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

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#141

Post by brianleb »

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."

>>"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."

Perhaps this is a 'whoosh' moment for me, but it seems that by simply housing the art in the Museum of /Bad/ Art, you are certainly saying something quite negative about the art and the artist.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#142

Post by Fricken »

nathan_compton wrote: post #118
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".

Many exhibits do nothing for me, but often enough I'm emotionally spent after one exhibit and have to come back another day to view more of the gallery.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#144

Post by bumby »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #121
eth0up wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sentiments are very similar, and I'm glad to read someone else articulating it here. Edit: Are we missing something?

Yes. A sense of humor.

If it's true that many of the items displayed came from the trash, I think this lacks an important part of humor: that the person be in on the joke. There's a saying that a practical joke is only good if the person on the butt end of it is laughing the hardest, otherwise it's just cruel.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#145

Post by MarkusWandel »

The strange portrait used as the headline image, and "Orange Coloured Sky" used as the header for the bad portrait gallery, "Sunrise, Sunset" in the landscapes (and possibly others) are actually good art, in my opinion. The only thing missing is the signature of a famous artist.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#146

Post by CivBase »

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…

Are the works anonymous or do they call out the artist? I'd they're anonumous, I don't see much harm.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#147

Post by SoftTalker »

smsm42 wrote: post #107

To be honest, if it weren't labeled "bad art" and were put aside of other modern art, without any labeling or commentary, or even better with standard commentary about "the artists boldly defying the established conventions to express the feelings deeply in their soul" and so on - I would not be able to say which is which and which comes from some official "best of" collection and which from a mock "bad art" collecti…

Agreed. Art is what you like. There's really no good or bad.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#148

Post by rectang »

CivBase wrote: post #146
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…

Are the works anonymous or do they call out the artist? I'd they're anonumous, I don't see much harm.

All artists are credited if known — and most are, if only because they've signed their work. It's hard to imagine MOBA doing otherwise — they're already copying without permission (I assume), and deliberately suppressing artist identities while ridiculing their copied works would be gauche even if legally defensible as satire.

MOBA's schtick is to present these works as alternatives to "important" art, which is cool. But they just can't help themselves and lay on the snark heavy and thick.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#149

Post by Tanoc »

Y'know, I would actually buy a few of these pieces. Most of them aren't bad at all, they're just outside of the mainstream. Keys To The City for example, in the Unlikely Landscapes collection is a prime example of outsider art. You have a bunch of key blanks, likely taken from where the artist worked, and they're turned from tools into parts of the painting. Bone Juggling Dog In A Hula Skirt is another one I'd probably get just because it reminds me of those kitschy '90s Good Apple posters in schools featuring the kids with perfect parabola smiles and tiny dot eyes.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#150

Post by robocat »

rectang wrote: post #116
nuclearnice3 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://museum…

> and make it more uplifting

And end up with the E954 praising of children and participation awards?

If we grow through adversity, what happens when we edit all adversity out of our realities?

Post reply on HN