This two-year old has fooled the art world into buying and exhibiting his paintings. The 'experts,' say the papers, were falling over themselves to acclaim them. Does this tell you something about 'modern art?' If a two-year old can fool the 'experts,' are works by Picasso and others just mad splashings of paint on canvas as well? I'm no lover of modern art, and I'm told that's because I can't understand its meanings or the meaning of the individual paintings, but I know what I like and what I consider rubbish. Opinions on Freddie and the other 'masters' please.
2007-12-03 09:38:34 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
Actually, Picasso was a very talented artist and if you saw some of his earlier work you'd probably agree but yes, his cubist stuff is a bit weird. Fooling so called art critics is not knew. Some time ago it was done with works by a monkey and a few years before that by an elephant! Experts extolled the virtue of these paintings and had egg on their faces when all was revealed. I can't stand those works that masquerade under the title 'Art', such as an unmade bed, a pile of bricks, an old shed etc. Why anyone would pay fortunes for such rubbish is beyond me. Talking of rubbish, I loved the story about the cleaner at the National Gallery that cleared up a pile of rubbish and threw it in a refuse bin which was actually a peice of 'Art' that had been bought for several thousand pounds.
2007-12-03 09:47:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The bloke to compare it to is Jackson Pollock.
Jackson's stuff is better than Freddies ( but he is five years older).
Many art critics' voices get muffled when they sit down!
2007-12-03 11:00:50 · answer #2 · answered by Spartan L 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