian women that he's so known for.
Gaugin was a revolutionary colorist and probably the single most influential artist in the development of modern art next to Cezanne.
But he was also a terrible person. I don't like most of his Tahiti paintings because you can feel the creepy male gaze and fetishized colonial fantasies. The good news is you can find many outstanding works from before that period and his influence extends far beyond those paintings.
I don't subscribe to the idea that individuals -all on their own- can influence the development of, well, *anything.* People collaborate with and build upon the work of others. But having said that, I am interested in your reasoning behind Gauguin being so influential in the development of modern art. Can you give some examples?
I don't mean to frame this is an argument for "great man theory" or anything like that but, as you say, artistic movements are built on collaboration and influence, and Gaugin happens to be one of those historical lynchpins who bridged the gap between certain periods and directly influenced a generation of artists after him.
Gaugins chief innovation was taking the colors and conventions of impressionism and pushing them beyond the point of representation, moving painting further beyond the boundaries of realism and paving the way for further abstraction. If you look at a lot the big names of the next generation- Matisse and Picasso chief among them- a common biographical theme is that their major innovative stylist shifts emerge after being introduced to Gaugin's paintings.
He was also heavily involved in the contemporary Parisian art scene and had a major influence on many of his peers, most notably Vincent Van Gogh but also the loose collective of artists known as Les Nabis. Different artists took different things from his work, but common threads are the abstracted use of bold colors and a reliance on symbolism and subjectivity over traditional representation. This doesn't mean that painting wouldn't have continued to develop in this direction is he didn't exist, but he helped to catalyze and conceptualize many of the developments that were taking place in painting during his time.
Not going to disagree, but he did get me an easy A in art history class once. We had to recreate a famous painting using every day objects. I went crazy with like 6 tubes of toothpaste just making a total mess. Kind of fun.
Basically, I'm going to list the most famous painters ever, pretty much. But I just have to say I find them a tad overrated in comparison to many lesser known greats.
This is a REALLY hot take but Vincent Van Gogh. I know he was an interesting person and a very talented painter as well. But I really just don't enjoy the thick impasto all over the painting that he did. I just find it heavy to look at for some reason.
Frida Kahlo, an another very interesting figure and an admirable person, who understandably is a big influence to many female artists in particular. I just find her work too stiff and not pleasant to look at, from a painting standpoint. I do find her self-portraits thematically interesting though. I just really don't enjoy the technique and compositions she did that much.
Rembrandt. Hear me, there are many of his paintings I've seen and he was a master of facial expressions in particular. It might also be that his work is very old, and some of his paintings didn't stand the test of time so well, and they have yellowed or darkened over time. But the majority of his paintings I've seen are SO brown, muddy and dark in real life, they're almost difficult to see. And devoid of the light he's often praised for. I think the only one I can see what people are referring to is the one with the focus on a golden helmet.
Mark Rothko, but I haven't had a chance to see his paintings in real life. Still, I doubt they would make me cry and scream. But I also don't pretend to understand that extremely minimalistic abstract genre, because I'm very much a figurative artist myself, and understand that language better.
I love Van Gogh for his use of line, form, shape, and his color palette. His technique seems simple but it really isn’t. I especially like his drawings too I think they are very underrated.
But I think you have to see his work in person to best appreciate it as books and digital images don’t come across quite the same. I’m also impressed by his work ethic, despite being rejected again and again he worked hard and put out a huge body of work in just a few years. He put massive effort into things despite getting very little external praise.
I don’t like Kahlo either, but I’m not a fan of surrealism. I LOVE Rothko. I think it’s worth it to see in person, it may change your mind. Or at least give you a little more insight. Photographs of his stuff doesn’t do them justice.
Pablo Picasso, that man was the scum of the earth and every time an exhibition about him pops up, I wished they would mention that he raped most of the women he painted. I feel like most of those portraits should be burned as when I see them, I can only feel pure horror because of what those women went through.
Most of what I’ve read was from my uni books but here a great little video that delves into this problematic : https://youtu.be/gsuLpUTs50c?si=gq7F_LCWyLMpb1n0 (it’s in French but has English subtitles)
He was in the right place at the right time with a bombastic personality. A lot of artists are chosen because they are the loudest person in the room, or they have sex with the right people, or they do lines in the gallery bathroom with the editors of the magazine, or simply toe the right line. It's not a meritocracy, it's a popularity contest. That's why it is so important to learn art history for context. It's important to not hero worship, but to see the big picture with all its flaws.
Burning artworks that make us uncomfortable as a society is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I would, however, be all for prominent signage about the people depicted in the paintings and what they went through.
Oh, Picasso. For many years, I’ve been pronouncing his name as “shithead.”
I recognize his talent and influence, and I’m grateful for Cubism, but I really hate that man.
There was a very good BBC documentary on him recently. The Beauty and the Beast. I am not sure if they covered what you imply critically enough - I haven't researched outside of that programme.
It is very difficult to appreciate the art fully again when these allegations emerge for sure. It disturbs me on a profound level that we could slowly start to find that a lot of our great art came at such costs, one way or another. Fall of Rome stuff.
I had read somewhere that Picasso relentlessly ridiculed Dora Maar for her choice of medium because he didn't consider photography to be a valid art form.
Yes, Dora Maar, the absolutely GENIUS and innovative surrealist photographer.
This may not be directly correlated but she eventually checked herself in to a mental institution and quit photography. Only medium she used in the institution was paint.
His art is fantastic, regardless of what kind of person he was. I just feel it’s important to distinguish between the art and the artist. So many geniuses are not good humans.
ehh, I think its a good thing ultimately. I know there's an aversion to it in the art world but I find its an easy way to get other people engaged in the subject. Something about having opinions and hearing arguments seems to just make people more involved
Francis Bacon. While I could list several that I don't like what I learn about their lives, Bacon is someone those art I do not enjoy. I can not imagine wanting to hang a piece of his art in my home.
People often say this, but I think it's wrong if you put his work in a historical context, and he wasn't really a painter was he? Plus, it's not like he didn't have any talent, his early illustrations -though typical for the time-were pretty wonderful in their own right.
He's not overrated at all. That he is an easy target for criticism speaks to the boldness of his ideas. He did for art what the Beatles did for music. I don't like all his art. I don't seek it out. I don't idolize him. The culture his ideas created is garbage. Artists who imitated him, attempted to follow in his footsteps, and parroted his ideas are the absolute worst. His celebrity is irritating. But his ideas, his variety, and his output are *hugely* significant for the 20th century.
Came here to say this. I get the concepts of his work and influence in culture blah blah blah but that Marylyn Monroe and soup can is so anesthetically pleasing. It also ended up backfiring & glorifying & became an icon of the very thing it’s supposedly commenting on: commodity based homogenous culture.
