Alright folks, get ready to tilt your heads in unison and appreciate fine art.
Back in the 50's, some people claimed that some abstract expressionist works, like those of Jackson Pollock, was Communist propaganda or something.
-tilts head slightly, mildly confused-
I don't know about you, but that up there doesn't exactly scream "COMMUNIST" at me.
My friend
Watween, on her trip to the National Gallery in Washington, thought this painting looked like a friend of ours.
Because she'd also brought a voice recorder to document her trip, after describing the painting and deciding that this looked like our friend, she tried to talk "her" down from the hill. "While I must compliment you on your lovely hair bow, you're really gonna fall down into the ocean, and probably hit that tree on your way down," she admonished.
I agreed.
I've always liked this one:
It reminds me a bit of Hemingway's short story, "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." Besides, it's just so neat-looking.
Now, here's something I don't get. How is it that this...
...is considered "brilliant," "genius," or even "art"? I think nearly anybody can do something like that. It's like taking a sheet of paper and hanging it in a museum, or composing a piano piece of four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence (that's true, there's a piece called 4'33". Creative name, no?). Sure, some art can be done by us untalented masses, but... -tilts head until is nearly upside-down- I dunno, that's a bit of a stretch for me.
(This gallery is not liable for any art-appreciation-related neck injuries or discomfort)
