None of which were put there deliberately.

It’s like ooh-ing and ah-ing over the patterns made by the white space between the words in a page of typing.

Compare, please, to the deliberate detailing in “Giovanni Arnolfini and the Bride.”:

http://crazy-flying.blogspot.com/2008/02/differences-in-renaissance-art.html

As a right leaning person I cringe when conservatives make fun of modern art. You’re allowed to not like it all but you can’t write it all of. It’s like hearing liberals try to have an intelligent conversation about guns. I’d rather hear someone bluntly say “Glocks do the job but are just a cold piece of Tupperware to me. Give me an ancient old Hi Power any day” than not have an informed opinion at all.

I hope you were kidding on your link to good art. That’s like saying your favorite piece is a Jennings or a High Point. But if it makes you happy go ahead.

What a cubist does when painting a picture of a person.

Art that introduces a novel idea into the viewing and representation of reality is of course important, as is the patent for intermittent windshield wipers. However, neither is necessarily pleasant to gaze upon. And what I put on the walls of my home is meant to please me.

I knew a famous pediatrician whose home was covered with paintings of female nudes. He was a proponent of breast feeding. I think it was a coincidence, and that he liked both paintings of nudes and breast feeding. Go figure.

My answer to that would be: C, C, C, C, C, A/B, C, C, A, A, A, C, B, B, B, B

Second, gotta disagree about art being subjective. I’ll make my case briefly.

This is good art (safe for work):

http://www.cordair.com/larsen/heroes.php

The image clearly conveys the emotion of “admiration”.

Your reaction to that emotion depends on whether you think admiring heroes is a good thing or a bad thing. (Personally, I think it’s a good thing; other folks only enjoy heroes when they fall.)

Either way, you felt what the artist intended. That’s what good art does.

Diebenkorn and Francis are not clearly conveying anything. You can imagine that you see some sort of pattern in there, then react to that, but that makes it a Rorschach test, not art.

But your alternative titles for all of them are totally better than the original ones and they should all be renamed to those immediately.

Let’s agree to disagree.
Diebenkorn’s amazing. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. I even spent some serious time studying his paintings for a while. His painting takes its root from the pictures of French artists Henri Matisse and Pierre Bonnard who he studied very carefully when he was stationed out at Quantico during the end of WWII, seeing them at the Phillips Collection here in Washington. To see Diebenkorn in the context of these French masters lends insight into his goals. But, then, not everybody likes Matisse or Bonnard either. Different strokes for different folks.

Art will always have its “eye of the beholder” component. One size doesn’t fit all. People like what they like, and that’s as it should be. That said, I’m the first to acknowledge that contemporary art includes tons of junkola.

As to your other uses of these assembled pictures, your “interpretations,” my favorite is: No Squaw, No Firewater. And Degas’s dancer does look like she should be standing on the mound … I never noticed that before! Play ball!

AK

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/08/do-the-watusi-art-imitation-and-the-obamas/

Crusty says:

I believe the Edgar Degas one is actually entitled “Obama Meets Saudi King.”

“The Bow” undoubtedly replaced Churchill’s bust .

Also the third one is a favorite and is slated to hang in the hallway outside the oval office it is actually titled “View from a bucket”