Hate the chocolate-box sailing boat on the left (though it might make a nice 500-piece puzzle), and what's the point of sticking a mugshot on the, what's that, a knock-off Fernand Léger on the right? How gauche. But that's a lovely ceramic pot behind you, mate. Must be worth a few quid, hey? 🙂
I have issues when I go to an art gallery. If I can't understand what I'm looking at, I tell them that I don't like it, I don't care if I'm talking to the 'artist' or the presenter. I am/was an engineer and I need to understand what I'm looking at. My wife has a painting by someone above the mantlepiece which is supposed to represent a stormy sea picture. It looks like a mess to me and she knows it and so does the gallery she bought it from.
You're an engineer, with all due respect, you have no comprehension of art other than 'what you like'. If someone came to you and said that they thought flanges were rubbish and a waste of time then you would know immediately that they had no context in engineering. You have not demonstrated any context in 'art' other than what you like and don't like and substantiated that position by then stating that your life's occupation was not in art.
I understand exactly what you are saying but then there is an equally worse phenomenon. My wife is a 67-year-old Japanese lady of about 5' 4" in height and 50kg in weight. Not very imposing as a 'figure'. She is an artist, a sculptor in fact. If ever, a situation she generally avoids, someone asks what she does the response, "I am an artist", will often provoke a stream of opinions about art. This provocation comes many times from white men who somehow feel the need to impress. Inevitably, they talk complete bolloks. I always shrink and look away when this happens because I hate seeing blood on the carpet. This is the way to infuriate my wife and when she is infuriated then the best move is to start digging bomb trenches. You see my wife is a serious fine artist. Most of these types of art critics don't even know what a fine artist is. She has spent the last 47 years studying, working and producing as an artist. She came to England as a 20-year-old specifically with the dedication and purpose of becoming an artist and has worked consistently hard at her task. Her knowledge of art history is encyclopedic. From the Art of the Dark Ages to Baroque to Russian Crown Jewels she knows the history, show knows the history of the art criticism in each of the artistic movements and that is just Western Art. You want to start with Indigenous art or oriental art and she has a huge depth of knowledge about those subjects as well. This comprehension of art comes from day-in, day-out dedication to her chosen profession. Whilst the white man at the bar, towering above her, and talking rubbish in a paternalistic fashion has been watching television, she has been reading books and going to galleries. Her knowledge is such that she has made dozens of documentaries with the Japanese state broadcaster. But our man at the bar says, "Well, the thing about art is...." and we all run for cover. My point is this, it is all very well having an opinion about art but we also have to make allowance for 'qualification'. Do we think the opinion is qualified? For what exactly is an unqualified opinion worth? You wouldn't sit in the dentist's chair and be happy to find out that the man holding the drill says, "Well the thing about dentistry is..." and then you find out that he is a bricklayer but when it comes to how teeth should be handled he responds "I know what I like.". Everyone is entitled to their opinion but some opinions have value and some are worthless. My advice to anyone who sees a piece of 'art' is that they try to find out about the artist, and the type of work and do some basic due diligence. What you have said here about rubbish Piccasso work may well be valid because Piccasso churned out a load of rubbish in his later life just to make money by selling his name. That is a matter of art history. Now galleries can put that rubbish on walls, cheaply (the proper good stuff is hugely expensive to mount in exhibition) and make money in the same way the artist did by using the name to relieve the gullible of their cash. Art appears to be one production line which relies on human stupidity much more than other human activities; somewhere above estate agency and just a tad below 'lawyer'. What makes this possible is people are convinced that their unqualified, un-researched, knowdgeless opinion is of value to someone other than themself! If you like art then at least research the art you like and start to know about the thing you are doing in buying it.
@@robertmorrisonantiquesmalta it sounds as though you feel you should recieve higher accolades for your work, art is not elitist, its personnel. Anybody who creates an interpretation is an artist, it has never been a competition.
@@user-fu4iw5dx3f Utter nonsense and an opinion based on a complete absence of the knowledge of art history. Tell Piccasso that art is not competitive or elitist and he would laugh in your face and walk away. The greatest ever painting is The Mona Lisa, probably, but do you know why? Do you know the history of that painting? Do you know what makes it a work of compelling genius? What is it you actually know about art other than, in your opinion, "...its personnel. [sic]" : it's personal.
Ok, an opinion, so the next time a plumber comes and does a rubbish job you still pay him and smile because he took time over fucking up your pipework?
