15 Responses

  1. Clive at |

    Very good list. That number one is damn impressive.

    Reply
  2. rea at |

    oh God kill it! Find a way to kill it! – i dunno why, but that made me laugh so hard..(still laughin…made me nuts!)

    Reply
  3. David Verney at |

    I can see why that is number one. It’s too unbelieveable for words.

    Reply
  4. Peter Boucher at |

    So where is the Sistine Chapel painted by Michelangelo (1508-1512) and that does not include the scaffolding which he also built himself.

    Reply
  5. Dennis at |

    I agree with Peter-Where is the Sistine Chapel? And where is the Statue Of Liberty?(21 years in the making)–If the junk listed above is art than I’m the world’s top gymnast and I’m a 71-year-old disabled veteran. The TOPTENZ is obviously under new management and it’s going downhill at a fast pace.

    Reply
    1. Trek Girl at |

      Junk? I wouldn’t call any of these works of art junk – well, maybe #6, because who knows if he really did what he said he did, but I would find a more suitable word. Many people know about the Sistine chapel and the Statue of Liberty. Yes, they took a long time to complete and they are very, very impressive and deserving of recognition, but these artists deserve recognition too. If we spend all of our time putting up lists about the most well known works of art that are basically household names, how will we learn about the impressive art that is being created now? If we spend all of our time writing over and over again about artists that even school children know and are able to easily find information about, how will we learn about the artists that are worthy of that same or nearly the same level of recognition that are creating now? It’s great to spread knowledge about and recognize artists such as Michelangelo, but we can’t focus on those artists so much that the talented people that are creating here and now get pushed to the side. If you don’t like the list, that’s fine, but this list being about artists and art other than the most famous works of all time certainly doesn’t mean that it’s a bad list or that TopTenz is going downhill – it simply means that they’re looking for lesser known subjects to write about.

      Reply
      1. Dennis at |

        To showcase lesser known artists is fine. The above IS NOT art. Picasso was the biggest con man in history. He,himself said so. But many people are so shallow that they’re afraid to say he had zero talent (which is true) because they’re afraid they will not be thought of as sophisticated. Quite a few years ago a work of “art” hung in the New York Museum Of Art (I don’t recall what it was-some type “modern art”) but people were oohing and aahing over it until someone who knew the “artist” came along and pointed out to the curator that it had been hanging upside down. The above is worthless as ART.

        Reply
        1. Peter Boucher at |

          @ Dennis. On your reply in regarding Picasso, it reminds me of a skit that was on Saturday Night Live years ago in which I couldn’t stop laughing at, but a small portion of it had some political correctness. The well known comedian / actor Jon Lovitz, who used to be a regular cast member, was portraying Picasso and sitting at an outdoor cafe having a drink. Everyone around him recognized him and would approach him and ask for his autograph. In front of Lovitz on the table he was sitting at, there was a pile of paper napkins. The people approached him one-by-one and would ask / say, “Mr. Picasso, may I have your autograph” which in turn he would say “SURE”. He would take a napkin, just scribble something on to it and hand it back while saying “Here you go, buy yourself a new Ferrari”. Another one was, “Here, get your kids a college education”. I do remember it well and laughing very hard.

          Reply
        2. Trek Girl at |

          The definition of Art: “Noun 1. The expression of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture. 2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.”
          According to those definitions, and others, all of the entries in this list are art – even entry #6 “1000 Hours of Staring”.

          First of all, I am no fan of Picasso, but the man did have talent. I am not, however talking about the works that he is most known for (although those works show talent as well). I am talking about his early work, from the time he was a student of his father to his blue period. The man was very talented.
          Secondly, the incident you mentioned where the painting was hung upside down says less about the art, and much more about the curator who hung the painting the wrong way and the people who were ooing and aahing over it – although, the painting might have been worthy of those oohs and aahs even if it was upside down.

          Art has many purposes; some delights, some informs, some saddens or angers, some uplifts, some confounds, some makes you think, and some is specifically meant to make the people who praise it look foolish.
          My point is that art is many things to many people – it can’t be nailed down to one style, one era, or a specific “worth”, and the definitions of art reflect that.
          The works above are not art to you, that is true, but they are, by definition, art. Because they meet the definition of art and took over 1000 hours to complete, they belong on this list , and that makes your assertion wrong.

          Reply
        3. William at |

          If you think Picasso had no talent then you are truly unsophisticated and you are undermining the definition of talent.

          Reply
          1. Kat Peacock at |

            Amen. I’m not personally a fan of Picasso, but to say that his work isn’t “art” reveals only one’s knee-jerk, hysterical ignorance.

            Reply
  6. Dennis at |

    I’ll make an exception with “The Eagle” the lady drew with a ballpoint pen.

    Reply
    1. Trek Girl at |

      The following questions are genuine, not an attempt to argue with you or change your mind…

      Other than the fact that Entry #7 “Soldiers of Thundera” is about cartoon characters, what about it disqualifies it as art to you?
      If the artist of Entry #7 used the same techniques he used to make “Soldiers of Thundera” to make a painting about classic characters, such as Shakespearean characters or characters from Greek/Roman mythology, or historical figures like war heroes, kings, or even other artists, would you dismiss that painting the same way that you’ve dismissed this one?

      I ask this because, while the subject of “Soldiers of Thundera” is unconventional, the level artistry that the man used to create the “Thundera” painting is not unlike the level of artistry that went into creating the drawing of the Eagle.

      Note: This is the second reply I’ve written for this comment – the other one did not show up. If the first one appears, ignore it.

      Reply
  7. rea at |

    trolls! trolls! trollssss everywhere…mmmm…top ten oughta have top ten list of trolls that keep trolling the site..

    Reply
  8. Kat Peacock at |

    This is a great list, and it’s well-written. We all know about the Statue of Liberty and the Sistine Chapel. What needs more exposure are people who build steampunk cyborgs out of old typewriters and stadiums out of Lego. People who embark on such labors of love have two crucial qualities for living happily in the soul-sucking 21st century: Iconoclastic vision and drive. More power to them!

    Reply

Leave a Reply