One thing I ask myself when I look at a painting or a picture is: "would I want this on my wall?".Laura said:Sorry, I'm not impressed. If these were done by children trying to represent their dreams as a form of therapy, they might be psychologically interesting, but as something that inspires one... naaah. Not even close.Tigersoap said:
I had a look at that gallery and perceive this kind of art as dissonant, monotonous, dull, garish, falsely naive (if that makes any sense). This is not something I consider as inspiring; but again, I like what "modern experts" call cheesy art. (In case noone noticed :D), I have a big love for preraphaelism, and have Waterhouse's Lady of Shalott on my living room's wall.
Personally, that is for me what defines art, and what I'd call inspiring.Burne-Jones said:I mean by a picture a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was, never will be — in a better light than any light that ever shone — in a land no one can define or remember, only desire — and from forms divinely beautiful.”
Add: on the other hand, now we have Culture ministers who defend pedophiles (Polanski) and write about their experiences with young males (most probably minors) in Thai's brothels… and are praised for this, to boot. Talk about degeneration and ponerology.