What artists do you find totally overrated?

Me--- Thomas Kinkade, Mary Engelbreit, Warhol...

I'm not saying they don't have talent or some good aspects, I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

Jim Gray most overrated artist in knoxville

The whole modern abstract what ever (you know urinals on the wall, piles of bubble gum, giant bushes cut to look like little dogs, etc etc.), This nonsence has been going on for at least 40 yrs people its not new its not inovative and yes the idea of ripping off a bunch of really stupid rich people has its apeall but its time to start supporting the real artists again.

<======10' Pole========>

Um. It's really all very subjective. For instance... Morgan, I *love* Warhol. I really hate Escher, but I know there are people who think his work is great.

I think there are very few 'overrated' artists, but many, many underappreciated.

Leave Mary Alone........

Life is just a chair of bowlies, she says.

karlaBOO wrote:Leave Mary Alone........

Life is just a chair of bowlies, she says.

Where's those directions, hun?

I have to agree on Kinkade!!!!
But, Andy's right. It's all subjective.

I dig Andy, he taught us all how to sell art personally a lesson I'm still learning.

Lost Traveler I think you need to be more specefic as I love a lot of abstract art.

Rothko, Reindhardt, Louise Nevelson, as a matter of fact most of the work I love is abstract.

Sonicgoo wrote:I dig Andy, he taught us all how to sell art personally a lesson I'm still learning.

Lost Traveler I think you need to be more specefic as I love a lot of abstract art.

Rothko, Reindhardt, Louise Nevelson, as a matter of fact most of the work I love is abstract.

Same here. Rothko is one of my absolute favorites. Especially his post 1947 work. But I think it's very interesting to see his less famous early work, and how it progressed to the more recognizable abstract color studies. I'm going to own one of his pieces some day. I mean it. I am.

I got to see one of the later darke red ones in kansas city at the Nelson-Atkins museum.

they had it in the same room across from a reindhardt, and a Large black Nevelson cityscape between them.

and a Franz Kline was on thebackside of the same wall as the Rothko.

It was a very cool room I spent at least an hour if not longer just lounging about in there man wouldn't that be great bar. I gotta go see that again before I leave.

err sorry Im horrible with names, and when I see the stuff I talking about I just shut off to it, but im not talking people like polic and I actually like one or two warhols. Im primarly talking about the junk art that started around 1970 and continues to this day (not really the abstract painters unless they're that hoser who painted rat three times) oh yeah and child art (or simplistic art, as one of my teachers use to call it) sorry I cant be more specific

Well Duchamp was the one that put the urinal in a show and is responsible for a lot of modern art theory.

The urinal if I'm not mistaken was a bit of a joke, he also put a print of a mona lisa with a mustache on it lol. this sort of found art led to the dada movement.

Duchamp could paint he painted the nude descending the staircase, his last painted work and then went on to do some cool multimeda work.

One of my favorite questionbale art stories is: Rauschenberg he went to see Dekooning and asked him for a drawing to erase, Dekooning agreed and gave or traded a drawing to him Raushcenberg then erased it , signed and titled it Erased Dekooning.

You do need a bit of a sense of humour to appreciate it but ya know sometimes when the emeperor has no clothes it's just fun.

Is it a joke or is it art lol

Sonicgoo wrote:I got to see one of the later darke red ones in kansas city at the Nelson-Atkins museum.

/me is totally jealous.

It's always so different to see art in person than it is to see it in print format or on a screen. Especially whe it's somewhere like the Nelson-Atkins. They have a lot of nice stuff. It's one of the museums of America I really want to visit, mainly because of the Rothkos and Pollocks.

*sigh*

Anycow...

As for the other stuff, I have to say that for every conversation ever had about what art *is* or what it *should be*, for every art appreciation class ever held, and for every book written on art philosophies, it always comes down to aesthetics. Because of that it will always come down to personal preference.

I enjoy even bad art to some degree. I like to discuss the techniques and media used. I like to try to examine the artists intent and their approach. This to me is part of 'art'. I love the mental and verbal masturbation. It can be fun.

So I could go on about how Duchamp's toilet was a dadaist statement on Object D'Art. That his intent was to take the piss out of making the ordinary extraordinary and at the same time have a laugh at people like me who would discuss it until they were blue in the face. But really it was social jamming in my book, not really art.

In the end, what I always consider "great" art, is the stuff that draws me in *without* examing it. It's the stuff that i have an initial reaction to, and can later examine, dissect, and analyze that always stay with me.

As for the 'childish' works of some, I have to admit that there are some which are really, truly beautiful to me. On of my all-time favorite drawings is Picassos "Don Quixote" To me, it is one of the best uses of the style, in that it captures the true feeling of Cervantes' poem. His other work from that period follow suit. The minimalism, the purity, simplicity, whatever... they make me sigh.

I also love John Lennon's work, and I realize that I'm in the minority there. I don't like it nearly as much as Picasso's, but I think it's almost like an exploration of the style, and that can be fun too.

Oh well... I'm gonna shut up now. I'm way too much of a windbag.

vertigo25 wrote:
As for the 'childish' works of some, I have to admit that there are some which are really, truly beautiful to me. On of my all-time favorite drawings is Picassos "Don Quixote" To me, it is one of the best uses of the style, in that it captures the true feeling of Cervantes' poem. His other work from that period follow suit. The minimalism, the purity, simplicity, whatever... they make me sigh.

I also love John Lennon's work, and I realize that I'm in the minority there. I don't like it nearly as much as Picasso's, but I think it's almost like an exploration of the style, and that can be fun too.

I like the Don Quixote too. I have Picasso's Main Aux Fleurs on my wall. I saw it as a kid in my moms friends kitchen and it has always made me smile. John Lennon is good too. His art is on a line of baby decor now, which I think is sickeningly cute.

Great Essay Vertigo

As for the Nelson-Atkins museum, I think it would be worth the trip, Kansas city is a cool town to sort of a laid back memphis or something. It's worth it but it's one long drive fly if you can, I also smiled at the image of the flowers on the fridge Buttercup lol.

<cynycism>
I'm just not a Beatles fan that extends to lennons artwork.I actually think the beatles are overatted. There music is just to happy even there most psychotic depressed stuff seems to have that skiffle beat to it (yeah yeah yeah). My apologies to any Beatleheads out there.</cynycism>

Ms Monica my better half states that Jeff Koons would be the most overrated artist. I sorta get kick out of Koons but you could make a strong argument against koons

howsabout animal art that can be a real pisser when the get an elepahant to paint argggh

Sonicgoo wrote:howsabout animal art that can be a real pisser when the get an elepahant to paint argggh

That can be kind of annoying, however, I for some strange reason think the work by KoKo is neat. To me it shows that they aren't just dumb animals...or maybe to you it does *shrug*

http://www.koko.org

Sorry to be more specific I dont include picaso in the childish art i was metioning, (primarly just the stuff after the 70's.) When I was young I didnt like picaso (there are still few works i enjoy), but when I got to see his older works before he got into his cubism and color periods, I saw that what he was doing with these styles was intentinal (when I was young, people would say that it was him exploring new art, but I was sure thats the only way he could paint.)




(sorry i meanter or dont have specific information or examples, I write about as well as the guys im complaining about create)

Re:art work. not artist... but what'z sooo freakin' great about the "Mona Lisa"... I saw it n person, & still... unimpressed as ever!

agree

I'm with you on the mona lisa I would even say that Leonardo is overarted as an artist I don't realy care much for his work.

He was an incredible man with mucho talent but his painting is a little stiff if you ask me, and if the book the Agony and the Excstacy is correct Michaelangelo whom I admire greatly also thought so.