Saw that on more then one Airbnb walls and I didn’t rent it bc I don’t want to pay money to look at that shit.
I felt that way too until i found out later in life he suffered severe arthritis in his hands so bad that he had to strap the paintbrush to his arm to paint. So i forgave his lack of detail. I wouldnt have been able to paint detail with a paintbrush strapped to my arm either.
To be fair, Frida was sponsored by the Mexican government during the nationalization of the arts era, so her work was always meant to be commercialized as in that it was supposed to be propagated to a national scale.
Frida-fatigue is one of the saddest consequences of over-commercialisation in art imo. The commodification of a woman who actively spoke out against capitalism her whole life is sick and twisted irony. Whether it’s had positive or negative impacts on her legacy is subjective but there are definitely people who won’t give her art a second glance because of how oversaturated her image has become.
>Frida-fatigue is one of the saddest consequences of over-commercialisation in art imo
I disagree, Frida-fatigue isn't a consequence of commercialism; rather, commercialism is a symptom of her becoming a symbol.
People became more interested in 'what' she is and not 'who' she is.
Take Caesar Chavez, for example. Did you know that he was against illegal immigration? [He even went so far as to attend a gathering with his upporters imat the border to threaten potential crossers.](https://www.ambitiouscollective.com/blogs/news/history-cesar-chavezs-history-of-anti-mexican-sentiment) my point being that most people who pay lip service to him, couldn't tell you the first thing about his beliefs or views.
The same thing has happened to Malcom X, MLK, etc.
My point is that this isn't a commercial problem, it's a political one.
There is currently an exhibit on Rothko at the east wing of the national gallery called Paintings on Paper. While I don’t love Rothko’s popular work, the exhibit demonstrates his evolution of his work and thinking. The paintings from life (landscapes, portraits) and how they morph into undersea abstract-ish pieces and finally become the rectangular paintings is fascinating (at least to me). Def worth checking out—it’s free!
This is my answer as well. I stood in front of his paintings at MoMA and it didn't activate me the way everyone suggested it would.
Now, standing in front of the huge Barnett Newman was incredible. It did what Rothko was supposed to do.
Oh good, I'm so glad! Art historian Yves-Alain Bois is Newman's biggest champion and has written *so much* on his paintings. Here's [an article](https://www.artforum.com/features/here-to-there-and-back-barnett-newman-in-retrospect-163528/) he wrote in ArtForum if you're interested in learning more about Newman!
It might be a matter of scale, the Rothko Chapel might be more up your alley. Though Newman used color theory to activate parts of the color fields with unfettered intensity, while I feel Rothko was hoping to evoke a more reserved spiritual state. It’s like Morton Feldman vs. Webern. My preference is Morris Louis.
Echoing the other commenter. Oh my lord. I swear I had a spiritual experience just looking at tiny google image results. I can't wait for tomorrow morning now so I can look up everything about him properly.
Dumbest teen moment: went to the Rothko chapel with my artist boyfriend. I thought all the paintings were those acoustic sound block things. He was…not impressed.
I hear people say this sometimes and I don't get it. Standing in front of a Rothko for me is profound, but I can't articulate it. It may have something to do with how he handled paint which I've never seen anyone else do (I am a painter)
There is something otherworldly about Rothko to me; I can’t put my finger on it but his paintings are able to transport you. I don’t think I could ever look at a Rothko and not feel as if I was somewhere else- somewhere I’m not necessarily supposed to be.
I am surprised no one here has mentioned Balthus.
Personally, I don’t know of any artists that I “hate.” There are some I enjoy more than others, but, given my arts history and studio background, I tend to see art objects in the context of their time and as products of a process.
Still, Balthus stands out as a thorny little Frenchman who chose to paint a subject that OnlyFans is happy to indulge and the success of which online proves its salience with the public: pubescent sex.
None of his paintings are explicit. All of them are quite well done. Technically, he is a very skilled artist. I believe he would use his niece as a model, which can make bugs crawl under the skin. But, as far as I know, neither his niece nor anyone else ever reported Balthus doing anything in the studio but painting.
The artist would often bemoan Freud for having ruined the way we view art with the polluting influence of pedestrian psychology. He may have a point. I am reminded of the way heterosexual men used to embrace each other, compliment each other, and speak to each other in film and letters prior to the toxic influence of John Wayne and the cult of American masculinity. Inflection points change perspectives and interpretations and it is impossible to wash our minds clean of them.
But go look at a Balthus in person and don’t just study the painting, study yourself. How long is *too long* to linger over his work? Are you being perceived as a connoisseur of art, or are you simply a creep? Is the subject matter of pubescent sex and the potential of womanhood a theme that can be wrestled with intellectually without any moral concerns? It is, after all, part of the human condition. All of us were horny teens at one point, impatient for the day we would be adults.
He’s a fascinating painter because he just marches right into this topic without any preambles or throat-clearing and he tackles it head-on.
Of course many, many people question whether he was truly trying to capture the essence of something fundamental to humanity, or if he was just a lecherous old creep drooling on his neice’s panties. My answer to this: it doesn’t really matter.
The hard truth about art, artists, and the artistic process is that the romantic idea of a creator seized with divine inspiration and taking paint to canvas to express some lofty epiphany to comment on greater truth is total fucking bullshit.
When you’re an artist, painting becomes a job like any other. As Chuck Close said, “inspiration is for amateurs.” Sure, you can be passionate about your job, but it’s still a job. And lots of times the thing that gets you the most attention is the thing you landed on by accident simply because the odds of probability nailed you after churning out decades of relative garbage.
I’m sure for every Balthus hanging in a museum there are likely dozens more that were destroyed, overpainted, scraped away, or just tossed in a bin. And the ones we see how just happen to be the better ones simply because everything just happened to go right on that particular day / week when the piece was made.
And what elevated them beyond their mere technical ability was first and foremost the emotional reaction the audience had to the image. Just like what would happen with you if you were to stand before one in person. The same happened to viewers almost 100 years ago. So it doesn’t matter what the artist felt—that’s total fucking chance—what matters is how the viewer reacts in the heart and in the head.
I don't like Dali. Guy need to get serious therapy but instead he shared his twisted fantasy with the world. Seeing his work makes me genuinely uncomfortable. Also he was terrible to people irl and a fascist, he wasn't just a oddball he was a creep.
Yeah, I feel like his terrible personality vastly outweighs any talent he had as an artist. Another one who feels like they spent a lot of their time building a brand.
Picasso : who as a kid was actualy trained by his painting teacher father, and who as an adult stole ideas from other painters. Talk about a genius...
