Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Which world renowned painter is overrated ?

Renoir and his decorative cotton candy paintings. Don't understand why he's considered a great artist.

by Anonymousreply 16205/29/2013

Thomas Kinkade owns this thread.

by Anonymousreply 105/23/2013

Kinkade is like the Renoir of our time

by Anonymousreply 205/23/2013

Whoever did that topless painting of Bea Arthur. i cannot believe that piece of shit sold for nearly $2 million dollars.

by Anonymousreply 305/23/2013

Monet. Up close, it's just a mess.

by Anonymousreply 405/23/2013

Jackson Pollock. There are some paintings of his I like, but after a while its just the same thing over and over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 505/23/2013

Julian Schnabel

by Anonymousreply 605/23/2013

Kinkade. He was even parodied on Law & Order.

by Anonymousreply 705/23/2013

Uh, nobody thinks Thomas Kinkade is a world-renowed painter.

Renoir is more important as a painter in the historiography of painting rather than as an imagemaker who stands on his own.

Sister Wendy explains.

I myself do not care for Degas's sentimentality.

by Anonymousreply 805/23/2013

Would that it were possible to agree with you, R8. Unfortunately, more people have probably heard of Thomas Kinkade than anyone whose art I like (Rothko, Diebenkorn, Jenkins).

by Anonymousreply 905/23/2013

Damien Hirst, seriously.

by Anonymousreply 1005/23/2013

Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst.

by Anonymousreply 1105/23/2013

Jackson Pollock, Julian Schnabel (actually most contemporary art), Picasso (yes, I like Guernica, but her turned out tons of shit), ANDY WARHOL. I hate Damien Hirst, but does he paint or just do jokey disrespectful stuff with dead animals? Lucien Freud.

by Anonymousreply 1205/23/2013

I was going to say Jeff Koons, but I like some of his stuff. And then there's his cock, of course.

by Anonymousreply 1305/23/2013

Paul Klee

by Anonymousreply 1405/23/2013

Dear Cher, I don't think you are supposed to look at a Monet up close.

by Anonymousreply 1505/23/2013

Very few painters are overrated. Sculptors, on the other hand.... I should offer a reward for anyone who can prove Alexander Calder could pass moron level on an IQ test.

by Anonymousreply 1605/23/2013

The Barnes in Philadelphia has about 150 Renoirs, if I remember correctly. It's instructive to spend an afternoon looking at them; you will soon learn to separate the really good ones (and there are some) from the lackluster. Renoir can be quite gifted when he is on his game.

As to Paul Klee, I just never have gotten it. Ditto for Claes Oldenburg.

by Anonymousreply 1705/23/2013

Please don't encourage DL posters to use the word "overrated" any more than they already do. People who have nothing else to say about an artist (or anyone, really) will say that they're "overrated." It's used mindlessly and indiscriminately on DL.

by Anonymousreply 1805/23/2013

You say that, but think about Christo, and wrapping islands with pink plastic.

by Anonymousreply 1905/23/2013

I think Ralph Monroe was marvleous but her brother Alf was overrated. He would always fall off the ladder.

by Anonymousreply 2005/23/2013

Anis: Kapoor: big, bigger, biggest.

Is he industrious or just an industrialist?

by Anonymousreply 2105/23/2013

I went off on R16's sculpture tangent.

As far as painter's go, R3 is on the money.

by Anonymousreply 2205/23/2013

In their later years Renoir and Picasso, both hacks and whores for money. Dali was, too, but he was gay so I give him some slack. I cannot believe what people are paying for Picassos today. Anything after 1945 is worthless shit, in my opinion.

by Anonymousreply 2305/23/2013

warhol-even i can do that shit

by Anonymousreply 2405/23/2013

Stupid idiot rich boys, corrupt Russians and drug dealers are 90% of the money in the art market these days. They have NO TASTE and only buy stuff other people tell them is valuable or good from an investment standpoint.

