But for a moment, I'd like to celebrate my city's ugliness. The Museum of Bad Art is dedicated to the "collection, preservation, exhibition, and celebration of bad art in all its forms." I visited those august halls on Wednesday last. And wow, that art is bad.
So what earns a work of art the label "bad?" It's not just lack of training, as one might assume. Some of the works on view at the MOBA are actually not that horrific in terms of the artist's skill. (Though of course, many of them are.) Some of the artists would certainly be capable of producing "good" art if they tried. What makes a work of art bad is when the artist attempts to create something meaningful, and fails in the execution. Case in point, The Picnic, an unattributed recent acquisition:

But at least this painting was acquired in a respectable place, the Treasure Chest Thrift Store in Roslindale, rather than from the trash, like so many in the MOBA collection. My buddies and I bestowed upon this painting, untitled and unattributed, the honor of "object we would gladly pay money to avoid hanging on our wall":
If you'd like to visit the MOBA yourself, it's located (appropriately enough) just outside the men's room in the basement of the Dedham Community Theatre, about eight miles south of downtown Boston. For extra credit, try re-enacting the paintings (as below) and send me the pictures.
2 comments:
So even thought it's bad art, is it art nonetheless? Or is it non-art? Or is it just not art?
Good question. I have no idea.
Post a Comment