Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Museum of Bad Art

museumofbadart.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#111

Post by the_af »

microtherion wrote: post #94
the_af wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know this piece or the artist. Went through the few examples in Wikipedia of his art and it's almost all like this, minimalist blocks or stripes of color. Definitely not my thing. Why does it matter? To me, because it's different for a masterful artist to purposefully create something minimalist (e.g. Picasso) when you know they could make something technically complex if they wished so, vs an artist for whi…

Some time ago, I attended the memorial service for a skilled painter (not exactly a household name, though), and one of the stories told about him was that he visited the municipal museum, where there was a new exhibit of a newly acquired abstract expressionist painting (I believe by Mark Rothko), which just consisted of painted rectangles. He studied the painting for some time, and then asked to see the director of…

Excellent anecdote! Thanks for sharing.

Isn't this more evidence that it's arbitrary to decide something is "bad art" vs "good modern art" (of the pop/avant garde variety)?

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#112

Post by [deleted] »

nuclearnice3 wrote: post #104
adamc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it seems unkind. What is the purpose here? To teach about art, using art that maybe was someone's learning attempt seems like a huge mistake (and is likely to scare away students). If you aren't teaching, why talk about bad art at all?

Here's a delightful and illuminating 6 minute video which explains some of the purpose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB6UhGbyXfE Punchline at the end: "We don't say negative things about the art or the artist. Our stated goal is to collect, exhibit, and celebrate this art that would be appreciated nowhere else."

[deleted]

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#113

Post by duderific »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #80
calebm wrote: post #73

A lot of contemporary art is bad... surprisingly bad. A lot of it is /intentionally/ ugly. As an outsider just getting into the art world, it is fascinating - some kind of weird social phenomenon is going on. Maybe it's "different at all expenses" or something else. Not sure.

Yeah, modern art is almost universally bad. I suspect that it is because artists are absolutely soaked in art from all over history. They study it, they live and breathe it, and by this point they are bored of it. So they try to make something different and unlike the art of old, but have lost sight of the fact that normal people aren't jaded and bored of old art like they are. So they wind up making stuff which can…

Same phenomenon in modern classical music, and what is known as "free jazz". Much of it is unlistenable for average people, or even those who enjoy "classic" classical or jazz music.

Taking the example of free jazz, the artists are trying to free themselves from what they see as restraints on expression. However, the human mind and heart are themselves governed by pattern and organization, which is why most music took the forms that it did. Departing from those typical structures is an artistic choice, but the artists can't be surprised when most listeners don't respond well to those choices. Perhaps they don't care much about the listeners anyway.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#114

Post by awfulneutral »

rectang wrote: post #90

I dislike it. Ostensibly this is taking on art museum snobbery, but many of these works are by amateurs and were literally pulled out the trash. It feels like an embittered teacher making fun of a kid, while the class snickers at the spectacle of public humiliation. To each of the artists: congratulations for having the courage to trust in your imagination. I hope that others have engaged with your works with greater…

To me it looks like pieces are chosen that show a contrast of good and bad - they have amateurish or weird proportions and colors, but generally they have good or at least interesting composition. I couldn't really say how much is intentional vs accidental, for a lot of them.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#116

Post by rectang »

nuclearnice3 wrote: post #104
adamc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it seems unkind. What is the purpose here? To teach about art, using art that maybe was someone's learning attempt seems like a huge mistake (and is likely to scare away students). If you aren't teaching, why talk about bad art at all?

Here's a delightful and illuminating 6 minute video which explains some of the purpose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB6UhGbyXfE Punchline at the end: "We don't say negative things about the art or the artist. Our stated goal is to collect, exhibit, and celebrate this art that would be appreciated nowhere else."

I watched the video and I don't see how cutting commentary like otteromkram pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168503#42173585 aligns with their intent to not say anything negative about the artist:

> MOBA curators believe this painting, as well as others in the collection, may have been affected by the artists' never having actually seen a naked woman.

Or how this, with regards to https://museumofbadart.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/photo-... doesn't say anything negative about the art:

> The model, whose red hair matches the wall color almost perfectly, leans to her right in a pose designed to help the artist avoid the difficulty of portraying her hands. In doing so, she seems to have dislocated her left hip.

This isn't some cubist work where the body distortion was deliberate, it's just a painting by an artist that hasn't mastered realistic anatomical perspective.

I admire the sentiment in the video, and I can appreciate how it's difficult to live up to it. I wish they would go through the commentary on their site and make it more uplifting — I think that would make their creative endeavor of curation more compelling.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#117

Post by BizarroLand »

rectang wrote: post #106
willis936 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't feel mean sprited when I went. Many of the pieces were actually good in their own way. Sure, some were simply technically lacking, but those weren't what viewers found interesting. The human fetus made of chicken bones is what I remember.

Here's the critique I would like to have seen from MOBA for such a work: > human fetus made of chicken bones Delicious.

If you are what you eat then many of us are made primarily of chicken. I could read it as a commentary on society

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#118

Post by nathan_compton »

asdfasvea wrote: post #109

The best general art museums I've ever gone to were 80% crap, 15% meh and 5% good. The average general art museum is 90% crap, 9% meh and 1% ok. But that's the nature of the beast. You can't have a diverse collection where half the pieces are good to any individual. 1 person's opinion of great art is 99 other people's crap. There really are very few pieces in the world where 90%+ of people agree they are great pieces…

When I go through a museum I just powerwalk through pointing at each piece and saying "CRAP" "MEH" or "GOOD".

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#119

Post by nathan_compton »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #80
calebm wrote: post #73

A lot of contemporary art is bad... surprisingly bad. A lot of it is /intentionally/ ugly. As an outsider just getting into the art world, it is fascinating - some kind of weird social phenomenon is going on. Maybe it's "different at all expenses" or something else. Not sure.

Yeah, modern art is almost universally bad. I suspect that it is because artists are absolutely soaked in art from all over history. They study it, they live and breathe it, and by this point they are bored of it. So they try to make something different and unlike the art of old, but have lost sight of the fact that normal people aren't jaded and bored of old art like they are. So they wind up making stuff which can…

Some artists aren't making art for other people or are making art for other artists.

Even when I make art with other people in mind I still give preference to my own personal aesthetic impulses. Art isn't always a product seeking product market fit.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#120

Post by chefandy »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #21

This philosophy matches up with how I curate my music collection, which has brought me a great deal of joy even if it means no one will give me the aux cable at parties

Ha-- Yeah... nobody that sits down and listens to a whole Portsmouth Sinfonia album can plug anything into my stereo, ever.
Post reply on HN