by Anonymousreply 2505/23/2013

Shit! Where did that apostrophe come from?


by Anonymousreply 2605/23/2013

[quote]warhol-even i can do that shit

But you didn't.

by Anonymousreply 2705/23/2013

Mondrian, Picasso are first to come to mind. I wonder if Picasso was autistic.

by Anonymousreply 2805/23/2013

R24 Sure. I'm certain the wealthy socialites, movie starts and business tycoons who commissioned Warhol to do their portraits are now beating down your door.

by Anonymousreply 2905/23/2013


by Anonymousreply 3005/23/2013

[quote]think about Christo, and wrapping islands with pink plastic.

How does he make money from his "art"? It must cost a small fortune to do stuff like that but nobody is going to buy a plastic wrapped island.

by Anonymousreply 3105/23/2013

[quote]I'm certain the wealthy socialites, movie starts and business tycoons who commissioned Warhol to do their portraits are now beating down your door.

Didn't he just take an old picture of Marilyn from a magazine and copy it? Did Campbell's knock on his door with an offer of six free cans of tomato soup?

by Anonymousreply 3205/23/2013

R31 He makes money and funds the projects by selling off limited edition sighed and numbered renderings of what the completed installment will look like. It's actually a pretty clever idea.

by Anonymousreply 3305/23/2013

Rothko. Tenth rate wallpaper.

by Anonymousreply 3405/23/2013

It's not clear who pays for all his crap (certainly not "sales of his drawings")

by Anonymousreply 3505/23/2013

R32 You're talking about two series of paintings out of hundreds he did. His entire operation was funded by and much of his wealth came from his commissions.

by Anonymousreply 3605/23/2013

R35 His drawings are highly collectable. People pay big money for one. They see it as an investment. Once he kicks, the value of those drawings will increase. And he's probably due to kick soon.

by Anonymousreply 3705/23/2013

Picasso, Basquiat, George W. Bush

by Anonymousreply 3805/23/2013

Sometimes (now) the shit that some of you say, just makes me sad. With the exception of T. Kinkade, every artist mentioned in this thread deserves every bit of his success. It reminds me sadly,that just because someone is gay does not mean they have a heightened sense of esthetics,beauty or talent.

Christo did what he(and his wife) did for many years of his life,for very little money. Most people mocked what he did. But the fact that an artist continues to do what he feels compelled to do regardless of the opinions (and scorn) of people with closed minds,is,by definition,what it means to be an artist.

To the fool who said he could do what Warhol did,you're standing under a brick wall.

And R15 I don't think you're supposed to look at Cher up close either!? HA!

by Anonymousreply 3905/23/2013

As an artist I can tell you one does what one has to do to survive. When you are barely making it and then create something that people will pay money for you do it over and over again until they stop buying it. Picasso was like that. Dali was like that. They got rich making the same stuff over and over again. Renoir painted all those horrible fleshy nudes when he was old because he was lazy, bored and sexually frustrated.

by Anonymousreply 4005/23/2013

Jasper Johns is worse than Hitler.

As an artist, of course.

by Anonymousreply 4105/23/2013

Vangogg. All those dots and dashes. Looks like a 10-yr. old did it. One of those artists with the cache' that they suffered greatly while alive, but are elevated to genius in death.

by Anonymousreply 4205/23/2013


Oh, ear.

by Anonymousreply 4305/23/2013

Walter Keane

Adolf Hitler

by Anonymousreply 4405/23/2013

The post at R42 = the written equivalent of defecating in public. Just when you thought anonymous DL posters couldn't embarrass themselves any further...

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, R42. The thousands of art historians who have devoted books to Van Gogh must feel very redundant right about now.

by Anonymousreply 4505/23/2013

Picasso was a HACK! Total shit. It looks like a child painted it.

Jackson Pollack. Puleeze. Here lets flick our paint and drizzle it!

