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

151–154 of 154 posts

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#151

Post by rectang »

robocat wrote: post #150
rectang wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

LOL, humans are a uniquely vicious species and will never lack for either assholery or self doubt. There will always be sufficient human misery to foster growth.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#152

Post by southernplaces7 »

The bizarre thing about this entire collection of works (some of which are truly awful) is that for many of them, there's almost no difference in quality or style from much of the work I've seen promoted by major art organizations and galleries showcasing both "up and coming" artists and some established figures. I've even noted a certain trend towards increasing promotion of a specifically kitschy style of art by certain galleries, which closely resembles some of the stuff on this site.

So how do we really define bad art if the stuff called bad by one group is nearly identical to the stuff promoted by "high culture" galleries and organizations as being the latest in faashionably interesting art?

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#153

Post by washadjeffmad »

brianleb wrote: post #141
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."

>>"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.

The "Bad" is just a playful endearment, not an attempt to establish a definitive collection. Discarded as they were, van Gogh's or Kafka's works could have just as easily been part of this... had they been found behind dumpsters or at flea markets in the Boston area.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#154

Post by gxs »

card_zero wrote: post #81
gxs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article has to have some of the worst written language I’ve seen in a wikipedia article in a while. Just bad, unclear, convoluted explanations. Thankfully they provide a lot of examples - they should probably just skip to those and you’d be better off for it.

I don't mind fixing it, but I can't see the problem. Which sentences annoy most?

Apologies man, I meant the Wikipedia article parent posed, not yours
Post reply on HN