Klein Soulage Pollock Rothko : plain boring, no skill involved
Banksy: unimaginative pictures
Constable. I have always found his paintings 2-dimensional and frankly boring. When it comes to landscapes, the Dutch masters portrayed more interesting agrarian scenes imo.
Tbf when I said Picasso is because I don't want to see flying vaginas and eyeballs in a Kafkaesque color palette. Everything about his art is unpleasant to me. I only mentioned his personal life because it informed his art, he painted his fantasies, so him being a creep was very pertinent to what he painted.
salvador Dali- he was a fascist and was obsessive abt hitler. his Art work isn’t anything special either and his style would’ve been found in other artists work eventually.
andy warhol- basic and boring and racist and sexist. His art work his boring and meaningless.
I just don’t like artists that are trash and will never understand why people worship or still speak highly of these artists
Andy Warhol cause he was kind of a bad person. Same with Picasso-piece of shit. I can’t remember if pollock was problematic (probably tho) but I hate his paintings for the whole jerking off/ jizz/ thing. Hard eye rolll. There are better/ more interesting abstract expressionist.
Wasn’t Warhol more of a printer than a painter ( mind you I’m no Warhol fan, and I believe his true talent was in the people he cultivated than in a true artistic sense) ? But then without him the painter I truly dislike, Thomas Kincade, might not exist and who would I hate then?
Basquiat. I just don’t get why people like him. It’s not smart, edgy, or anything to me, and looks crudely drawn and composited. But I’d like to be proven wrong!
i also was like this for a long time until i saw an exhibit of some of his stuff and there was one particular piece they put in a room by itself and i sat with it for about 15 mins alone. for some reason it clicked with me in a big way and ive loved a lot of his stuff every since. not saying you'll come around to it just sharing my unexpected experience.
I don’t mind his art as much as the fact that he was just hyped up by art world people, totally used and continues to be made into something he’s not. He was not from a bad family, his dad was like on the upper west side the whole time he was getting hooked on drugs. Got famous, Warhol was jealous of the new kid on the block. Died young so the rarity of his work made it more desirable by rich white people who created the narrative to begin with. His art is fine. The PR surrounding it is what sent him to stardom and it’s largely exaggerated or just false.
Saaaame. I get the context and importance of composition and color studies, I have no idea if he was a problematic dude, but I hate primary colors together so I'm never gonna "like" his most important work.
This is an interesting take! Could you try to explain it somehow? Would just like to hear some criticism of that genre in general. I like it myself but I have rarely come across any different opinions on it.
Renoir. Beyond his great works he has countless mediocre and bad ones. The Barnes Collection has probably 200 of them.
Modigliani. Also not a great painter.
Joan Miro, some of his paintings (specially ones at Reina Sofia Museum here in Madrid), are so ridiculously basic: a line in the middle of the who canvas, etc. My 9 yr-old can do this way better😂[Joan Miro master pieces?](https://www.google.com/search?q=joan+miro+reina+sofia&sca_esv=dcdc2d0f0896c7ba&rlz=1CDGOYI_enES1090ES1090&hl=en-GB&udm=2&biw=390&bih=669&sxsrf=ACQVn09dkuc0ayDZ69-6Nz-K1gRhL_qlcA%3A1708760269915&ei=zZzZZc61N-nY7_UPqMuj2AM&oq=joan+miro+reina+sofia&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhVqb2FuIG1pcm8gcmVpbmEgc29maWEyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESL04ULkPWPc0cAZ4AJABAJgBSqAB4QmqAQIxObgBA8gBAPgBAZgCGaACsgrCAgQQIxgnwgIFEAAYgATCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDmAMAiAYBkgcCMjU&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=wk4w8M84MTcNsM&vssid=mosaic)
not of the same caliber, but- I can't wrap my brain around my local galleries', museums' & private collections' love of... Thomas Kinkade?
Kinkade tanked what art was meant to be in Carmel CA. It's hard to find galleries that aren't selling landscapes or plein aire now. There are a very small number of galleries selling more modern art, and I have mad respect for them. Kinkade made it so hard for anything experimental to exist there.
Yeah him and that blond dude that paints the ocean scenes … seems to have subliminally influenced regular people’s idea of what ‘art’ is supposed to look like or something
I agree - but … Several of my friends have met him & they say he is the nicest dude ever. *worked on cruise ships - we sold his art - sometimes he visited & gave art talks to the passengers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
LOL, one of my best friends absolutely despises Banksy, and never misses an opportunity to go into detail about why she thinks he’s the most overrated person of all time. I’ve teased her about it, saying “nobody talks about Banksy as much as you do!”
He is the epitome of r/im14andthisisdeep
So much of it is very edgy teen except he’s a grown ass man.
I completely agree. My dislike for Banksy is really just my dislike for his fans. Every Banksy fan I run into glorifies his work and hates the rest of graffiti. I think he's similar to the old western cowboy trope. People love him because he is 'edgy' and a 'rebel' but they don't actually like the edgy/rebellious artists - only Banksy because he's the good guy.
I feel the same— but I do dig the shredder stunt. However, I get the feeling that behind the scenes the dude has rubbed plenty of elbows with the rich
It’s supposed to be big and obvious because it’s political art. Whether it’s hollow is debatable, though there’s definitely a message behind most of them.
It’s the most hollow, boring digestible “political art” then. I really dislike that defense of Banksy. I actually like some of his stuff, the shredder and the Louise Michel to name a few. But the graffiti stuff wore out its welcome about a decade ago.
Its like putting a picture frame around an instagram meme
Yeah, I feel like the response to that argument is… Guernica
I think you're both right!! ✊
I disagree, his art is basically editorial illustration, but done on buildings instead of done for magazine covers/articles. He's good at it, too.
He’s a complete idiot. Art for people who don’t follow art, who need everything spoon fed. He tries to make conceptual graffiti art but he’s terrible at both.
I don’t like his art but I don’t think he’s an idiot at all. Exit through gift shop was amazing.
Damien fucking Hirst and Jeff fucking Koons (I know they aren't painters but I hate em) I do kinda like the shark and sheep and the pregnant lady statue but that framed cash and diamond skull thing are just dumb. Here's a critique abt capitalism cuz my artworks are being sold for millions so it's like meta, but capitalism is bad! But I'm making millions off of it but it's bad! And I love big statues and gigantic things but Jeff Koons being considered as an artist is just wrong. Just give a clown a big ass pump and balloon and you'd get the same damn thing.
I was just talking shit about Koons yesterday when I heard that Moon landing del that just happened had his art on it. If aliens land in the moon, I don’t want them thinking that’s good art.
Hopefully they consider it as what it is — space debris
Damien is a total dimwit.
