5 Wildly Inaccurate Interpretations of Art

Sep 02, 2010 - By Luis Prada

ArtCritic LP 9-22-09

They say the meaning of a work of art is subjective. That if you show 10 people a work of art they will all have different interpretations, and they are all right.

We here at Funny Crave don’t know shit about art. Knowing this, if we were to try to conjure up some opinions of art, would we be the first people in the history of the world to be categorically incorrect in our thoughts on some of the greatest works in history? Seeing as this little intro was written after the body of the article, we can safely say yes. We are totally unqualified to form opinions on art.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

No. 1, Lavender Mist by Jackson Pollack

Lavendar mist Lp 9-22-09

Some will say that Pollack’s randomized paint splashing was revolutionary. We say that any group of Guatemalans with their own house painting company probably stumbled across this style — commonly known as Clusterfuckism — long before Pollack did. While Jackson’s work went on to become hugely popular, making him a ton of cash in the process, the Guatemalans probably got deported.

Why this is even called “Lavender Mist” is lost upon us because the painting contains neither lavender nor mist. If anything, it should have been titled “I sneezed and paint fired out of my head.” It’s much more appropriate, and it cuts through all the pretentious bullshit. Also, it would probably have a much more exciting story behind it. “How did the paint get in his head?” fancy pantsed art people will say as they silently loath their black turtleneck sweaters. “Did he snort it all on purpose? Or is art just in his blood?” they will continue to say after everyone has walked away and lost interest in their crap.

As for the symbolism and all that junk about what the piece really means and what Pollack was really trying to say with it…

…you can’t see it, but we just shrugged our shoulders and made a face that looks a lot like someone coming to grips with how truly awful their own farts are.

But, if we had to venture a guess as to what it all means, then we’ll just take a shot in the dark and say that Pollack lived in an age of intense fear and political unrest. With the world so rapidly changing around him, and with the heighten sense of total annihilation brought about by the advent of the atom bomb, the fears and stresses of a man living in the big city thinking everything he knew and loved could be wiped out at any moment and replaced by a crater and a mushroom cloud filled the mind of your average 1950s male. These fears translated themselves in to Pollack’s Lavender Mist which is, some say, a chaotic cityscape filled with citizenry that felt a brooding doom looming over the horizon.

That or he sneezed and paint fired out of his head.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Dejeuner sur l’Herbe by Pablo Picasso

Dejeuner sur l'Herbe by Pablo Picasso LP 9-22-09

Picasso had his blue period, and he had his rose period, and he had his cubism period. The Dejenuer sur l’Herbe was a piece he did in his 4th period…history class. Just after lunch.

This work is a hybrid of two styles, the first being sculpture (as exemplified by the concrete cut out of a human shaped figure) and the second being insane asylum poop-smeared wall art. Loony Poopism, we believe it’s called. Knowing nothing about Picasso’s life and inspirations, we can say with 100% certainty that this piece was Pablo’s cry for help as a young, upstart painter who had been asked by his nude, sunbathing father to lotion his thighs one too many times.

But look at the crudeness of the facial features, the vagueness of them. That is not the mark of an amateur. No, no, no. They are the mark of a crafty entrepreneur that probably outsourced much of his work to his niece with empty promises of a pony.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Enfgeo by Salvador Dali

Salvador-Dali-EnfGeo LP 9-22-09

We don’t know much about Dali, but we’ve seen pictures of him. He was not a sane man. But he had a wicked mustache that was waxed with a can of awesome. So, that counts for something, maybe.

As for the symbolism and stuff, we’ll say that the man trapped in the Jell-O mold of existence is probably symbolic for something. Seeing as he seems to be ripping himself out of the United States, we’ll say that Dali hated freedom, and that he was probably a fascist that would never be able to enjoy some real, salt of the earth art like Brooks and Dunn or Sir Larry The Cable Guy.

Also, Dali was probably a gay. We know this because of the naked chick off to the right of the painting. What heterosexual America lover would draw a picture of a chick that doesn’t have huge knockers that are draped in the old stars and stripes? We’ll tell’ya, a gay.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Ganymede by Rembrandt

Rembrandt_-_Ganymede LP 9-22-09

After making millions off of his toothpaste, and then millions more with the theme to Friends, Rembrandt did art. People say he did it well. We say nay to that shit because this painting has a baby getting jacked by a giant bird. That’s the kind of art you put on the side of a van with some accompanying lightning bolts and wing-ed dragons in bikini’s, not in the Louver with other art stuff.

