Most well known art looks hideous to me

[Sammael]

Picasso

 

 

 

 

People fawn over that crap?

 

Pollock?  

 

 

...  I don't even understand how anyone could pay top dollar for that chicken scratch. 

 

 

 

dull and boring

 

not hideous, but nothing impressive about it.

 

 

Now THIS:

 

 

Is impressive to look at.

 

As is this:

Ignore the undead creature in the center, this is a stunningly attractive piece of work.

 

Are standards of beauty Sooooooooooooooo divergent that people truly disagree on the beauty of these things, or is it more that some people tend to celebrate the ugly in the world?  Pretending that beauty is not a virtue?

[LogicDeifying]

Things like these are personal preference...

Your opinion is your opinion and may not be the people who pay top dollar for things you might see as 'hideous'

[ScubaChase]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[Andrew0472]

that 3rd one is beautiful in my opinion 

[Sammael]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

 

So sayeth the wise twilight zone episode:

 

 

Where a world of ugly is considered beautiful and vice versa.  And yet it's a functional lie.  Beauty MAY be in the eye of the beholder, but some things are extreme.  If 99% of the beholders agree on something, then can't we say that in a practical sense, it's ugly or good looking to most people?  Now maybe art is so hopelessly subjective that nothing like that can be gleaned, but for the sake of my own eyes, I hope fewer people enjoy the crud that pollock guy produced.  It seems like a rejection of beauty in my eyes, and to me those are the most important of all.

[MbV93]

Well, you are comparing digital art with traditional, conventional painting which is not fair in my opinion, and while I agree there is some form of snobbery to art and some classical paintings, some of them are really difficult, intricate pieces of art with difficult lighting and incredible detail that not just anyone could make. That third one is a crazy beautiful painting!

[Sammael]

Well, you are comparing digital art with traditional, conventional painting which is not fair in my opinion, and while I agree there is some form of snobbery to art and some classical paintings, some of them are really difficult, intricate pieces of art with difficult lighting and incredible detail that not just anyone could make. That third one is a crazy beautiful painting!

 

 

Look at this example of an art "expert" examining a potential Pollock painting and judging it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFjAAA3AT8#t=7m28

 

... I am sorry, but that was the most ridiculous display I've seen.  Even if he's right, the aura of reverence he has for Pollocks paint dumpster displays is just too over the top.

[MbV93]

Look at this example of an art "expert" examining a potential Pollock painting and judging it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFjAAA3AT8#t=7m28

 

... I am sorry, but that was the most ridiculous display I've seen.  Even if he's right, the aura of reverence he has for Pollocks paint dumpster displays is just too over the top.

 

Haha yeah totally, I agree completely..

[SrN95]

Look at this example of an art "expert" examining a potential Pollock painting and judging it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFjAAA3AT8#t=7m28

 

... I am sorry, but that was the most ridiculous display I've seen.  Even if he's right, the aura of reverence he has for Pollocks paint dumpster displays is just too over the top.

Thank you for sharing  that, now I'm laughing my ass off

[Applepienation]

The third photo isn't showing up for me, but I think the 4th one is beautiful.

[Sammael]

Clearly you have little to no artistic outlet other than a computer. So allow me to enlighten you. The reason why the 1st two paintings have such mystique about them is because no-one in Picasso's time painted like he did. His art work was solely unique. That is why his works are so sort after, and that's what art is all about...about stepping away from the norm and challenging societal trends.

 

That 3rd painting is a water colour painting. I'm a little taken aback that you view it as unimpressive. You ought to look at the detail and colour co-ordination and lightening effects. I think its a beautiful piece and I'd love to have that proudly on my office wall. It takes a very detailed eye and hand to get such a picture to melt into the moment. Its more than just colour's, those paintings have life, feeling...something no computer generated image can recreate simply because they are done by a human.

 

Monet was another impressionist. You have to really look beyond the colour and brush strokes, art work is not about that. It's about portraying an emotion and feeling. Portraying life as it was or how it was seen through the artist's eye's.

 

I respect you like digital art work, and to some extent it has it's place. You should though do some research of the likes of Rembrandt and Leonardo.

 

I have a different standard.  Beauty and Power.  My own internal definition.  And so, a painting done in a way that no one else has done before means nothing to me.  If I were tasting a dish, the fact that the dish was done in a different way has no bearing on whether I will like or dislike it.  That such a thing is respected in the art world highlights the discord between my own standards and theirs.  Pollock was a different kind of painter too, that does not make his slop hurling any more impressive.  Of the non digital artwork I listed, the only decent looking one to me was the water color painting version, and mainly because of the colors.  The subject itself was uninspired to me.  I like more realistic looking things, that tend towards the futuristic and fantastical.  Not some jigsawed take on the mundane.  It bores me.  Same goes for some standard portrait of a normal woman, no matter how artistically done at the time.  Big deal.