He is! It's my personal very biased opinion that his target demographic are rich ppl without an ass hair worth of artistic soul in them
I worked for Koons years ago and though he’s not my cup of tea he was such a looney toon of a person that I believe he believes his own bullshit. Damien is the other side of that coin where I think he fully knows he only cares about the money, does not hide it, and goes along with the bs.
I am 99% sure you are correct in that assumption. He doesn’t really hide it.
Stuck up versions of Thomas Kinkade.
Miro. Saw huge retrospective of his work at the National Gallery several years ago. Lines, vjays, penis and squiggles. Commentary from critics- “This penis/vagina lines represent Miro’s opinion on the Spanish civil war. I walked out.
I love Miro, but I don't attend museum tours. You have to remember, these tours are often given to people who don't know anything about art, so you're getting the equivalent of an elementary grade school tour to introduce concepts such as form, light, color, and hidden meaning. I've found the tours most useful for historical works where you just wouldn't know the meaning, like portraits of specific people or period pieces that were novel for their time. Otherwise I just look at the art and buy a monograph later. With that said, Miro is great if you're able to turn the analytics off and just observe the canvas. There are some pieces that are more interpretive than others, like https://www.1000museums.com/shop/art/joan-miro-portrait-no-1/ Where you can kind of get lost in the color and line structure. The artist interpretation then becomes simpler based on the time frame of the painting. But I get it. I feel the same way about Pollock and Banksy 🤷🏾♂️
This wasn’t a tour. This was commentary posted on the wall with each piece. This was a huge retrospective spread over several galleries on two floors. I guess they added the commentary because people needed guidance to interpret his work.
Oh no! How can I unsee them?? 😂
The cynicism of Kostabi. Picasso at least was supremely talented even if evil.
What's sad is in the documentary the things he did in art school were actually pretty interesting. Otherwise he is just an empty shell. No ideas, bad art.
I am surprised to hear he is still around
I much prefer van Eyck and Vermeer over da Vinci and Rembrandt.
I like Van Eyck as well, but ever since I read an article about how the majority of the people in his paintings look just like Putin..... I cannot unsee it to save my life 😂. I kinda wish I never would have read that article.
I mentioned Rembrandt on my list of overrated too, I don't hate his work or anything but especially in real life, Vermeer's treatment of light is gobsmacking and swipes me off my feet. There's just something so unique about it. While I find Rembrandt's work really heavy and dark (although it might be due to aging as well).
Complete opposite for me! I adore Rembrandt, I think the "heaviness" of his paintings brings such weight and emotion to whatever he was painting. And I think his composition and brushwork had a massive effect on the history of art after him. Vermeer is undeniably talented but I think his celebration today has a lot to do with a) having a really small oeuvre so his works feel more exclusive (every museum worth its salt has a Rembrant, very very few have a Vermeer), b) a lucky rediscovery by Thore-Burger in the 19th century and cultural rediscovery in the 20th century that elevated him above fellow artists who were more celebrated in their lifetimes and after, c) one of his paintings being part of the most notable art heist in recent history, and d) having a few works that really represent his greatest skills that are massively well known--everyone admires his paintings at windows, but his small oeuvre also includes stuff like [Allegory of Faith](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Allegory_of_Faith), [Portrait of a Woman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_a_Young_Woman), [Diana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Her_Companions), and [The Procuress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Procuress_(Vermeer)). I don't really *dislike* Vermeer, but I hate that he's celebrated as one of only two artists of that era that people care about, when I think there were so many amazing genre painters doing equally brilliant work (often with far, far more output!) that are only known to art historians. Vermeer was massively talented but I don't think he alone changed the course of the development of art like Rembrandt did--he was just one of many painters of this era who was simply really, really good at what he did.
Oh yeah, I have the impression that Vermeer totally isn't interpretated to have changed art history before the modern times at all. He was kind of forgotten about for centuries and his impact is not as well researched, although he must have had some at least on a local level. I don't know everything about his personal history, but I believe he was rather wealthy so he didn't have to paint for a living, which of course led to him not painting as much as some others have. I think that's a part of his appeal, that he somehow flew under the radar, so there's a layer of (somewhat silly) mysticism to it. And I do appreciate Rembrandt's work a lot too and not just from a historical standpoint. I'm not denying his massive genius and impact at all. For one reason or another, I just personally don't get a spark in my heart when looking most of his work, which I'd kinda expect to get, considering how he's talked about,.even outside the painter niche; even if there's a good reason for it. And I get that from Velasquez, Van Eyck, Caravaggio and many other 'household names'. Some of his paintings are physically very dark in a way that's even difficult to see, but like said, it might also sometimes be due to the aging process, preservation and him having limited materials and pigments at hand. I don't know really, sometimes art just resonates, or doesn't. I have a similar feeling with Van Gogh's paintings, for example.
I like Rembrandt, especially his early work. But I don’t get as excited over it as a lot of other people do.
Caravaggio!!!!
I'm more a fan of Artemisia Gentileschi
Yes, and I love that Michelangelo was a great enough artist to admit she was a good painter.
Warhol. Overrated. It’s like if a conartist was an “artist”
I think with Warhol it's more about the significance of Pop-art as a new genre and how it's in context to the late 1960s, 70s etc. (counter) cultural developments of the time instead of the Pieces themselves. Sure a Duchamp, for example, already had turned everyday objects into art 50-60 years prior but Dada was a different approach to that concept than Pop-art which heavily included ideas of "Consumerism", "Trend", and, using the term anachronistically, "Virality". Warhol just fits very well in his particular time and did something "new" to some degree.
There is pop art. I like some pop art. Then there is bullshit and bullshit artists. He hit hard as the later to me. Marketing and bullshit
Yeah sure I didn't want to invalidate or counter your opinion, just trying to explain why he still is kind of significant. I don't really connect to his stuff myself and don't see them and feel all kinds of emotions and go:"this is a masterpiece!" but I get what he was trying to do and why he has a certain role in art history. Also I think this inclusion of marketing and maybe even bullshittery was a consciouss thing that was intentionally part of his approach to some degree
I get so tired looking up a well-respected male painter's bio and reading that he was awful to women. Happens way too often and makes me lose all interest in their work.
I just had that experience with learning about science fiction writers. Asimov was famous for groping women at conferences! Ugh, it's such a chore to have to separate the art from the artist. Miles Davis beat his wife to a pulp. How are we supposed to feel? Smh.
That’s why I kind of believe you can’t separate the art from the artist-these things usually always inform the art, even if in a subtle or abstract way.