But, upon second viewing, maybe it’s not a baby? Maybe it’s a tiny Irishmen? The hair looks ginger enough. Also, we’re pretty sure that guy is pissing himself. No, seriously. If you look at the cock region closely enough you can see a steady stream of fear piss leaking out. This is the trademark self defense maneuver of any tiny Irishmen. Fear pissing and crying. That’s so Irish that Ireland may as well make their flag an anthropomorphic penis cowering in fear from a giant bird as the penis’ non-anthropomorphic penis pisses all over the place. A pint of Guinness should also be on there.

This, of course, raises the question “Why did Rembrandt so hate the Irish?” Another question would be “What does the giant bird represent?” The answers are: 1) Rembrandt felt the Irish had faces that were ripe for a punching, and 2) the bird represents Rembrandt himself as he air lifted a tiny Irishmen right of a cliff. Rembrandt was a spiteful, slanderous dick.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Mountain Retreat by Bob Ross

bob_ross_csg001_mountain_retreat LP 9-22-09

Bob Ross was and is, without question, the most important artist of our time. Sure, some mock his wacky Jewfro, and his overly pleasant cadence that sounded as though it only thinly veiled his manic depression. But the man painted, like, thousands of paintings that are nearly indistinguishable from one another, save for the placement of a few “happy little trees” and the location of a cabin that has probably seen more teenage murders than the collected works of Jason Voorhees. Making the same thing thousands of times over without being swayed by “artistic integrity” or the definition of the word “quality” has to net you legendary status, right?

Sifting through Ross’ massive back catalog of work to pick out the single best example of his brilliance is a tough task. But, as we stated earlier, they are all indistinguishable from one another, so we just spun the internet around, closed our eyes, and dropped our finger on something. Mountain Retreat was the winner, but it was a close call seeing as our finger was also very near “Mountain Getaway” and “Mountain Near Tree Near House Near Water.”

As far as we can tell, Mountain Retreat is a critique on western civilization’s endless expansion in to the great wilderness. The more we venture in to these majestic lands, the more we trample upon our own existence. Also, that forest fire just below the mountains is going to be a bitch to settle down. Someone should take care of that. If Bob had painted a firehouse instead of a shitty murder cabin then maybe they’d be able to prevent that fire from consuming that pretty vista. But maybe that’s the point of it all? Maybe Bob Ross’ inner psychopath is clawing its way out of his face by having him create a painting that is a snapshot of nature’s beauty being ravaged?

Damn, he taught this stuff to people on PBS. What a fucked up guy. Oh, and see how his name is written at the bottom left of the painting? Yeah, it’s red. The blood of an innocent.

Bob Ross, murder raper and painter of clandestinely psychotic vistas.


This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

COMMENTS

  1. Posted by Comet Arcade

    I can never understand Picasso's work. It looks like a random shapes and colors, compared to say, Michelangelo's.

  2. Posted by ReverendTed

    Well, Michelangelo's work is representative, while much of Picasso's is more strictly evocative. (That's not to say Michelangelo's art can't evoke an emotional response.)

  3. Posted by LuisPrada

    I have no fucking clue what you guys are talking about

  4. Posted by LuisPrada

    I have no fucking clue as to what you guys are talking about

  5. Posted by andiamó

    hahaha i laughed so hard at
    "We here at Funny Crave don’t know shit about art. "
    and
    "the first being sculpture .. and the second being insane asylum poop-smeared wall art."

  6. Posted by I-Dont-Kno-Anything-Bout-Art-Bitch!!!

    Who painted Mona Lisa??? Her smile looks crippled, she looks ugly, she looks like a man with long hair and she ain’t got boobs!!! Was Leonardo da Vinci sure Mona Lisa is not a man? Or was he a homo that wanted to draw his lover but afraid of being humiliated and drew his head with a kind-od-woman body???

POST YOUR COMMENTS