Museum of Bad Art
museumofbadart.org
museumofbadart.org
Like: https://pixels.com/featured/the-football-players-1908-by-hen...
Use just ugly for that case.
I'd guess there's only about a 30% overlap between the onine collection and what I've seen displayed. There has often been weird art objects/sculptures besides the wall art.
Quite a surprise to see it on HN.
https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/04/the-museum-of-bad-art-...
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.
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.
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?
So to call it bad art, is going a bit far.
― Anton Ego, 'Ratatouille'
Landscapes that have an odd structure in it, but overall look alright, at least I liked them.
https://www.caferacerseattle.com/official-bad-art-museum-of-...
Same with color theory, it is a theory that is supposed to help you to achieve pleasant drawing.
Ultimately though this is tangential. All I'm saying is that, while your average person is of course going to use "good/bad" basically synonymously with "enjoyable/unenjoyable", a professional, in my experience, uses the words "good/bad" more frequently to refer to more well defined specifics, for a broad range of professions. I only meant to explain why this website might use the term "bad" even though an individual HN user might find a lot of the art "good", and that it doesn't necessarily come down only to differences in personal taste.
(Though who knows? Maybe the website's curator just immediately thinks "I like that" or "I don't like that", and he leaves it at that when deciding what's "bad"!)
I'm not kidding, this quasi-genre is great.
‘Casiotone for the Painfully Alone’ is a proponent of the same kind, with electronic means: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3dUgPvkYnw
‘Songs in the key of Z’ is a splendid compilation: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8UVU8CLZUn25S2nu7bav... (the playlist apparently deviates from the tracklist, but includes my favorite that's not on all releases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v4karS-YaU)
Bingo Gazingo was unfortunately a late bloomer: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMEeCl_b3nYigZH0WOgxp... (dunno if the link works in the future, seems to be an automatic playlist and might be transient).
A particular hit with me is ‘You're Driving Me Mad’ by Alvin Dahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeiaYPCANMc
The book was published in 2009, which seems a bit recent for a paper compilation of descriptions of websites. The museum itself is located in Massachusetts.
The art is hilarious. But what really makes it great are the little blurbs near each piece. Exactly like the explanations you see in a real museum, but ... sublimely ridiculous. Great deadpan humor.
https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/exhibitions/bad-and-ugly-web...
I have no idea if there is some objective criteria that could distinguish why I find those characters so repulsive vs say Nintendo Mii or if it's just 100% subjective opinion.
some other shitty art topics i really enjoy are
- plop art
- zombie formalism
- XYZ art (http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/comment/41204/)
Or at least their work?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/mar/13/degener...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