At least Thomas Kinkade had some skills and artistic ability!

I agree, most ABSTRACT MODERN ART is pure laughable shit.

by Anonymousreply 4605/23/2013

I like vangogg at Xmas

by Anonymousreply 4705/23/2013

[quote]Thomas Kinkade

Is he the one with the galleries in all the upscale malls? Quaint forest cottages bathed in quasi-religious light?

Christmas card art.

by Anonymousreply 4805/23/2013

Yes [r48]!!! Who doesn't love "Quaint forest cottages bathed in quasi-religious light" !!!

by Anonymousreply 4905/23/2013

Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.

One trick ponies.

by Anonymousreply 5005/23/2013

Yes r48, and his somewhat sordid pre-mature death has not helped his "reputation."

" I cannot believe what people are paying for Picassos today. Anything after 1945 is worthless shit, in my opinion."

Regarding Picasso, that is so very accurate. At that recent Met Exhibit a few years ago, you could just see the drop-off in quality in every post-war painting.

by Anonymousreply 5105/23/2013

[quote]Total shit. It looks like a child painted it.

Bear in mind, this is a website where people mock and look down on the likes of The Daily Mail and iVillage.

by Anonymousreply 5205/23/2013

I love R43.

by Anonymousreply 5305/23/2013

Gilbert Stuart. All his portraits look exactly the same. He's basically the equivalent of a senior yearbook photographer- 10,000 people in tuxes and black drapes with a blueish grey background.

by Anonymousreply 5405/23/2013

[quote]Looks like a 10-yr. old did it.

What an original art critique!!

by Anonymousreply 5505/23/2013

Cy Twombly

by Anonymousreply 5605/23/2013

[quote]warhol-even i can do that shit

Maybe, but doubtful. What you are utterly incapable of doing is conceiving and producing an entirely new style of art, which has been imitated constantly ever since.

by Anonymousreply 5705/23/2013

Those of you who hate Mark Rothko, what art do you like? I'm trying to understand you.

by Anonymousreply 5805/23/2013

OP here. Well I do like Dali, Rothko, Pollock and Jasper Johns even Warhol to some extent. There's just something about Renoir's art that I find so very 'unnatural' for an artist who was supposed to be inspired by nature. Monet and Degas were far more superior in my opinion. I hate his colors and his brush strokes. It's not even pretty to look at...

by Anonymousreply 5905/23/2013

Bravo R57

by Anonymousreply 6005/23/2013

I don't think there is much artistic or visually interesting to like in Warhol's work. It's the nihilism or anti-artistic notion in his work that made him the most famous artist--Picasso aside, perhaps---of the 20th Century.

Warhol's work says "Fuck you, I don't give a fuck about what art is or isn't, art is whatever I say it is and I say it's a silkscreen of an electric chair or Jackie O." This notion is pretty damn liberating, and really changed the course of art history (both for better or for worse). It also engendered an enormous amount of self-indulgent schlock.

He's still phenomenally important in terms of culture.

by Anonymousreply 6105/23/2013

Warhol is important in terms of the debasement of culture - the easy cynicism, the shallowness, the celebrity-worship, materialism and the worship of money - that was what he was about and that is everywhere now and won't go away. If only it lasted 15 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 6205/23/2013

I don't hate Rothko, I just think he was a one-trick pony. There's no versatility, no obvious intelligence. He was satisfied with one take on the world.

I like: Warhol, Chuck Close, Hopper, Picasso, Van Gogh, Matisse, Dali, Cezanne, El Greco, Rembrandt, O'Keeffe, Velazquez, Goya, Murillo, Kandinsky, Hockney, Zubaran, Beckmann, Titian, Renoir, etc. etc.

by Anonymousreply 6305/23/2013

Warhol had a genius for seeing icons, and iconic moments. And he eternalized them through his art.

by Anonymousreply 6405/23/2013

I went to a Rothko show about 15 years ago at the Whitney. It was one of the most beautiful art exhibits I've ever seen--just unbelievable.

by Anonymousreply 6505/23/2013

El Greco now that was a unique and brilliant vision of the world.

by Anonymousreply 6605/23/2013

Basquiat, definitely.

