[zimbabwe]

You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting.

Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?

[jules]

There is no way to judge art other than by subjective opinion.

> There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting. > Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?

I do like Picasso's and Dali's work and also Cezanne's work. I even like the picture I linked to. But this is the key part:

> if the result is interesting.

I don't see how the wrong perspective and tilted platter add to the appeal of the painting. It seems to be an accident.

[zimbabwe]

Fair enough.

Certainly for me, a tilted bowl of fruit that defies logic is more interesting than a boring bowl of fruit. It still doesn't fascinate me incredibly, but it at least adds something worth thinking about. I'm not that well-versed in painting, however, so perhaps somebody more enthusiastic than I can explain to both of us what makes Cezanne so awesome?

[randallsquared]

In fields I know something about (unlike art, which I don't), "interesting" and "well-done" are not very correlated.

[zimbabwe]

So people who do good work are never interesting? Or people with fascinating ideas never learn to polish them? I'm confused.

[randallsquared]

First, I'm not talking about people, but about works. Second, I wasn't saying there was a reverse correlation, but not really any, in my experience. Exciting work (from the consumption standpoint) is not really any more or less likely to be well-done in a technical sense, as far as I've experienced.