Bad Art
 

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is well worth taking a look at. Take your time. Look around. Read the descriptions (and the newsletter). Read the heartbreaking saga of the loss of one of the museum's beloved masterpieces, "Eileen".

Some of my favorite pieces:

"Ronan the pug"



"Sunday on the Pot with George"



"Aurora Borialis"



"Gilded Nude"



Enjoy! :D

My problem with "bad art" is that while I can accurately gauge what I like or don't. I am completely unable to accurately predict when looking at something whether it will be thought of as good art or not.

Now obviously there is a level where I have a good idea, but the line is extremely fuzzy to me.

oversized arm. lol.

Now you have a standard against which you can judge.

Not really, because I've seen art labeled as master level that doesn't seem all that different (looking at pictures online) from some of these.

I don't have time to poke around much. What is the source of these things? Are they pieces put forward as good art or simply found examples of bad art. I'd hate to be making fun of a 7-year-old, or someone who knows that they aren't good but are simply trying to get better at it.

I know that is one reason I shy away from trying to learn to paint (which I'd love to do). I know I would suck at it (even with significant improvement) but hate doing things I know I'm bad at in front of other people. It took a lot before I even started sharing photographs I take even though I know they aren't as good as really good photography (but I think they tend to be better than simple snapshots), I think I'd probably stop if I ever stumbled on one at a web site dedicated to mocking bad photography.

(I know, an overly serious post -- from ME? a shocker that is -- about a fun link, but that is the thinking it prompted in me.)

Sunday on the Pot with George made me spit.

As someone in exactly the same position (substitute drawing for painting) a year ago, I suggest you buy some paint and brushes, find a community intro painting course, and do it. You'll be surprised at just how much you don't suck.

Meanwhile, I'm with Alex on this one. I'm always happy to quickly judge art when I see it, but as has been proven time and again, just because I think it's crap doesn't mean it is, and just because I think it's brilliant doesn't mean it is.

Oversized arm- very funny!

True- art appeals to different people. I see a lot of "good" art that I think is carp.

I'm a dilettante at photography, drawing, and once in a rare while, painting. I'm most confident in the photography, and I frequently share those online. While I know my drawings are definitely in the "pathetic" category, I do it because I like it and I don't generally share those. Maybe if something turns out well.

As far as mocking bad art, I hope to keep that in the privacy of my own self. I would hate to hurt anybody's feelings.

I hour later and I'm still chuckling over the Seurat joke. There are way too few art history jokes out there.

Most of the "art" is found in trash bins, The Salvation Army, etc. and/or "donated" by the artist. When the artist (or former owner of the piece) is known, they seem to be amused and pleased. (One piece, Mary Todd Lincoln was donated by the artist after the friend to whom it was originally gifted returned the painting. Upon hearing of MOBA and its resolve to provide a home for spectacular and unwanted pieces of art, he was thrilled. "I love it, I would never hang it on my wall, and it seems I can't give it away. Then I heard about MOBA and I rejoiced that there is a place where my painting will be seen and celebrated.")

For instance, this piece, "Lucy in the Fields with Flowers", was seen by the subject's grand-daughter. She told the story of how the portrait came to be commenting:

The site is generally not mean spirited and is devoted to finding the fun in bad art everywhere. Personally, I think I'd be highly amused if I found one of my paintings in its "collection".




On a separate note, I agree with GD. Get some paint brushes and just paint. Who cares if it sucks if you enjoy doing it? On the other hand, you might find out you're really talented. You just might not want to leave your masterpieces in trash bins around Boston. ;)

I know I'm not talented, you can trust me on that.

And I know the thing to do is just do it. But then my resistance wouldn't be irrational, would it? And I'm irrational about so few things that I tend to be clingy in their presence.

Not irrational at all. Psychologically, we all tend to shy away from things which don't reinforce a positive opinion of ourselves. Especially if most activities in which an individual participates are those which the individual is "good" or "successful" at. We also tend to irrationally believe that other people judge us (or for that matter care) as harshly as we, ourselves, do.

Me, I tend to be more of an "I don't give a ****" person. But I don't tend to trumpet my success on a subject which I suck at. For instance, I do some magic tricks...spectacularly poorly. I will usually do them for people if they ask since I have made clear that I really suck (sometimes the trick works just as intended then everyone, including me, is amazed). Therefore, I am rarely embarrassed when my magic actually does suck (best suited for those under 6...who think I'm amazing :D ).

Anyway, when you get a chance, look at the sight...it really is all in good fun (a lot of the amusement is in the newsletters and commentary where they so blatently pretend to be very cultured and pretentious about their "museum").

You'd be surprised to learn how easy it is to mistake "untalented" for "untrained" or "unpracticed". There is no way I could fathom that I'd have the ability to draw some of the stuff I'm currently drawing before.

This one made me giggle:

Hmmm...now that I think about it, I have a series of paintings in my basement (which I painted in high school) which might be a lovely contribution to their collection.


