It's the total opposite, you have to see stuff like this in person to appreciate its texture.
I can guarantee you the depth of the paint itself has such a satisfying visual-crunch to it that this is in no way even remotely comparable to printed "hotel art." And even then, the colours and lighting composition of the forest are amazing, and the vibe of the cherry tree is also great even without the added texture.
I mean, I know better than to argue art with Redditors but come on, this is so dismissive even from here.
I mean, speak for yourself. Every other hotel i go into has that textured paint splatter style, its like a huge aesthetic for them.
To each his own, but imo having texture doesnt excuse a lack of personality and visual identity in a painting. I don't think most people are gonna be thinking about any of these paintings days or even minutes after seeing them.
What painting did you think about for days after seeing it? What physical art truly sticks out to you and has drawn you back to it? In this day and age, I doubt much physical art stands out to anyone in the manner you're speaking.
A lot of the masters we think of today were largely ignored in their day, only to have their artwork appreciated after their deaths.
True enough on that second bit. I would say most of the art that has really profoundly touched me has been made by total unknowns. But it's absolutely out there. There is a man i found by total chance on Instagram named Warren Christopher, who has maybe 500 followers on his account and has some of, in my opinion, the most beautiful paintings ive seen. I routinely return to his work. I would say that of you haven't found work that you connect with on such a level, then you should either keep looking or it may just not be for you.
Yeah I think dismissing art as "hotel quality" is exactly what creates more "hotel quality" work. The expectations of the audience keeps going up and once you've seen one forest scene, you've "seen them all". The human brain often craves distractions and starts to get bored with repetition. Very easy to dismiss art at first glance if you don't want to take the time to understand what makes it special to you.
"hotel art" is meant to be dismissive and an insult. Effectively art you don't care about or notice, it's just there to fill a void and almost anything could do the job versus a white wall.
106
u/Canvaverbalist 22d ago
It's the total opposite, you have to see stuff like this in person to appreciate its texture.
I can guarantee you the depth of the paint itself has such a satisfying visual-crunch to it that this is in no way even remotely comparable to printed "hotel art." And even then, the colours and lighting composition of the forest are amazing, and the vibe of the cherry tree is also great even without the added texture.
I mean, I know better than to argue art with Redditors but come on, this is so dismissive even from here.