As for Rothko, I think when you see his early work that the big later pictures grew out of, it all makes a lot more sense, and in fact it's very moving.

by Anonymousreply 6705/23/2013

George Condo is dreadful.

by Anonymousreply 6805/23/2013


I'm with R39 on this (except you got the wrong Cher--try clueless), this thread is proof positive that DL is mostly home to Philistines.

Art isn't about simply painting the best representation of what's in front of you. Like most cultural expressions, it has to continually re-invent itself. Abstract Expressionism, Cubism, Pop Art, Surrealism, Dadaism--you have to look at these works in the context of history, as the ideas and styles they ushered into the mass consciousness had more to do with the times the artists lived in than a desire to create 'palatable' works.

About 15 years ago, SAM did a Pre-Raphaelite exhibition that also included one of Renoir's still lifes of strawberries. It was luminous.

And if you've ever been to the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, you can see Warhol's earlier work before he started his pop art. He was a hugely talented artist. Not just in the work he created, but the incredible influence he had on the culture. The films that came out of The Factory were just as important.

As for Christo, I recall being in high school the year he wrapped the islands of Biscayne Bay in pink. Since I lived in Miami, the 'surrounded islands' were talked about everywhere. When I had the chance to finally see it, driving by on the causeway, I thought it was brilliant. It was huge and it was memorable and it made you rethink the environment you lived in. But as much as I loved that installation, Christo's yellow umbrellas dotting the hills of Japan many years later blew me away.

Even Klee had his purpose. While not as important, perhaps, as his contemporaries Kandinsky or Miro, I loved a lot of the whimsy on display in paintings like this one-

by Anonymousreply 6905/23/2013

I am with you on Renoir OP.

When I was five, my best friend's mother had Renoir prints. Even though I played with my sister's Barbie, I thought the Renoir prints were just too girly. Now that I am all grown up they don't seem much different.

He didn't capture light the way other Impressionists did and his depictions never made me see his subjects in a new or different way.

The paintings just seem so decorative.

by Anonymousreply 7005/23/2013

Jackson Pollock and almost all abstract expressionists. It's almost all total nonsense.

Almost all so-called artists working today, especially ones who do "installations".

R59/OP, I thought Renoir was meant to inspired by social life, not nature.

by Anonymousreply 7105/23/2013

Why the sigh, 69? Is there also a headshake at the ignorance of the plebs? Oh, you are so learned and superior!

"Art isn't about simply painting the best representation of what's in front of you."

No shit, Sherlock! You still think that people think that? Wow.

"as the ideas and styles they ushered into the mass consciousness had more to do with the times the artists lived in"

Yeah, we know that as well. It's just that some of the stuff is shit and some of the ideas and styles they "ushered" may not actually be of much interest when taken out of the times the "artists" lived in. In other words, they may just be fashionable, pretentious fads. 90% of their sales value is nothing to do with the inherent value of the art. A piece of Jackson Pollock worth 140 million dollars? Bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 7205/23/2013

Ugh, Twombley and all that pencil scribbling.

by Anonymousreply 7305/23/2013


by Anonymousreply 7405/23/2013

OP is one those third-year girls in Paris who gripe my liver.

by Anonymousreply 7505/23/2013


by Anonymousreply 7605/23/2013

Beauty / Eye / Beholder indeed. So, that means that anyone who tries to tell you that you must like certain art otherwise you are a Philistine is an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 7705/23/2013

Provincetown's John Dowd

by Anonymousreply 7805/23/2013

The reason all the discussed abstract painters are considered masters is because they were the first of their kind. No one did what they did BEFORE they came along.

