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

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#61

Post by gspencley »

ceejayoz wrote: post #54
gspencley wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tempted to create a top-level post suggesting that they just call themselves "Museum" since "Of Bad Art" is redundant, but I figured the joke would get lost and I'd just get down-voted into oblivion. I'm fairly creative, I can draw (at one time in my life I seriously wanted to be a comic book illustrator) and I'm a musician. I appreciate that art is subjective, often difficult to do well and that technical skil…

> In 2014, it was reported that senior personnel at the National Gallery estimated that the current value of the painting is in excess of $40 million. Sounds like the purchase worked out well for the taxpayers...

How does it help the tax payers to have a 40 million dollar asset on display?

Even if it has appreciated after adjusting for inflation (and I'm sure it has), what is the National Gallery's possession of that piece of canvas, oil and pigment doing to help the taxpayers with anything that concerns them in either 1989 or 2024?

In any event, this is a huge digression from the topic. I never meant to start a conversation about whether or not tax dollars should be used to purchase art, and what kind of art. The discussion is what makes art 'good' or 'bad'. And Voices of Fire was controversial in 1989 and still is ... because many Canadians are like "why do rich people pay money for this kind of stuff?"

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#62

Post by the_af »

eadmund wrote: post #53

Consider the possibility that the artists behind these pieces were not trolling, but genuinely trying to express something, or craft something beautiful. Mocking their failures is a little bit liking making fun of a small child’s fingerpainting. I completely agree that this stuff is ugly, much of it atrociously ugly. But it’s likely the artists knew no better, or at least could do no better. It’s also ugly to mock ot…

That's my impression as well. Very few of the pieces look like trolling. They look more like when an enthusiastic relative tells you they've started art classes and they show you what they've done so far...

You know, that aunt that has started doing watercolors and asks for your honest opinion.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#63

Post by dooglius »

ceejayoz wrote: post #54
gspencley wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tempted to create a top-level post suggesting that they just call themselves "Museum" since "Of Bad Art" is redundant, but I figured the joke would get lost and I'd just get down-voted into oblivion. I'm fairly creative, I can draw (at one time in my life I seriously wanted to be a comic book illustrator) and I'm a musician. I appreciate that art is subjective, often difficult to do well and that technical skil…

> In 2014, it was reported that senior personnel at the National Gallery estimated that the current value of the painting is in excess of $40 million. Sounds like the purchase worked out well for the taxpayers...

If they sell it for that much

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#64

Post by dahart »

eadmund wrote: post #53

Consider the possibility that the artists behind these pieces were not trolling, but genuinely trying to express something, or craft something beautiful. Mocking their failures is a little bit liking making fun of a small child’s fingerpainting. I completely agree that this stuff is ugly, much of it atrociously ugly. But it’s likely the artists knew no better, or at least could do no better. It’s also ugly to mock ot…

“Our collection include sincere art in which something has gone wrong in a way that results in a compelling, interesting image.”

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#65

Post by the_af »

nerdponx wrote: post #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 convent…

In the landscapes section there are some that look as if the author was Dalí.

Now, Dalí is divisive and many hate his work. But when you add Dalí-like art to your "bad art" gallery you're making a bold & controversial statement...

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#66

Post by Brian_K_White »

eadmund wrote: post #53

Consider the possibility that the artists behind these pieces were not trolling, but genuinely trying to express something, or craft something beautiful. Mocking their failures is a little bit liking making fun of a small child’s fingerpainting. I completely agree that this stuff is ugly, much of it atrociously ugly. But it’s likely the artists knew no better, or at least could do no better. It’s also ugly to mock ot…

I was just thinking that when an animal paints, we sometimes see at least a little something worth seeing in there. They have no scholarly craft but still there is something that came out of them. It seems that the same should also be true for humans.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#68

Post by the_af »

gspencley wrote: post #49
Yawrehto wrote: post #14

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

I was tempted to create a top-level post suggesting that they just call themselves "Museum" since "Of Bad Art" is redundant, but I figured the joke would get lost and I'd just get down-voted into oblivion. I'm fairly creative, I can draw (at one time in my life I seriously wanted to be a comic book illustrator) and I'm a musician. I appreciate that art is subjective, often difficult to do well and that technical skil…

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 which there's no evidence they could create anything else but a few blobs of color.

In the second case, why are they not in the Bad Art Museum? Is it because of financial success of the art piece? Seems odd.

(I'm not trying to dictate anything universal or what others should think, it's just my own preferences and musings about art and artists).

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#69

Post by the_af »

d--b wrote: post #59

Honestly... It's not that terrible... The comments are really harsh. I don't understand the need to label it as bad. It's just stupid. Lots of museums of amateur art exist around the world and don't just shit all over the artists. Fuck you MOBA.

It's like the label is guiding you about how you should think about the piece.

Many of these, had they been in a modern art gallery and labeled something like "man despairing at the enormity of the cosmos" would have gone unnoticed or even praised.

Re: Museum of Bad Art

#70

Post by ceejayoz »

gspencley wrote: post #61
ceejayoz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2014, it was reported that senior personnel at the National Gallery estimated that the current value of the painting is in excess of $40 million. Sounds like the purchase worked out well for the taxpayers...

How does it help the tax payers to have a 40 million dollar asset on display? Even if it has appreciated after adjusting for inflation (and I'm sure it has), what is the National Gallery's possession of that piece of canvas, oil and pigment doing to help the taxpayers with anything that concerns them in either 1989 or 2024? In any event, this is a huge digression from the topic. I never meant to start a conversation…

> How does it help the tax payers to have a 40 million dollar asset on display?

Aside from the raw on-the-books investment value, valuable artworks a) bring in visitors and b) can be loaned in exchange for other works which will do even more of a).

Post reply on HN