I thought that this was going to be an appreciation for the interesting or unique qualities of "bad" art, but it's all just sarcastic comments demeaning or shaming the pieces.
Not saying this is better or worse, just disappointing to me because I really enjoy discussions about gleaning value from all art, good or bad.
I agree with you. I should have read the picture descriptions before posting the link. I see now that they are indeed quite snarky.
The pictures themselves seem to have been made with sincere intent, and the fact that many of them were found in thrift stores suggests that the people who donated them to the stores thought that they had value. I myself have several paintings on my walls by an old friend, now deceased. I don’t know if they are “good” or “bad,” but they have a lot of value to me.
Absolutely. Picasso's journey was to transition from stunning realism to a child-like surrealism in later years. In some respects he was trying to unlearn form but keep the aesthetic.
And to be honest some of these MOBA pictures do that too, they're actually not bad at all. It's just perhaps not intentional, but does that matter?
“the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”
Some of them are clearly people in the process of learning to draw. Like, face features are in wrong places, but it is not actually easy to get them right. Even with youtube, it takes several attempts till one learns. Others are just normal amateur drawings. Simple topics (fish) that are composed of simple shapes, the sort of thing you do to learn/train basics. Face that is good for amateur, except not smiling.
Landscapes that have an odd structure in it, but overall look alright, at least I liked them.
Not saying this is better or worse, just disappointing to me because I really enjoy discussions about gleaning value from all art, good or bad.