The reason we (or me) see them as hacks today, is because how easy it is to copy their style. So I resent their innovation! There. I said it!

(Plus, it helped to fuck peggy guggenheim!)

by Anonymousreply 7905/23/2013

Benjamin Moore

by Anonymousreply 8005/23/2013

Pollock couldn't draw, as he demonstrated in every representational work that he ever turned out. So he contrived something he COULD do, the drip paintings, which were not only produced as a smoke screen, but were a fraud in another respect: they weren't dripped, they were pushed. The paint was poked around the surface of a canvas which was lying on the floor.

by Anonymousreply 8105/23/2013

Jasper Johns.

Keith Haring.

by Anonymousreply 8205/23/2013


by Anonymousreply 8305/23/2013

r57, the issue isn't that he created a new form of art. The issue is, is that art form any good?

And being copied doesn't mean it is good.

by Anonymousreply 8405/23/2013

Peter Max. YUUUCCK.

by Anonymousreply 8505/23/2013

OP and R70 and all Renoir haters really puzzle me. Take a look at Moulin de la Galette, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere, the Swing, the painting of light and shadow is stunning. If you want to look at overrated artists: Rothko, Johns, Twombly (infantile scribbling) and the "Dexterish" Damien Hirst.

by Anonymousreply 8605/23/2013

Let me guess, r82/83/84/ may not know much about art but you know what you (don't) like.

by Anonymousreply 8705/23/2013

R86, Bar at the Folies-Bergere is a great painting, but isn't it by Manet?

by Anonymousreply 8805/23/2013

Jasper DeKimmel

by Anonymousreply 8905/23/2013

Warhol. He destroyed painting the way Sondheim destroyed theater music. They removed the humanity.

by Anonymousreply 9005/23/2013

The better question is: which painter isn't?

by Anonymousreply 9105/23/2013

Benjamin Moore

by Anonymousreply 9205/23/2013

that would be another thread, R91. We could have a top ten of favorite painters. They love lists!

by Anonymousreply 9305/23/2013

The entire Hudson River School is overrated.

by Anonymousreply 9405/23/2013

R80 wins.

That said, some of you have offered some profound analysis in this thread. Bravo.

by Anonymousreply 9505/23/2013

Keith Haring--what a con-job.

by Anonymousreply 9605/23/2013

R88 You are right, I stand corrected!

by Anonymousreply 9705/23/2013

It's hard to overrate Picasso because his genius is so extensive. Recent exhibitions of his I've seen have been breathtaking, yet concerned with only one segment of the work.

His range, mastery and imagination are unequalled in the 20th century. If it's ever possible, an exhibition of the best of his work in all mediums from all periods would be revelatory, and unmatchable.

More recently the greatest artist has been Lucian Freud. His range is less wide than Picasso's, but so is everyone's. Nonetheless Freud's singular vision, and genius with oil paint, etching and drawing are unrivalled. He knew he wasn't in the same league as Rembrandt and Titian, his masters, but he was closer than anyone else.

David Hockney is overrated. Robert Hughes called him 'the Cole Porter of paint, not the Mozart', but even that might be generous.

Warhol was a clever opportunistic graphic artist, devoid of depth or development. Pop art for the pop era.

by Anonymousreply 9805/23/2013

Joseph Bueys

Depressing, nilhilistic, and a sham.

Everything modern Germany worships: hence his high profile.

by Anonymousreply 9905/24/2013

r18 knew how this thread would go.

Lucian Freud is one of my favorite artists and Andy Warhol takes a bit of time to understand, but he is about much more than POP art.

I think that Lautrec is over rated. This is silly jerking off nonsense. Oh yeah, that Mogdigliani too. I love Keith Haring. Who cares?

And who wants to argue Picasso? I don't know enough, but I have seen his work in every venue that I have had a chance.

Come on, save this kind of nonsense for actors and singers. Second thought, just actors.

