Proof that 'art critics' are dumb

by Simon 46 Replies latest social current

  • sleepy

    People who say "I could have done that" in referance to a picture are missing the point.
    They didn't do it.

    It all very well thinking you can do something after you have seen it, but try yourself to come up with an original idea and do it and try to make money from it.It harder than you think.
    People buy or like art for many reasons.
    Some admire the skill.Some like the picture.Some both.
    A good design doesn't always need a lot of technical skill, but it needs for you to be creatively skilled.
    Also it requires motivation.
    People often don't realise the expense artist go to to create work.
    A large canvas can easilly cost into the hundreds of pounds and so will the paint to go on it.
    To create works at this expence you must really want to do it, particually if you arejust begining or are unknown, you have no gaurente of selling your work.

    It would be better to say just that you dont like something , that to talk of the level of "skill" involved.

  • seven006

    ***It would be better to say just that you dont like something , that to talk of the level of "skill" involved.***

    I'll remember that the next time my little grand daughter comes up to me with her alligator scissors and want's to give me a hair cut.


  • SixofNine

    Sure Dave. Warhol lived HIS artistic beliefs. Yep, you heard me; his grand daughter was also his hair dresser.

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    Art is like beauty in the sense that it's in the eye of the beholder.

    Most expensive pieces considered great art, I wouldn't give a penny for and much less display such ugliness in my house!


  • senselessly sane
    senselessly sane

    I think her paintings are stunning! If you haven't already, check out the photo gallery at her site: (My favorite painting is 'Bottomfeeder').

  • jgnat

    My son worked off his teenage angst on paper. His work is comic-book style. His bedroom was several inches thick in white 8 1/2 by 11 discards. Once in a while I culled the collection with the help of a hefty extra-large garbage bag. When a spectacular piece caught my eye I would put it away. This came in handy later, when my son was asked for his "portfolio" to be accepted in to an art program. I pulled out my folder, and he took it in. He was immediately accepted.

    Perhaps the talent we see here is along the same lines. The girl goes at it, the dad selects.

    Hillary_Step, your comment summarizes so well how I feel about modern art.

    the difference between many abstract painters of old, like Pollock for example, is that they worked their way through traditional genres to arrive at their style, whereas the art schools these days do not teach their students the fundamentals about art. Look at Picasso's early paintings for example, he could paint in any style he chose. Many abstract artists just cannot draw, or even mix colors very well.

    I have met students who so lack confidence in their basic skills, that they have decided to skip the basics and head straight to abstract. Picasso's work may look simple, but there is great depth behind his work. I have trouble showing respect for artists who have not gone through the paces like the rest of us. My most hated newbie question, "How do you mix flesh colored paint?"

    Blood and vein beneath the surface creates variation. Light and shadow and reflected brights add their own dimension. A sheen of sweat creates angular shadows. Anybody who asks me how to mix "flesh colour" has not learned to LOOK.

  • confusedjw

    I like Norman Rockwell

Share this