This art is ugly, dated, out of style and honestly, insulting

Result #1

This art is ugly, dated, out of style and honestly, insulting. One could hardly care less for an art that makes a kid look bad in a world filled with such great artists, such talented artists, such pop artists.And if Im nitpicking, its because theres nothing to like about this art. Why? Why is there no way to understand how these works can be seen differently by different audiences? Why is this art trying to fool us?Why is there no way to see this art without getting too emotionally invested in it? It doesnt seem to matter how much you like the art, you like its subject matter, you like its style, you like its subject matter, you like its subject matter, or how much you like the art itself, it doesnt matter. Its just something. If you dont like the art, youre not going to like the art. Which is why, rather than calling the work ugly, lets call it ordinary. It doesnt matter what your reaction is to it. It doesnt matter what your response is to art, if you want art, you should like art. And if you want art you should like art. Some of the art is ugly, some is not. All of it is art, and all of it is ugly. Some of the art is annoying, some is not. Some of the art is art, some is normal, some is not. Some of the art is interesting, some is not. And some of the art is interesting, some is not. Its all of it and none of it, its all of it and none of it. Art is normal. This art is abnormal. This art is ugly. And its not ugly, it is normal. But as abnormal as this art is, its too normal.The art that we like, we hate. The art that we like, we hate. The art that we like, we hate. The art that we like, we hate. The art that we like, we hate. The art that we like, we hate.

Result #2

to the kind of critical intelligence that seems to have taken a stand. The problem here is that the art is not only less interesting than the art it dismisses but also is merely there.

Result #3

This art is ugly, dated, out of style and honestly, insulting to its original meaning. An installation piece, a pipe, and a highly decorative woodwork of the same ilk, all of which is of a sort are, in many ways, just as impressive, even more so, than the puddles and aggregations of noxious materials that make up these objects. Although the majority of the work in this show was made between 1955 and 1964, almost all of it is comprised of scraps of paper, crumpled up and thrown away. Perhaps some of the material would have been more satisfying had it been more carefully handled and protected from serious degradation. The rawness of the drawings and the elaborate, impractical construction of the pieces are problematic and embarrassing in the same way.The systematization of the work in this show is decidedly strange. It is as if there were only one, grand, plan-in-principle for the whole, and that theory has to be articulated and rationalized. The process of fabrication is a particular matter of individual work. In some instances the methods of operation and process have been used for years. In others the material is reused. The scale of the pieces is determined by the size of the files and the nature of the objects. The paintings are scaled, or grouped, according to size categories. Some are about four feet by four feet. The drawings are about three by three feet. The drawings of the objects are about one by one by one inch. The drawings of the drawings of the objects are about ten by ten by five.In terms of technical expertise the large and heavy objects—in the case of the large objects—are almost as much a technical achievement as the drawings of the objects. The drawings, with their large, deeply sunken grids and sudden, "die-hard, cartoony angles, are as ingenious as any technical flourish, even the best of Far Eastern art. But they do not engage in the same thrilling intellectual exchange with the large objects.

Result #4

to a good number of people, but it is true, its use in the context of Minimalist sculpture has to be reckoned with. Its bright colors, its compact form and homogeneity seem to be the only constants, and what makes it possible to do what it does is the many moving parts that make it possible. If Minimalist sculpture has a small, but not insignificant, amount of charm, it must also have a small, but huge, number of flaws. Many of them, unfortunately, are permanent.