GD, I have noticed on your blog how much you have improved as you've obviously learned more about technique (light, shadow, perspective...). Personally, I think you're doing a great job and totally applaud you for going outside of your comfort zone to try something new. :snap:

Heh, I have a piece that would fit in that museum. I don't think I ever even photographed it, it's too weird.

If it ain't painted on velvet, it ain't art.

You should totally submit it!

Funny, that's one of the few "styles" they reject outright.

Doesn't suit their guidelines as it's a reinterpretation of two other artists' works (basically combined them). One of them is exceptionally well-known.

Reminds me of a yard sale we had when we were kids. My Mom put out a couple of canvases my Dad had done in some art class. He had a fit but the worst part was when my Mom said "well I thought someone could re-use the canvas."

LMAO! (Not at your dad's artwork, of course.) :D

Oh they were horrible. As I recall they were blocks with different shades of the same colors. Must have been some kind of assignment. His ceramic creations were also, erm, interesting.

One thing I like about woodworking is that when you make something that you know is completely horrible, you can always use it as firewood.

Yeah, he looks like Pa Walton.

No, that was my second reaction. That boob was the first thing that struck me.....

OW! Watch where you swing that thing!

You know - you don't have to paint "something". You can just pick up a brush and put color on paper. Then another color - and maybe you mix them a little together - or maybe you don't. or both. Just play with it. That, to me, is the fun of it, even if you don't end up with something you want to keep. The process itself is still enjoyable.

Didn't mean for this to turn into a Talk Alex Through His Insecurities thread.

The short of it is that I don't want to paint badly, I want to paint well. That means I don't want to go through the "learn to paint well" part. Similarly, I'd love to be a great dancer, but not enough that I'm willing to go through the being a sucky dancer part.

Yes, it is essentially that childish sentiment of "if I can't do it well, I won't do it at all" carried into adulthood. And that is the irrationality I speak of. Also, it is laziness; it would suck to put in the work and then find out that I didn't like it even if I did get good at it.

Yeah, I'm with you- I do what I want and I try to make a joke out of when it goes badly.

I'll have to look at the newsletters- that kind of humor I can get behind.

Wouldn't you figure out in the middle of it that you don't like it? Wouldn't be that much "work" put into it at that point.

I don't paint well either, but a couple of assignments for a painting class turned out to actually be reasonably nice. I need to get frames for them and hang them on a wall. You might be surprised.

Ooh... that could be a fun thread!

I wonder how much of my stuff belongs in the MOBA?

Find a mirror, look yourself in the eye and repeat after me...

Clearly sir, you are a pervert.

This thread is a GOLDMINE!

i don't know. the mary todd lincoln portrait is actually pretty inspired; the composition is pretty good and the colors work. the poinsettias are a little weird, but then again, i've seen less harmonious mixed media stuff exhibited in what appeared to be complete seriousness and pomposity.

the alternate-perspective boob is a little jarring, but otherwise, the gilded nude piece is kinda Duchampesque. with a big ol' fauvist boob stuck on it. if that doesn't invite some deep metaphorical analysis, i don't know what does.

lol. at least the mobites are ecumenical. bizarre/humorous subject matter and weirdo color schemes get equal billing with complete technical ineptitutde.

goes to show that "subjective aesthetics" doesn't adequately describes the 'wtf makes art good/bad?' conundrum, though. i think that a successful piece of art isn't necessarily pretty or harmonious, but proof of circumstantial mastery. some of the ‘bad’ paintings on the site are actually incredibly good, and not because the artist knew body proportions or how to shade right (though some of them obviously did).

You can take that in several different directions. sometimes elegant design and technical proficiency are the aims; in these cases, a cigar really is a cigar. or a big metallic balloon dog. other times, your artist is trying to make you think, make you laugh, or otherwise manipulate your emotions or whatever, which is a lot harder to manage without sacrificing subtlety and/or economy of meaning and going straight into obviousnessland on one hand, or meaninglessnessland on the other.

this is where the 'paint splotches are not art!' indignance comes into play, because i suppose it is possible for someone who's really good at headgames and really terrible with a paintbrush to meet their 'artistic' goals by trolling your dropcloths. the piss christ springs to mind here, but like most shock art, that was too literal to pass my minimum art complexity standards. or maybe it was really ****ing deep and i missed the point, but whatever.

Alberti was pretty big on how the best painters were able to transcend limited space, time, and dimension to convey a world of ideas in a fragment of wall or canvas. even though our modern (postmodern, whatever) views of what constitutes valid artistic expression have changed since then, it's still pretty clear that you have to know the visual rules very well in order to break or manipulate them in original, meaningful, and audience-effective ways. you can, after all, have a piece that perfectly fulfills the aims of the artist in terms of appearance and viewer response, yet is an absolute horror to look at. often, these pieces are also technically brilliant, though it may not be readily apparent at first.

you can also have an amateurish mashup that is not only tolerable, but kinda easy on the eyes. i think the difference lies in the intent of the artist and his or her ability to follow through on those aims. Self-awareness enters into it, too, as it's a lot more difficult to ridicule an artist who knows where they ****ed up and why. xD