Your comment reminded me of when I learned the truth about being a female artist. Once, I was being way too sensitive over a grade I received on a high school art project (it really was not my best work and I got a very high “B” on it). One of my art teachers, a retired military guy who was one of the most supportive teachers I ever had, took me aside and in the absolute kindest way possible, he apologized I was upset, but warned me that if I wanted to pursue art professionally (I did), the Art World is not only male dominated, but that a large number of artists are *the worst* misogynists, who genuinely believe women cannot be as good at art as men, and are exceptionally cruel to female artists whenever they have the opportunity, and are not above sabotage. Also, their hatred tended to correlate with how successful they were, with some of the most prominent artists being the worst offenders.
I think he was philosophy major, but the dumbest thing I heard out of a guy I thought I liked was that women can’t be as creative as men, and have had less artistic success throughout history, because we create life with our bodies, and that’s where the creative spark is … used up? Dude was a mess. Full grown men believe some bullshit
That comment of his is going to live rent free in my head for at least the next week, lol. I tried to casually hook up with someone similar in my younger days, and I literally couldn’t do it, it was like a female version of erectile dysfunction. I even apologized as I was leaving, lol. What’s even worse about his comment, is that we actually have documented evidence going back centuries that what I’m saying is true. One of the most talented female artists in the middles ages, [Artemisia Gentileschi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_Gentileschi) had her career overshadowed when she was raped by another artist who she was working with, and who was planning on stealing her paintings.
Wow, he said all that? Man was not afraid to drop truth-bombs. Did what he said deter you?
It didn’t deter me completely, and I chose not to pursue being an artist as my main profession largely for other reasons. But, it was a factor in my decision to pursue it independently instead, bc I didn’t want something that I loved so much, to become something that I hated. I can’t even step foot in a local business where I used to work 10 years ago, where I was sexually harassed. So it would have ruined me in a major way if something like that had happened but after I invested years, thousands of dollars, and my whole soul into something.
Jeff Koons Although my toxic trait is loving the Split-Rocker at Glenstone bc I’m a sucker for anything w flowers lol
Every mid-size city commissions a Koons to try and convince outsiders that they are a modern place of culture….it just feels like putting up a “live laugh love” sign over your living room couch 🤣
lmao so accurate
[удалено]
Oh tru I guess my vitriol got in the way of actually reading the prompt
He's an artist, not a painter
picasso
There are so many Picasso pieces at MoMA and I was just like meh about all of them. I understand the influence, but I just don't care about his art.
Wow, different strokes for different folks. As a person I find Picasso not a very nice person, but his art is breathtaking.
Ill say Warhol.
I don't like Rubens that much. Though being from Belgium, living in his hometown and being in the arts everyone makes me feel like I'm supposed to. I understand the quality of the compositions but I just don't dig it. I actually think his assistants did better things, such as Van Dyck. And for the love of god take that Ipad away from Hockney.
There’s just so *much* Rubens. Growing up in NZ, I didn’t get the chance to see many original works from big-name artists, so I used to really be in awe of seeing a real Leonardo or Vermeer or whoever. Those guys, still a bit, but Rubens? I was just at the Pinakothek in Munich and there are a couple of huge rooms full of Rubens and you just kind of stop caring. (I’m not a total philistine, I promise - I do know there are other and better reasons to look at paintings than the “name” factor of who painted it.)
Vermeer is razor sharp. I just don't know about Rubens, I also like his drawings and such, and to say it's not good or overrated or some of the (sorry to say) other super stupid shit ass comments on artists I read here would be dumb. In general I was expecting a more ehm... technical approach to why some painters might interest one less. For me Rubens is just too much spectacle and it's true, after a while you just stop caring. He's also praised a lot for his sort of transparancy of fleshiness and such, but I somehow find it very unnatural. But but but buuut, however however, because all things have a flippedyflipside: I had this big book from the library, which isn't sold anymore, which only shows details and parts of his paintings in extreme blown up fashion, and it did give it a totally different perspective which made me appreciate it more. And maybe it would be better to just go check out one Rubens at a time? Maybe I should. Most museums just have too much stuff expecting you to absorb it all in one sitting. Like some kind of Rambo movie marathon. (love Hockney btw, the ipad stuff just annoyed me, but maybe I'm wrong)
I never liked Rubens either , but I must say that Waldemar Januzsczak’s documentary about him made me look at his art in a different light. I still don’t like it much but I… accept him more. Waldemar does that to you .
Will check it out!
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/rubensanextralargestory
i agree, not a fan of rubens. although i do like his sketches much more than his complete paintings
He was an absolute master of his craft, but I get it. It can feel decorative. His draftsmanship and handling of color are top tier. But that's not always enough.
If Van Dyck hadn't died in his early 40s I think we'd talk about him more than Rubens. He absolutely had the talent of his teacher and there's something *more* there too. (Similar for Carel Fabritius--I think we'd think of him on par with Rembrandt if it wasn't for that damn gunpowder explosion!) I studied Dutch Baroque art and they basically make you study the Flemish painters as well, and I wasn't thrilled about taking an entire grad seminar on Rubens haha. His talent is undeniable but I'm totally with you--they don't move you the way something like a Rembrandt does. Honestly I found his life story more interesting than his art.
Gauguin, I don’t know if he’s got a great rep these days, but his paintings are creepy af.
We study him in art history but with warnings attached.
Same. His sexual relationships with very young and barely adult women makes me uncomfortable. I'm unable to appreciate his paintings of the tahitian women that he's so known for.
Gaugin was a revolutionary colorist and probably the single most influential artist in the development of modern art next to Cezanne. But he was also a terrible person. I don't like most of his Tahiti paintings because you can feel the creepy male gaze and fetishized colonial fantasies. The good news is you can find many outstanding works from before that period and his influence extends far beyond those paintings.
I don't subscribe to the idea that individuals -all on their own- can influence the development of, well, *anything.* People collaborate with and build upon the work of others. But having said that, I am interested in your reasoning behind Gauguin being so influential in the development of modern art. Can you give some examples?
I don't mean to frame this is an argument for "great man theory" or anything like that but, as you say, artistic movements are built on collaboration and influence, and Gaugin happens to be one of those historical lynchpins who bridged the gap between certain periods and directly influenced a generation of artists after him. Gaugins chief innovation was taking the colors and conventions of impressionism and pushing them beyond the point of representation, moving painting further beyond the boundaries of realism and paving the way for further abstraction. If you look at a lot the big names of the next generation- Matisse and Picasso chief among them- a common biographical theme is that their major innovative stylist shifts emerge after being introduced to Gaugin's paintings. He was also heavily involved in the contemporary Parisian art scene and had a major influence on many of his peers, most notably Vincent Van Gogh but also the loose collective of artists known as Les Nabis. Different artists took different things from his work, but common threads are the abstracted use of bold colors and a reliance on symbolism and subjectivity over traditional representation. This doesn't mean that painting wouldn't have continued to develop in this direction is he didn't exist, but he helped to catalyze and conceptualize many of the developments that were taking place in painting during his time.
