Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spqrnbb t1_iu4u194 wrote

Call me crazy, but I prefer paintings that you can tell whether someone has it displayed correctly.

47

JakeArvizu t1_iu5gm4w wrote

You can't appreciate a Mondrian or a Jackson Pollock? Idk man something about Autumn Rhythm is just so visually appealing to me.

16

spqrnbb t1_iu5ipff wrote

I prefer paintings with something of substance as a subject. The modern artists who work with shape and color in the vein of Pollock and Mondrian make pretty pieces. I just don't prefer them.

4

JakeArvizu t1_iu5xvqs wrote

That's understandable everyone likes different things. I guess I just prefer the emotion or idk visual stimuli that they produce. Like Mondrians feel sleek and cool. Then a Pollock feels idk inspiring or motivational for some reason.

7

LogicalConstant t1_iudh1h5 wrote

I really enjoy the visual appeal of pollack paintings, but there's a voice in my head that I can't silence. It says "I could have commissioned a 6 year-old to paint this for the cost of a candy bar. The level of skill required is much, much lower than for other styles of art. It looks cool, but that's about it. Even if the artist was trying to express certain emotions and ideas, there's no way for that to be effectively communicated to the viewer in any meaningful way. It's not really a representation of anything. The things that AREN'T in the painting are more important than the things that are. That's interesting as a novelty, but it gets old incredibly fast. I'd pay $40 for this piece and really enjoy owning it, but anyone who pays millions has motivations beyond the visual appeal and appreciation for the artist's skill and expression. It's the emperor's new clothes."

Idk, maybe you could say that about most art. I'm probably just too dumb to appreciate it.

1

empfindsamkeit t1_iu69u13 wrote

Call me a philistine, but I prefer paintings that you couldn't toss on the floor of an abandoned building or place in the corner of a janitorial closet and have no one notice it was "art" instead of random garbage.

−6

dofffman t1_iu5ncc3 wrote

Hi crazy im dad. Seriously though I agree. My favorite is Hyperrealism.

−6

fuck_the_fuckin_mods t1_iu5rqkx wrote

I find that much weirder than liking the abstract stuff TBH. If it’s indistinguishable from photography, isn’t the reference photograph the actual art in the first place? It’s just been enlarged using a human printer.

10

empfindsamkeit t1_iu68pmh wrote

It doesn't literally have to be a painting of a photograph, right? It's just an aesthetic. If such a photo did exist, it would look more or less like it.

2

fuck_the_fuckin_mods t1_iu69kay wrote

It doesn’t have to but it generally is. As an aesthetic I’m fine with it (just don’t find it particularly interesting) but most of the drawings/paintings that I see online are definitely working from a photo.

2

dofffman t1_iu6na90 wrote

nope because the painting itself never existed in reality. I especially like the one with the guy being beckoned on into a lake with nymphs.

2