Regardless, the question should always be, "Who is overpaid?"

by Anonymousreply 10005/24/2013

I like the Picasso blue period.

by Anonymousreply 10105/24/2013

George Bush.

by Anonymousreply 10205/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 10305/24/2013

I beg y'all to leave artists alone.

Sofa's are expensive.

DL is not equipped for this question.

by Anonymousreply 10405/24/2013

All of them.

Except for Margaret Keane

by Anonymousreply 10505/24/2013

David Hockney, esp. those nude male youth scenes. Looks like the art of a middle school age child.

by Anonymousreply 10605/24/2013

Bob Dylan. Yes, that Bob Dylan, the folk singer. They showed a painting of his on some site and it was almost identical to a photograph another artist had taken much earlier. Will try to hunt down the site/link.

by Anonymousreply 10705/24/2013

I was a Renoir complainer until I did a survey of his work. He really was quite facile, skilled and focused. Lovely work. If you don't like his subject matter (and for the most part I don't, much), don't confuse that with lack of talent and mastery. Also, just because his girly paintings are accessible to the masses, don't hold that against him either. Look at the full range of his creativity. The chatter here is that of philistines trying to overcompensate.

I'll go with Jeff Koons. That shit was over 30 years before he squatted it out. If I want cynicism I'll go to Francis Bacon, who at least understood the difference between posing as a cynic and actually being broken by the world.

by Anonymousreply 10805/24/2013

Dylan isn't overrated as a painter, though, r107. It's barely known he paints. And even among those who do know, he's certainly not highly rated, quite the opposite.

by Anonymousreply 10905/24/2013

I'm getting the feeling that most of the people dissing certain artists have never seen their work up close.

Rothko and Warhol paintings have blown me away when I've seen them in person. I had no idea of their beauty or potency by looking at the reproductions.

I wouldn't begin to call any of the major artists "overrated" because I know very little about what it takes to make a piece of art myself and wouldn't presume to judge.

I will say that Picasso almost always leaves me cold. I know others who swoon in front of his paintings but I've never found one that has moved me.

by Anonymousreply 11005/24/2013

[quote]I will say that Picasso almost always leaves me cold.

That's been my reaction. I don't argue against his talent or importance, but his work doesn't move me. Maybe 12-13 years ago a Matisse/Picasso exhibit toured. For there was no contest. I'm a Matisse fangurl.

by Anonymousreply 11105/24/2013

The concept of Conceptualism is sadly lost on you people.

by Anonymousreply 11205/24/2013

The Mona Lisa is, well, you know, maybe a little trite?

by Anonymousreply 11305/24/2013

I think the most important thing to consider is how the artist interpreted hit timeframe or influenced future generations.

For years I did not understand Picasso. But consider how much influence he had on culture and the arts that came after him.

Also for years I did not understand why Rothko was important. His work was just big canvases with color applied over color. Then I went to the Rothko chapel in Texas. It's been a long time but I believe it is a hexagon or octagon building of concrete, totally devoid of anything inside except benches and each wall with a massive Rothko painting. It's totally silent inside. One sits there in the dim lighting and is totally absorbed by his work. I was completely amazed by what I saw. As one stares at one painting after another they begin to evoke emotions. Silently I began to understand what he was doing. Today I love his work.

by Anonymousreply 11405/24/2013

[quote]Then I went to the Rothko chapel in Texas

The Rothko chapel is an AMAZING place. I had seen pictures of it before I went and thought it was going to be very silly. Instead, as R114 noted, it was very moving.

by Anonymousreply 11505/24/2013

Most of them.

by Anonymousreply 11605/24/2013

I saw the Rothko Chapel, too. As I said: One-trick pony. He does the same painting over and over and over again -- in different colors. He's no soulful mystic.

Picasso was tirelessly, restlessly inventive. And I find his blue and rose period paintings extremely moving.

