Pick a famous artist's painting for your living room.

[Rain Man]

Okay, here are the rules and the background.

I googled a list of the "greatest painters of all time" and found some random person's list who seemed to have an opinion. I then googled the names of the top 30 artists, adding "paintings museum" to the search to try to avoid copies and stuff.

I took the second image that I found in each search. My goal was to avoid the artist's most famous painting, and to get a different, and generally less famous, example of their work.

I'll put images of each of the 30 artist's paintings up in the first few posts of this thread.

Here's the rule: you get to pick one of these paintings to be displayed in your living room for the rest of your life. It is the painting shown in the first set of posts in this thread. You cannot pick another painting by that artist.

You cannot sell the painting or charge admission to view the painting. You do not own the painting. It is being provided to you for your personal enjoyment only.

Which painting do you select?

(Gimme a minute to get the posts up and the poll up. Go paint a picture of a happy tree or something while you're waiting.)

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by eDave

I have a coworker in Barcelona who has that on his living room wall. Not something I would do.

[St. Patty's Fire]

Please add Bob Ross to the poll please

And add the Kramer

[old_geezer]

MONET was a close second for me but I ended up going with JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER. (Whom I've never heard of)

[gblowfish]

If you hate Pollock, you'll REALLY hate Mark Rothko.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

If you hate Pollock, you'll REALLY hate Mark Rothko.

Odd, I really dislike Pollock, but I chose Rothko for my painting. (I actually use Rothko for my screensavers.)

[threebag]

Monet would have been my choice if not based on the painting in OP

The Pollock is something I really can dig

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

If you hate Pollock, you'll REALLY hate Mark Rothko.

Yes.

It's not so much that I hate them, I just think its ****ing stupid that they are legitimately considered some of the greatest artist and most influential in history for shit that requires absolutely no talent.

Painting rectangles and slopping paint around? Come on man. That's some shit I would expect to buy for $5 at a kindergarten fundraiser and the shit sells for $146M with someone trying to tell a back story on a painting that has no logical meaning and then there are people out there that actually argue how they are misunderstood.

[Fat Elvis]

You folks are slipping....

[Fat Elvis]

[kc rush]

I'm holding out for one of the Airwolf series by Demonpenz. His work with MS Paint is special.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

I have a coworker in Barcelona who has that on his living room wall. Not something I would do.

“I sense great vulnerability. A man-child crying out for love. An innocent orphan in the post-modern world.”

“I see a parasite. A sexually depraved miscreant who is seeking only to gratify his basest and most immediate urges.”

“His struggle is man's struggle. He lifts my spirit.”

“He is a loathsome, offensive brute. Yet I can’t look away.”

“He transcends time and space.”

“He sickens me.”

“I love it.”

“Me too.”

[cooper barrett]

I don't think my love of art is on the same level.

Spoiler!

[cdcox]

This was tough. It is almost like you went out of your way to find less inspiring works by several of the artists. I know I could have found more than a dozen paintings by Van Gogh, Cezanne, Picasso, Rothko, and Monet that I enjoy more than the selected paintings.

It came down to these four:

Kadinsky -- I always enjoy his paintings, and this is not a bad selection.
Van Gogh -- a top five artist for me, but a bad selection. I suspect I would enjoy this painting more in person. I can't really make out the brushstrokes in the image.
Picasso-- I like the blue period. I would probably enjoy this more in person.
Rothko -- I've learned the meditative value of Rothko over the past five years. This one is meh and the room has to have the right lighting for them to bring out their best.

I'm going with the Rothko, edging out the Picasso.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Yes.

It's not so much that I hate them, I just think its ****ing stupid that they are legitimately considered some of the greatest artist and most influential in history for shit that requires absolutely no talent.

Painting rectangles and slopping paint around? Come on man. That's some shit I would expect to buy for $5 at a kindergarten fundraiser and the shit sells for $146M with someone trying to tell a back story on a painting that has no logical meaning and then there are people out there that actually argue how they are misunderstood.

I used to think Rothko was just some blotches of paint. If you look closely you will notice very subtle variations in color even in the most monolithic of his blotches. The longer you look, the more you see. With the right Rothko in the right lighting, this process of discovery can persist for more than 10 minutes, with colors slowly revealing themselves every few minutes.

[neech]

Rain man will come back later and tell us how much each one sold for.