"Sunday on the Pot with George"



Can the swirling steam melt away the huge weight of George's corporate responsibilities? This pointillist piece is curious for meticulous attention to fine detail, such as the stitching around the edge of the towel, in contrast to the almost careless disregard for the subject's feet.

Not so much the "sensitive appearance" of art... but more so the mind that created it.
[Edited 12/7/06 10:30am]

Freespirit said:

You know when you see art, and you know it was created by a dysfunctional mind, you can see the despair. I didnt see that in any of these pictures. Did you?

I know he has a huge following, but I always just cringe from R. Crumb's drawings. They are just so ugly. I know it's intentional, but it's like looking at Garbage Pail Kids: so gross, but you can't NOT look.

minneapolisgenius said:

have you seen:



a bizzare doc about that guy. might even answer a couple of questions for ya.

I know he has a huge following, but I always just cringe from R. Crumb's drawings. They are just so ugly. I know it's intentional, but it's like looking at Garbage Pail Kids: so gross, but you can't NOT look.

Pure shite



I dislike almost all abstracts in this general neighborhood:

They just lack "skill" to me. They appear clumbsy and more or less a "cop out" than actual art pieces with real merit.

[Edited 12/7/06 15:06pm]

Pure shite

AsianBomb777 said:

If modern art fails, it's because it's generally more interesting conceptually than the actual execution tends to be.

I like much modern art, but a piece like White on White is tough to compare to the Mona Lisa. If you have to explain why art is great, is the art itself great or just the idea behind it?

AsianBomb777 said:

If modern art fails, it's because it's generally more interesting conceptually than the actual execution tends to be.

I like much modern art, but a piece like White on White is tough to compare to the Mona Lisa. If you have to explain why art is great, is the art itself great or just the idea behind it?

NDRU said:

Most modern art is conceptual. It's not really about presenting an image to gaze at like a photograph of a beautiful scene for instance, you look at it but it doesnt engage you in a way that conceptual art does.

...
[Edited 12/7/06 15:46pm]

Pure shite



I dislike almost all abstracts in this general neighborhood:

They just lack "skill" to me. They appear clumbsy and more or less a "cop out" than actual art pieces with real merit.




Paul Cezzane

It's not fully his fault I hate his landscapes so much. I generally don't like Landscape paintings. There are a few exceptions, but in general, I just don't like them. This is weird becuase I love landscape photography.





MONET (And most impressionists)

The "every day slice out of a moment in Time" concept the Impressionists introduced on to the art scene was great I guess, but I dislike the execution (colors, texture, ...just about everything about it--again with a few exceptions).





.
[Edited 12/7/06 15:06pm]

LleeLlee said:

I think the best art does both. Classical art is more interesting if it presents an interesting subject matter (the Mona Lisa is the prime example), and modern art is better when it displays some technical mastery.

Ace said:

Oh hell no. The Vault has got that one beat by a landslide.

NDRU said:

I agree, placing a shoe in the middle of a white room for instance and calling it art is hardly artistic skill at its finest. But theres the flipside too, whose definition of what art is do we go by? The artists? or the consumer of art?