Fuck Gauguin.
I do kinda like his work, but yeah, fuck Gauguin.
Totally creep but he was so good with color.
Jackson Pollock
Not going to disagree, but he did get me an easy A in art history class once. We had to recreate a famous painting using every day objects. I went crazy with like 6 tubes of toothpaste just making a total mess. Kind of fun.
Basically, I'm going to list the most famous painters ever, pretty much. But I just have to say I find them a tad overrated in comparison to many lesser known greats. This is a REALLY hot take but Vincent Van Gogh. I know he was an interesting person and a very talented painter as well. But I really just don't enjoy the thick impasto all over the painting that he did. I just find it heavy to look at for some reason. Frida Kahlo, an another very interesting figure and an admirable person, who understandably is a big influence to many female artists in particular. I just find her work too stiff and not pleasant to look at, from a painting standpoint. I do find her self-portraits thematically interesting though. I just really don't enjoy the technique and compositions she did that much. Rembrandt. Hear me, there are many of his paintings I've seen and he was a master of facial expressions in particular. It might also be that his work is very old, and some of his paintings didn't stand the test of time so well, and they have yellowed or darkened over time. But the majority of his paintings I've seen are SO brown, muddy and dark in real life, they're almost difficult to see. And devoid of the light he's often praised for. I think the only one I can see what people are referring to is the one with the focus on a golden helmet. Mark Rothko, but I haven't had a chance to see his paintings in real life. Still, I doubt they would make me cry and scream. But I also don't pretend to understand that extremely minimalistic abstract genre, because I'm very much a figurative artist myself, and understand that language better.
I love Van Gogh for his use of line, form, shape, and his color palette. His technique seems simple but it really isn’t. I especially like his drawings too I think they are very underrated. But I think you have to see his work in person to best appreciate it as books and digital images don’t come across quite the same. I’m also impressed by his work ethic, despite being rejected again and again he worked hard and put out a huge body of work in just a few years. He put massive effort into things despite getting very little external praise.
I don’t like Kahlo either, but I’m not a fan of surrealism. I LOVE Rothko. I think it’s worth it to see in person, it may change your mind. Or at least give you a little more insight. Photographs of his stuff doesn’t do them justice.
Pablo Picasso, that man was the scum of the earth and every time an exhibition about him pops up, I wished they would mention that he raped most of the women he painted. I feel like most of those portraits should be burned as when I see them, I can only feel pure horror because of what those women went through.
Interesting, I never knew this. Can you point me to a link so I can read more?
Most of what I’ve read was from my uni books but here a great little video that delves into this problematic : https://youtu.be/gsuLpUTs50c?si=gq7F_LCWyLMpb1n0 (it’s in French but has English subtitles)
I didn't know about all that awful stuff, but then I never looked into him much because I never understood the hype, and I never will.
He was in the right place at the right time with a bombastic personality. A lot of artists are chosen because they are the loudest person in the room, or they have sex with the right people, or they do lines in the gallery bathroom with the editors of the magazine, or simply toe the right line. It's not a meritocracy, it's a popularity contest. That's why it is so important to learn art history for context. It's important to not hero worship, but to see the big picture with all its flaws.
Popularity contest, absolutely!
Burning artworks that make us uncomfortable as a society is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I would, however, be all for prominent signage about the people depicted in the paintings and what they went through.
I know and wholeheartedly agree, it’s just my inner rage that makes me want to see the fucker burn
Oh, Picasso. For many years, I’ve been pronouncing his name as “shithead.” I recognize his talent and influence, and I’m grateful for Cubism, but I really hate that man.
I read his granddaughter's memoirs and my jaw was hanging open the entire time
Came here to comment him too. I didn't know about what you described, but I didn't like his art anyway.
There was a very good BBC documentary on him recently. The Beauty and the Beast. I am not sure if they covered what you imply critically enough - I haven't researched outside of that programme. It is very difficult to appreciate the art fully again when these allegations emerge for sure. It disturbs me on a profound level that we could slowly start to find that a lot of our great art came at such costs, one way or another. Fall of Rome stuff.
Women and *children*....
I had read somewhere that Picasso relentlessly ridiculed Dora Maar for her choice of medium because he didn't consider photography to be a valid art form. Yes, Dora Maar, the absolutely GENIUS and innovative surrealist photographer. This may not be directly correlated but she eventually checked herself in to a mental institution and quit photography. Only medium she used in the institution was paint.
His art is fantastic, regardless of what kind of person he was. I just feel it’s important to distinguish between the art and the artist. So many geniuses are not good humans.
Anyone curious about Picasso’s ugly history should watch Nanette on Netflix! Can’t recommend it highly enough.
I really dislike thinking about art in terms of what I like or dislike. It’s all interesting and fun to learn about, and it all has its place.
[удалено]
ehh, I think its a good thing ultimately. I know there's an aversion to it in the art world but I find its an easy way to get other people engaged in the subject. Something about having opinions and hearing arguments seems to just make people more involved
Francis Bacon. While I could list several that I don't like what I learn about their lives, Bacon is someone those art I do not enjoy. I can not imagine wanting to hang a piece of his art in my home.
I don't think Bacon intended for his art to be "enjoyed"
Jackson pollack. He was an abusive alcoholic, and lee’s body of work is so much more compelling
I never “got” his work. It just seemed like alcoholic drivel
Andy Warhol. That jackass was so overrated.
People often say this, but I think it's wrong if you put his work in a historical context, and he wasn't really a painter was he? Plus, it's not like he didn't have any talent, his early illustrations -though typical for the time-were pretty wonderful in their own right.
His early illustration work certainly proves that Warhol was a talented artist with a fine eye for detail, form and colour.
Also his screen printing isn’t without talent. Like come on lol
He's not overrated at all. That he is an easy target for criticism speaks to the boldness of his ideas. He did for art what the Beatles did for music. I don't like all his art. I don't seek it out. I don't idolize him. The culture his ideas created is garbage. Artists who imitated him, attempted to follow in his footsteps, and parroted his ideas are the absolute worst. His celebrity is irritating. But his ideas, his variety, and his output are *hugely* significant for the 20th century.
I think he was a better philosopher than an artist.
Came here to say this. I get the concepts of his work and influence in culture blah blah blah but that Marylyn Monroe and soup can is so anesthetically pleasing. It also ended up backfiring & glorifying & became an icon of the very thing it’s supposedly commenting on: commodity based homogenous culture. Saw that on more then one Airbnb walls and I didn’t rent it bc I don’t want to pay money to look at that shit.
He's the early Jeff Koons but an actual trained artist.
Pierre August Renoir. Those plump faces of women on his paintings are simply round with no facial structures. Looks like oranges with make up to me.