Cy Twombley is garbage.

by Anonymousreply 11705/24/2013

O happy day. The one trick pony troll is back with his scintillating insights.

by Anonymousreply 11805/24/2013

R114, you do contradict yourself, dear. You state the important thing is a consideration of the historical perspective and influence of an artist. Using this dictum, a person wouldn't even need to bother looking at art before pretending to know all about it.

Of course you rightly understand that this is absurd, as you admit your understanding of Rothko came from direct exposure - immersion, in this case - with his art.

As I visit art museums and observe people shopping, dining, drinking, watching films and luxuriating in the environs, while not looking at the art, I shudder at your first suggestion. Because it shows people yet another way to avoid the aesthetic experience. Ultimately, one learns about and enjoys and judges visual art by looking at it. One judges artists by looking at and comparing their art. The rest is horseshit.

by Anonymousreply 11905/24/2013

Picasso. Standing in front of his works many years ago with my closest friend, she turned to me and said, 'He was actually a really crap painter'. And yes, he was.

by Anonymousreply 12005/24/2013

Man that Rembrant was a one trick pony with all those dark portraits in heavy oil.

by Anonymousreply 12105/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 12205/24/2013

[quote]Whoever did that topless painting of Bea Arthur. i cannot believe that piece of shit sold for nearly $2 million dollars.

When I first saw this story, I figured the buyer was some hack comedian who thought it would be "funny" to pay $2 million for a prison-artist caliber nude of Bea Arthur. Turns out I was right:

by Anonymousreply 12305/24/2013

Eldin from Murphy Brown

by Anonymousreply 12405/24/2013

Schnabel, absolutely.

Warhol is a genius.

by Anonymousreply 12505/24/2013

Another person who has come to really like Renoir through visits to the Barnes in Philly.

by Anonymousreply 12605/24/2013

I don't like my Hewlett Packard printer, it keeps breaking down and the ink is expensive.

by Anonymousreply 12705/24/2013

{quote]O happy day. The one trick pony troll is back with his scintillating insights.

Instead of being a snarky, defensive douchebag, what don't you give some intelligent reasons for why Rothko is a genius?

Seriously. I'd love to know what I'm missing.

by Anonymousreply 12805/25/2013

You may prefer Manets but I like Miracle Whip.

by Anonymousreply 12905/25/2013

Picasso for sure, not one thing he painted was worth looking at adn he's the only one that seemed to get the joke.

by Anonymousreply 13005/25/2013

[quote]Picasso...he's the only one that seemed to get the joke.

Apart say from the crowds who attend his shows, buyers who spend eight figures on his work at auction, and John Richardson, still at work on his multi-volume biography. We're all in on this huge conspiratorial joke.

by Anonymousreply 13105/25/2013


by Anonymousreply 13205/25/2013

Don't like Renoir, but don't think he's a bad painter, just not to my taste. Edvard Munch is really quite terrible most of the time, the daubings of a self harming adolescent, all grown up. I find Cy Twobly's paintings quite beautiful (in the same way as children's paintings on fridge doors are) while simultaneousley considering him to be one of art's greatest charlatans, 'a bit of scribble and a few names from ancient Greek history, and people will think it's deep'. Paul Klee is like a place-mat designer, so is Joan Miro. I suppose 80 or however many years down the line, all we're left with is the art itself, and it's nigh on impossible for us to appreciate how revolutionary or iconclastic modern art was, which is the main reason for it still being around, but a lot of it looks really empty to me, now.

by Anonymousreply 13305/25/2013

I don't get the huge deal made out of Picasso and Van Gogh but can recognise that it's probably a personal taste thing.

by Anonymousreply 13405/25/2013

The joke is on all of those 131, as PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute

by Anonymousreply 13505/25/2013

[quote]there's a sucker born every minute

And a philistine. As PT Barnum didn't say.

by Anonymousreply 13605/25/2013

Seriously, the people knocking Picasso here are making big tits of themselves. Sit down and let people think you're ignorant fuckwits, don't stand up and prove it.

by Anonymousreply 13705/25/2013

What R137 said.

