[Opinion] Great Painters Who Aren't

[Xenophon]

No, this isn't a Picasso bashing thread. I'd no more bash him than I'd make fun of the mentally impaired. Nor am I going to dump on Pollock. He dumped enough paint it'll take another century for art critics to mop up the mess. Nay, I'm asking which uncontroversially great artist rubs you the wrong way. I'm mildly inimical to Michelangelo. All his models worked through "Steroids "R Us." His "female ones" were linebackers with modestly-sized mammaries. But my favorite artist to dump on is Uccello. His (almost) every painting is so precise as to be painful. A master of perspective who forget about art en route. His "Hunt in the Forest" must have been painted as a joke. The dog pack moves; everything else is frozen. Like I hinted already, it's like a pair of shorts you took out of the dryer too soon now damp-chafing betwixt your buns.

 

[KjEno186]

Paul Klee. Just one name that comes to mind, but representative of the abstract expressionists who basically decided that finished paintings were too much work. It's not as though I cannot like abstract paintings, but the praise heaped upon these painters past and present seems to have been political, as in who knew who and was well connected to influential people in academia. Academia is that modern secular priesthood that decides what is good and bad.

 

[SkullTraill]

Picasso, especially the later works. Mid tbh.

 

[stalkinghyena]

Nay, I'm asking which uncontroversially great artist rubs you the wrong way.

Maxfield Parrish. I don't why except to say I just feel rubbed.

 

[Xenophon]

Paul Klee. Just one name that comes to mind, but representative of the abstract expressionists who basically decided that finished paintings were too much work. It's not as though I cannot like abstract paintings, but the praise heaped upon these painters past and present seems to have been political, as in who knew who and was well connected to influential people in academia. Academia is that modern secular priesthood that decides what is good and bad.

Yeah, Klee looks like sheets pilfered from Picasso on a day when the latter was just half-awake sketching. The stuff is less unfinished than it is never really begun.

Post automatically merged: Nov 25, 2023

Maxfield Parrish. I don't why except to say I just feel rubbed.

They're like advertising jingles on canvas. I keep looking in the corners to see what's being sold: cognac? Perrier? perfume?

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

Myself. That, and those artists who only paint or photograph genitalia, or paint a solid color and call it abstract.

 

[8Lou1]

art that needs an explanation. creativity and symbolism speaks for itself and guides the watcher on a personal journey. so when an artist has to explain that a floor full of peanutbutter has meaning and therefor worth its money, cause thats all it is, i find it dictatorial and it kills the creativity in the watcher and creates buyers/ followers. even if i would take this business plan as an art, its bad art.

 

[Xenophon]

art that needs an explanation. creativity and symbolism speaks for itself and guides the watcher on a personal journey. so when an artist has to explain that a floor full of peanutbutter has meaning and therefor worth its money, cause thats all it is, i find it dictatorial and it kills the creativity in the watcher and creates buyers/ followers. even if i would take this business plan as an art, its bad art.

Art is like jokes: if you have to explain it, it has already failed. Which is what made DVD's so horrifying. There towards the end of the DVD era, EVERY damned disc had an annoying voice-over feature where the director told you what he was trying to achieve with this or that scene. An artistic horror there on a par with those godawful long stretches in "War&Peace" where Tolstoi has to turn and lecture the readers about the philosophy of history his tale (allegedly) illustrates.

 

[8Lou1]

Lol tolstoi, the man who calls a milion pages chapter 1.