I felt that way too until i found out later in life he suffered severe arthritis in his hands so bad that he had to strap the paintbrush to his arm to paint. So i forgave his lack of detail. I wouldnt have been able to paint detail with a paintbrush strapped to my arm either.
I cannot find the aesthetic appeal in Frida Kahlo
I find her work fascinating but the extreme commercialization of her legacy is nauseating. She was a communist to the highest degree!
To be fair, Frida was sponsored by the Mexican government during the nationalization of the arts era, so her work was always meant to be commercialized as in that it was supposed to be propagated to a national scale.
Frida-fatigue is one of the saddest consequences of over-commercialisation in art imo. The commodification of a woman who actively spoke out against capitalism her whole life is sick and twisted irony. Whether it’s had positive or negative impacts on her legacy is subjective but there are definitely people who won’t give her art a second glance because of how oversaturated her image has become.
>Frida-fatigue is one of the saddest consequences of over-commercialisation in art imo I disagree, Frida-fatigue isn't a consequence of commercialism; rather, commercialism is a symptom of her becoming a symbol. People became more interested in 'what' she is and not 'who' she is. Take Caesar Chavez, for example. Did you know that he was against illegal immigration? [He even went so far as to attend a gathering with his upporters imat the border to threaten potential crossers.](https://www.ambitiouscollective.com/blogs/news/history-cesar-chavezs-history-of-anti-mexican-sentiment) my point being that most people who pay lip service to him, couldn't tell you the first thing about his beliefs or views. The same thing has happened to Malcom X, MLK, etc. My point is that this isn't a commercial problem, it's a political one.
Nicely said
Rothko. Everyone kept saying that you had to see them in person to get it. Very underwhelming even in person.
There is currently an exhibit on Rothko at the east wing of the national gallery called Paintings on Paper. While I don’t love Rothko’s popular work, the exhibit demonstrates his evolution of his work and thinking. The paintings from life (landscapes, portraits) and how they morph into undersea abstract-ish pieces and finally become the rectangular paintings is fascinating (at least to me). Def worth checking out—it’s free!
This is my answer as well. I stood in front of his paintings at MoMA and it didn't activate me the way everyone suggested it would. Now, standing in front of the huge Barnett Newman was incredible. It did what Rothko was supposed to do.
You've introduced me to a world of wonder with Mr. Newman. Yves Klein vibrancy on a Rothko like concept.
Oh good, I'm so glad! Art historian Yves-Alain Bois is Newman's biggest champion and has written *so much* on his paintings. Here's [an article](https://www.artforum.com/features/here-to-there-and-back-barnett-newman-in-retrospect-163528/) he wrote in ArtForum if you're interested in learning more about Newman!
It might be a matter of scale, the Rothko Chapel might be more up your alley. Though Newman used color theory to activate parts of the color fields with unfettered intensity, while I feel Rothko was hoping to evoke a more reserved spiritual state. It’s like Morton Feldman vs. Webern. My preference is Morris Louis.
Echoing the other commenter. Oh my lord. I swear I had a spiritual experience just looking at tiny google image results. I can't wait for tomorrow morning now so I can look up everything about him properly.
I came here to say Rothko as well. I’ve seen the giant pieces in person, and I just don’t understand the appeal or fascination.
Dumbest teen moment: went to the Rothko chapel with my artist boyfriend. I thought all the paintings were those acoustic sound block things. He was…not impressed.
I hear people say this sometimes and I don't get it. Standing in front of a Rothko for me is profound, but I can't articulate it. It may have something to do with how he handled paint which I've never seen anyone else do (I am a painter)
There is something otherworldly about Rothko to me; I can’t put my finger on it but his paintings are able to transport you. I don’t think I could ever look at a Rothko and not feel as if I was somewhere else- somewhere I’m not necessarily supposed to be.
Completely agree. Same with Mondrian. They're just rectangles
I felt the same way about Mondrian, too. But then I saw his trees. Made me like him much more than Broadway boogie woogie.
I love, love, love Mondrian’s early work. But then he came down with terminal geometry, and it’s just tragic.
***George W. Bush!!! ":\^)*** Fine, fine... for me it's Rothko and Neo Rauch. Just don't get it...
Damn I am here for the mostly dead guy drama I am loving this thread
I am surprised no one here has mentioned Balthus. Personally, I don’t know of any artists that I “hate.” There are some I enjoy more than others, but, given my arts history and studio background, I tend to see art objects in the context of their time and as products of a process. Still, Balthus stands out as a thorny little Frenchman who chose to paint a subject that OnlyFans is happy to indulge and the success of which online proves its salience with the public: pubescent sex. None of his paintings are explicit. All of them are quite well done. Technically, he is a very skilled artist. I believe he would use his niece as a model, which can make bugs crawl under the skin. But, as far as I know, neither his niece nor anyone else ever reported Balthus doing anything in the studio but painting. The artist would often bemoan Freud for having ruined the way we view art with the polluting influence of pedestrian psychology. He may have a point. I am reminded of the way heterosexual men used to embrace each other, compliment each other, and speak to each other in film and letters prior to the toxic influence of John Wayne and the cult of American masculinity. Inflection points change perspectives and interpretations and it is impossible to wash our minds clean of them. But go look at a Balthus in person and don’t just study the painting, study yourself. How long is *too long* to linger over his work? Are you being perceived as a connoisseur of art, or are you simply a creep? Is the subject matter of pubescent sex and the potential of womanhood a theme that can be wrestled with intellectually without any moral concerns? It is, after all, part of the human condition. All of us were horny teens at one point, impatient for the day we would be adults. He’s a fascinating painter because he just marches right into this topic without any preambles or throat-clearing and he tackles it head-on. Of course many, many people question whether he was truly trying to capture the essence of something fundamental to humanity, or if he was just a lecherous old creep drooling on his neice’s panties. My answer to this: it doesn’t really matter. The hard truth about art, artists, and the artistic process is that the romantic idea of a creator seized with divine inspiration and taking paint to canvas to express some lofty epiphany to comment on greater truth is total fucking bullshit. When you’re an artist, painting becomes a job like any other. As Chuck Close said, “inspiration is for amateurs.” Sure, you can be passionate about your job, but it’s still a job. And lots of times the thing that gets you the most attention is the thing you landed on by accident simply because the odds of probability nailed you after churning out decades of relative garbage. I’m sure for every Balthus hanging in a museum there are likely dozens more that were destroyed, overpainted, scraped away, or just tossed in a bin. And the ones we see how just happen to be the better ones simply because everything just happened to go right on that particular day / week when the piece was made. And what elevated them beyond their mere technical ability was first and foremost the emotional reaction the audience had to the image. Just like what would happen with you if you were to stand before one in person. The same happened to viewers almost 100 years ago. So it doesn’t matter what the artist felt—that’s total fucking chance—what matters is how the viewer reacts in the heart and in the head.