I'm not crazy about representational painting, but I don't think it's bad art, or overrated. It just doesn't appeal to me the way abstract art does. I wouldn't call someone who mainly painted portraits a "one trick pony."

by Anonymousreply 13805/25/2013

I don't understand why people care about paintings when all you have to do is point your cell phone camera, click and you have a perfectly nice picture that's much prettier (and realistic) than any painting.

by Anonymousreply 13905/25/2013

Can you stretch your your cellphone out to hang your "prettier" picture on your wall?

by Anonymousreply 14005/25/2013

George Rodrigue - come on....

by Anonymousreply 14105/25/2013

I remember when I was a kid, I thought Picasso was having a joke on everyone but I do think he had the talent...but he'd rather make people look like fools,

by Anonymousreply 14205/25/2013

I think Dali was the greatest artist who ever lived.

by Anonymousreply 14305/25/2013

Cy Twombly. Why the hell am I going to work, when I could do crap like that and make $$$?

by Anonymousreply 14405/25/2013

Tony Bennett

Joni Mitchell

Tony Curtis

Jane Seymour


by Anonymousreply 14505/25/2013

I think a lot of art is down to luck. Van Gogh only ever sold ONE painting during his whole lifetime despite having an art dealer brother. He basically lived off his brother. Yet his paintings are revered the world over today, and sell for multiple millions.

So it goes. A lot of it is perception and luck, imo.

by Anonymousreply 14605/25/2013

IMO Van Gogh is in the Top Five.

by Anonymousreply 14705/26/2013

R139 is trying to be cute right ?

by Anonymousreply 14805/26/2013

Cindy Sherman

Keith Haring

Jeff Koons

Ai Wiwei

Any "performance artist"

by Anonymousreply 14905/26/2013

You ARE bitter, r149, those guys are all good. None of them are painters though.

by Anonymousreply 15005/26/2013

George W Bush

by Anonymousreply 15105/26/2013

Cy Twombly owns this thread.

I wish I had thought of scribbling all over a blank canvas and selling it for millions.

by Anonymousreply 15205/26/2013

Renoir, Walter Sickert (any English painter, really), Frieda Kahlo, Jean Paul Riopelle, Jasper Johns, Cy Twombly, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Keith Haring, Eric Fischl, Elisabeth Peyton, Paula Rego, Sidney Nolan, Kahinde Wiley,

by Anonymousreply 15305/27/2013

[quote](any English painter, really)

Hogarth, Stubbs, Gainsborough, Reynolds, Constable, Turner, Gwen John. The list goes on.

Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud weren't born in England, but their lifetimes of great work were done in London.

Anyone needing to confirm just how overrated all English painting is can visit The Yale Center for British Art.

by Anonymousreply 15405/28/2013

Vangogg... Christ. I laughed so hard I cried. Thanks r43.

by Anonymousreply 15505/28/2013


by Anonymousreply 15605/28/2013

One of Christos umbrellas flew up out of the ground and killed someone on the 5 fwy.

Thomas Kinkade liked to urinate in public.

Totally agree about Jackson Pollack.

I was aghast at a particular papier mâché sculpture I saw at a museum I honestly thought it had to be a joke it was so awful.

by Anonymousreply 15705/28/2013

[quote]Walter Sickert

Really? He's one of my favourite painters, r153.

One word for anyone who's had a "spiritual" experience looking at Mark Rothko's work: autosuggestion.

by Anonymousreply 15805/28/2013

Picasso! I mean really, what's all the fuss about?

by Anonymousreply 15905/29/2013

Picasso was a genius

by Anonymousreply 16005/29/2013

The longer the statement, the weaker the artist...

by Anonymousreply 16105/29/2013

I'm still waiting for R118 to explain why Rothko is a genius.

by Anonymousreply 16205/29/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!