Live data from Hacker News

Museum of Bad Art

museumofbadart.org

31–40 of 154 posts

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#34
post #5

What's wrong with the page? I can't select the address to copy & paste it into maps. Please don't break the web.

Oh wow, that's bullshit. I just tried to copy the address and got a little alert saying "ALERT: Content is protected !!"

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#36

Honestly, most of them are still better than I could draw.

My thoughts exactly! What makes a bad art piece anyway? While they might not have yet mastered the brush or the canvas, these artists are obviously passionate all the same, and isn't that what matters? Real bad art is soulless and as such would offer no value, be it entertainment or contemplative, when placed in a gallery. That is a true Mueseum Of Bad Art, and I suppose the curators know this. I thought some of these pieces were quite incredible, actually.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#39
I flipped through the "unseen forces" section and so far about half of them aren't actually bad. For example Monochrome 006 (supposedly inspired by Schoenberg) would IMO fit right in at MOMA and was actually kind of cool. Likewise, Inside The Egg, Twins In Utero, and Spewing Marshmallows were both really interesting. Some of these are actually goofy doodles, but it's a shame to dismiss everything that isn't a conventional oil painting as "bad". I say this as someone who doesn't really enjoy or appreciate modern art (or modern music like Schoenberg for that matter).

I see the same problem in other sections too. A New Day looks like a child's doodle. But Greenscape and Burning Bush are interesting. They both look like they were painted by big Bob Ross fans. Amateur, sure. But hardly "bad art" to the point of being in a museum of bad art. Or maybe they're much worse in person?

Post reply on HN