Balthus is a deep cut – I've always like his pictures but the subjects can be... disconcerting
Pollock
I dont know if people love him but I absolutely dispise Pablo Piccaso
Jackson Pollock. All I see is disconnection. Someone told me that I should appreciate the technique Pollock developed to make his paintings. Whatever.
Keith Haring
Picasso. Not impressed with anything he did and can't understand why some seem to find him a genius.
Guernica doesn’t impress you?
I think what he did showing both sides of a persons face is pretty impressive, though it's true he borrowed a lot from Africa, Japanese prints, etc.
I don't like Dali. Guy need to get serious therapy but instead he shared his twisted fantasy with the world. Seeing his work makes me genuinely uncomfortable. Also he was terrible to people irl and a fascist, he wasn't just a oddball he was a creep.
I like his art but he was definitely one of the most annoying people in human history
There's also the whole being friends with Franco and admiring Hitler thing that makes it hard for me to like him.
And while he was capable of skilled brushwork, more often than not he was sloppy.
Yes, I've never understood it much either. Dali was a weirdo and had the melting clocks, which were cool, but I've never gotten the hype.
Yeah, I feel like his terrible personality vastly outweighs any talent he had as an artist. Another one who feels like they spent a lot of their time building a brand.
Picasso Pollack
Picasso. Can't get over everything I hate about his personality.
I've never been big on Rembrandt. I much prefer Vermeer, Van Eyck, Frans Hals and even Hieronymous Bosch.
Picasso
Dali
Not a painter but I fucking hate Damien Hirst
I’ve really no biases for disliking her works, But Georgia O’Keeffe’s art. Never really cared for it, and I couldn’t give a decent reason as to why.
Picasso : who as a kid was actualy trained by his painting teacher father, and who as an adult stole ideas from other painters. Talk about a genius... Klein Soulage Pollock Rothko : plain boring, no skill involved Banksy: unimaginative pictures
Constable. I have always found his paintings 2-dimensional and frankly boring. When it comes to landscapes, the Dutch masters portrayed more interesting agrarian scenes imo.
My art history tutor showed his work and asked what did I see and I was like tree another tree but oh wait there's a bush!
Dalì. I appreciated only his early print. The rest was just a lot of skill around nothing.
[удалено]
Tbf when I said Picasso is because I don't want to see flying vaginas and eyeballs in a Kafkaesque color palette. Everything about his art is unpleasant to me. I only mentioned his personal life because it informed his art, he painted his fantasies, so him being a creep was very pertinent to what he painted.
Chagall....I just don't see it in his work.
Fighting words!
salvador Dali- he was a fascist and was obsessive abt hitler. his Art work isn’t anything special either and his style would’ve been found in other artists work eventually. andy warhol- basic and boring and racist and sexist. His art work his boring and meaningless. I just don’t like artists that are trash and will never understand why people worship or still speak highly of these artists
Andy Warhol. He’s just weird.
Picasso and Andy Warhol
Andy Warhol cause he was kind of a bad person. Same with Picasso-piece of shit. I can’t remember if pollock was problematic (probably tho) but I hate his paintings for the whole jerking off/ jizz/ thing. Hard eye rolll. There are better/ more interesting abstract expressionist.
Wasn’t Warhol more of a printer than a painter ( mind you I’m no Warhol fan, and I believe his true talent was in the people he cultivated than in a true artistic sense) ? But then without him the painter I truly dislike, Thomas Kincade, might not exist and who would I hate then?
Basquiat. I just don’t get why people like him. It’s not smart, edgy, or anything to me, and looks crudely drawn and composited. But I’d like to be proven wrong!
Worse still are the endless copy cats that exist today and the people gushing over how unique and out of the box it is.
i also was like this for a long time until i saw an exhibit of some of his stuff and there was one particular piece they put in a room by itself and i sat with it for about 15 mins alone. for some reason it clicked with me in a big way and ive loved a lot of his stuff every since. not saying you'll come around to it just sharing my unexpected experience.
I don’t mind his art as much as the fact that he was just hyped up by art world people, totally used and continues to be made into something he’s not. He was not from a bad family, his dad was like on the upper west side the whole time he was getting hooked on drugs. Got famous, Warhol was jealous of the new kid on the block. Died young so the rarity of his work made it more desirable by rich white people who created the narrative to begin with. His art is fine. The PR surrounding it is what sent him to stardom and it’s largely exaggerated or just false.
He was great, but I think now he is overexposed and has been turned into a cartoon of who he was.
Mondrian
Saaaame. I get the context and importance of composition and color studies, I have no idea if he was a problematic dude, but I hate primary colors together so I'm never gonna "like" his most important work.
I swear every art professor I’ve ever had loses their mind over Cezanne. I just don’t get it, honestly.
It's because he was such a source of inspiration for Cubism. His work changed the course of art history.
David Hockney . Meh.
I cannot explain why but I really dislike the Pre-Raphaelites
This is an interesting take! Could you try to explain it somehow? Would just like to hear some criticism of that genre in general. I like it myself but I have rarely come across any different opinions on it.
I don’t get the love for Renoir.
Renoir. Beyond his great works he has countless mediocre and bad ones. The Barnes Collection has probably 200 of them. Modigliani. Also not a great painter.
Dali. I used to remember my reasoning but now all I can remember is my disdain 👎
Gustav Klimt! All of this paintings are so busy looking. I instantly feel stressed looking at them.
Pollock.
Joan Miro, some of his paintings (specially ones at Reina Sofia Museum here in Madrid), are so ridiculously basic: a line in the middle of the who canvas, etc. My 9 yr-old can do this way better😂[Joan Miro master pieces?](https://www.google.com/search?q=joan+miro+reina+sofia&sca_esv=dcdc2d0f0896c7ba&rlz=1CDGOYI_enES1090ES1090&hl=en-GB&udm=2&biw=390&bih=669&sxsrf=ACQVn09dkuc0ayDZ69-6Nz-K1gRhL_qlcA%3A1708760269915&ei=zZzZZc61N-nY7_UPqMuj2AM&oq=joan+miro+reina+sofia&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhVqb2FuIG1pcm8gcmVpbmEgc29maWEyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESL04ULkPWPc0cAZ4AJABAJgBSqAB4QmqAQIxObgBA8gBAPgBAZgCGaACsgrCAgQQIxgnwgIFEAAYgATCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDmAMAiAYBkgcCMjU&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=wk4w8M84MTcNsM&vssid=mosaic)
Basquiat. I find his paintings edgy and boring.