 

 

It's why a Figure like this:

 

 

will nearly always be less impressive and awe inspiring than a figure like this:

 

 

 

That latter kind of scene is the kind of thing that stops you in your tracks, and makes you wonder and marvel at the sight, not mona lisa.  

 

I could go on.  Wolverine art vs Galactus:

 

 

 

Small ball creature vs cosmic entity, most people seem to be more interested in the more mundane creature - wolverine.  I won't pretend to understand their psyches, all I can do is highlight where their standards and my own differ.  It's like a taste profile, I gravitate towards the more fantastical, the more powerful, the more beautiful, the more futuristic - not the ugly, fractured, emotion flooded jumbles of color.

[Puppet]

Art is a study, not what you decide is beautiful.

 

The modern classics you have deemed as "crap" can tell us a lot more about our humanity than the other pictures you have shown.

 

They tell us a lot about our history, social views and how people expressed themselves at the time. I find it odd how you evaluate art.

[T.Vengeance]

Art is a study, not what you decide is beautiful.

 

The modern classics you have deemed as "crap" can tell us a lot more about our humanity than the other pictures you have shown.

 

They tell us a lot about our history, social views and how people expressed themselves at the time. I find it odd how you evaluate art.

I completely agree with you. Judging from the pictures he posted after those, I'm guessing he likes "stunning" art.

[Aphexx]

this whole thread made me realize I spend way too much time at the computer or a smart device. I need to go outside and experience things more away from a black screen 

 

I don't ever want to grow this closed minded...

[OBEYSQUIRREL]

Look at this example of an art "expert" examining a potential Pollock painting and judging it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFjAAA3AT8#t=7m28

 

... I am sorry, but that was the most ridiculous display I've seen.  Even if he's right, the aura of reverence he has for Pollocks paint dumpster displays is just too over the top.

I actually found that interesting and watched to the finish, but dear god the singing at an hour and 8 minutes in was beyond atrocious 

[Talsyrius]

Personally I somewhat agree with you, the picasso for example looks hideous to me. However the couple under the umbrella is pretty and is something that I would want to have. That is because I personally like art that is pretty/beautiful, or with pleasant colors. The thing that you have to remember is that a lot of the well known paintings are so valuable because people see it as an investment, and (in some countries) it is a good way to avoid taxes, to buy art. Also people want bragging rights. My point is that the really expensive paintings are not bought primarily because people like how they look, but for other considerations. 

[tobben]

i would say this is completely unfair as you are comparing digital art to real art, for one on a computer it is built to make it easy, it has all kinds of tools and tricks to help you which you obviously don't have when making a real painting, also in digital art, those colors arent real! that is why they are so vibrant powerfull and bright that isn't possible in reality, they can't edit the contrast ratio etc, one of those photos you showed can take a few hours while a normal painting can take days, weeks, months.

 

i do agree that the examples you used for art are terrible, except for the third example, but i disagree on the digital art you provided.

[James_AJ]

it's not just all about the fancy visuals and having gradients of colors..

it's about the story, the metaphors, the meanings and the expressions of the artist behind the arts you called hideous/crap/unimpressive.

I really suggest you go to a nearby museum or read up on art history & commentaries.. oh jeez you are probably on the same generation as me and I'm not really proud of that..

[Charger]

sounds like you just need to look at the art that interest you which seems to be contemporary digital art so check out http://www.androidjones.com/

[Puppet]

One of my favorite examples to discuss with people who have the same ideaology as the OP are the Tropicália installations from the 60s by Hélio Oiticica.

 

Here is a picture of one:

 

 

Okay so we have an installation intended to represent the favelas in Brazil comprised of a couple of screens, some potted plants, pebbles and some sand. Somewhat attractive, but if I am perfectly honest I have seen shop window displays that were more beautiful.

 

The thing is at the time Brazil was controlled by a highly oppressive military government. The dictatorship did not allow media representatives into the country, trying to enter on these terms was pretty much a death sentence, same goes for people trying to get their stories out. It was because of this the people in Brazil found it incredibly difficult to find aid from the outside world with these matters.

 

So what Oiticica did was bring the landscape of the favelas outside of their environment and created these installations and exhibited them. The government allowed this because they were so blind, much like the OP in this thread, as to what the installations were doing. They didn't claim any sort of oppression, in fact they made it look somewhat pleasing, but it got people asking questions:

 

What are favelas?, Whats it like to live there? etc. This gave birth to the Tropicália movement which is largely credited for bringing down the Brazilian military government as it drew attention to what was really going on in the country.

 

So suddenly a couple of screens, some potted plants, pebbles and some sand becomes something very beautiful indeed and highly valued.

 

You will find the same beauty and value in Pollocks and especially Picasso's artworks, I just chose this as its a little easier to explain, but you really have to look beyond the piece of art itself.