Some of the found object art works seem a bit "I could have done that"ish, but then there's this one by Pablo Picasso:

http://www.pablopicasso.org/bull-head.jsp

I look at that perfect bicycle seat bull's head and know that it took Pablo Picasso's eye to see it.

"They're freaking amazing scribbles."

Umm... no.

Of course she chooses examples where there's more explainable depth in the artist's intention (e.g., the clocks) or where there's actual skill required (e.g., straight lines with oil paint), but what about examples of paintings made up of random smudges and brush strokes? Not only am I sure I could do something like that, but I've been loosely considering making something like that to hang up at home.

Then do it!

I hope to have the time for it some day soon!

I'll need to put my sons' washable paints away and get some real paint and a canvas then I'll go at it.

To reiterate, I'm not talking about making "real" art like @dotdude or @Lann nor about art for a gallery or for sale, just for me to hang up and enjoy in my home.

Actually, you're a bit of an artist yourself, aren't you? Didn't you paint that great clown face on your son?

Picasso and the moderns were excited about art produced by children. They even collected art by children. The idea was to celebrate the creativity in works by children.

One article I read, about the Moderns, showed a composition by a child and then the same composition used by an adult.

At age 14 Picasso showed that he could handle realism. So the rest of his career was marked by phases including child-like imagery.

This Picasso-esque painter followed my on YouTube. He might inspire you guys: https://www.youtube.com/user/raeart

Art supplies can be expensive - even student grade. Student grade paints have more filler than pigment. Check labeling of paints for health warnings.

I don't think that was me... I don't have any kids!

Ah, finally figured it out. I had to search a few times, but finally found this comment of mine from 8 years ago on @Fletch's profile. He still has the same avatar. I wonder what his son looks like now after all that time.

Yah well, I can see faces in my cork flooring is I search hard enough. I'm fine with art that only works well in context, like the clocks, but simple abstract scribbles or an entire canvass painted one shade of blue...yeah I'm going to put about as much effort searching for meaning in that as the "artist" did in conceiving it. Sorry, I'm a philistine.

In an art museum, I saw a painting titled "Black on Black #8", which was (if you couldn't already guess) a large canvas simply painted black.

I could do that.

The only reason it was in a museum was because of the artists' name, not the "form".

Hmmmm. I buy some of that, but not all of it. Or rather it's true in some cases but not all. Some art, like the two lovers/clocks has meaning beyond it's own form and that's important to appreciate it. But there are certainly some abstract works out there that are just too lost in art.

I'm on the edge of the art world as an illustrator and photographer and completely get the 'go do it' angle though. Just saying 'I could do that' is missing the point entirely. Anyone who looks at a simple bit of art with a high value and thinks it must be simple to just paint a few squares and put a thousand pound price on it can't honestly believe it, otherwise we'd be up to our eyeballs in shitty paintings with huge price tags.

If a bit of artwork needs an artist's name to be worth something then consider what it took for the artist to get to that place. They didn't just wake up one morning a famous artist. The name gives context and can be important. Not every time, some 'artists' are just way too into their circlejerks and mutual bigging up that the only skill an artist might need is to be just weird enough and in the right place at the right time to be one of the 'in crowd', but to be fair this isn't the case with the vast majority of abstract art.

I feel like a lot of you are defending points she isn't disputing?

She says, "Yes, there's plenty of art you could do" and then tries to explain why you didn't and what it means for that artist to have done it or yes, why don't you go do it, it could be fun.

She goes on to say, this type of art might not be for you and that's fine but if you're always going in with the prejudice, you'll never open yourself up to something you might actually come to enjoy. But if you just don't like it flat out, then that's that, it's ok but you don't need to belittle art other people can find meaning in. Just move along and go view some art you like?

There's a difference between dislike and just being a sour puss. You don't need to bring other people down.

I'll throw out a bit of a stretch because why not. To me it feels like people have a really hard time accepting other people's success, we're just walking masses of envy and any time some one does better than us, that's a reason to hate them.

I've always thought this might be a great response to that statement, "I could do that". For sure you probably could, but you didn't know that there was something like that until you saw it first. What you are really saying is , "I could replicate that", but only after it was created first by someone.

To my point, my 4-year-old son just painted this and blew my mind:



Beautiful.

Freaking amazing scribbles.

I've kept some of my favourite examples of my kids' art from when they were little, but really these days there's no reason not to photograph all of it and file it away for future reference, prior to putting the less fun ones in the recycling.