75%, not knowing anything. missed the bed too, as well as the first two. seems easy now though, just look at the pictures which look nice and have backgrounds
75%, not knowing anything. missed the bed too, as well as the first two. seems easy now though, just look at the pictures which look nice and have backgrounds
I got 100%, and don’t know anything about him. The settings make it too easy– Some are obviously shot in art galleries. And no one taking pictures of furniture puts two of the exact same thing next to each other. Nor do they take pictures straight on– Furniture is usually shot at an angle, I think to make it look bigger.
I got 100%, and don’t know anything about him. The settings make it too easy– Some are obviously shot in art galleries. And no one taking pictures of furniture puts two of the exact same thing next to each other. Nor do they take pictures straight on– Furniture is usually shot at an angle, I think to make it look bigger.
Yeah the photo backgrounds are a huge problem. All the pieces that are just the object on a white background are clearly catalog pics and all of them are cheap furniture.
Would be interesting to see this quiz with those kinds of goofs removed.
Yeah the photo backgrounds are a huge problem. All the pieces that are just the object on a white background are clearly catalog pics and all of them are cheap furniture.
Would be interesting to see this quiz with those kinds of goofs removed.
maybe, but i didn’t feel any need to actually take the quiz
maybe it’s because i know who donald judd is and have even been to his foundation in marfa, texas, twice (there’s a lot of other, better ((more interesting)), stuff there)
maybe, but i didn’t feel any need to actually take the quiz
maybe it’s because i know who donald judd is and have even been to his foundation in marfa, texas, twice (there’s a lot of other, better ((more interesting)), stuff there)
Cheap shot but fun. Thanks, Matthew. Two things: 1–the way this quiz collapses time is also dumb. Of course cheapo furniture can bite Donald Judd’s style NOW, after it’s been fifty years or so of art history giving them the guts to do it. 2–Judging an artist by his worst or most questionable stuff is dubious. Fun and flattering but dubious.
Cheap shot but fun. Thanks, Matthew. Two things: 1–the way this quiz collapses time is also dumb. Of course cheapo furniture can bite Donald Judd’s style NOW, after it’s been fifty years or so of art history giving them the guts to do it. 2–Judging an artist by his worst or most questionable stuff is dubious. Fun and flattering but dubious.
But they failed to cherry pick the cheap furniture very well. You could definitly find stuff that looked weirder, more Judd-like in an ikea catalog if you tried.
But they failed to cherry pick the cheap furniture very well. You could definitly find stuff that looked weirder, more Judd-like in an ikea catalog if you tried.
Yeah, I’m being a snob, but I think this is most effective at pointing out that most of the people who trash talk minimalist (or any kind of) art just haven’t bothered to figure it out. I’m not a Judd fan by any stretch, but it seemed pretty easy to make the basic art/trash distinction of the designs.
That one bed had me for a minute, but check out all of those knotty, whirlly spots on it. No way Ikea, etc. would use materials like that.
Yeah, I’m being a snob, but I think this is most effective at pointing out that most of the people who trash talk minimalist (or any kind of) art just haven’t bothered to figure it out. I’m not a Judd fan by any stretch, but it seemed pretty easy to make the basic art/trash distinction of the designs.
That one bed had me for a minute, but check out all of those knotty, whirlly spots on it. No way Ikea, etc. would use materials like that.
Can furniture really be ‘art’? Art (music, literature, painting, etc ) seems to exist simply to be art: to effect, move in some way. Furniture is utilitarian by definition (a chair exists to be sat upon). While a utilitarian object may be beautiful, I wonder if you can really be art. Tell me why I’m wrong. Please. Educate me.
Can furniture really be ‘art’? Art (music, literature, painting, etc ) seems to exist simply to be art: to effect, move in some way. Furniture is utilitarian by definition (a chair exists to be sat upon). While a utilitarian object may be beautiful, I wonder if you can really be art. Tell me why I’m wrong. Please. Educate me.
“design” sections of contemporary art museums often remove objects from their context, fetishize them, and many of the objects they fetishize are more aesthetically attractive or intriguing than they are functional (ie the Eames chair), which I think makes them more successful as art than design.
“design” sections of contemporary art museums often remove objects from their context, fetishize them, and many of the objects they fetishize are more aesthetically attractive or intriguing than they are functional (ie the Eames chair), which I think makes them more successful as art than design.
83% – missed the first one, i was on the fence about that, and WTF, that bed? nothing good about that design, minimalist or otherwise
good times, thanks for the link
83% – missed the first one, i was on the fence about that, and WTF, that bed? nothing good about that design, minimalist or otherwise
good times, thanks for the link
I got a 75%.
Are you talking about the Donald Judd Daybed Sold for $65,000? I’m into the bed.
I got a 75%.
Are you talking about the Donald Judd Daybed Sold for $65,000? I’m into the bed.
You did better than I did. And the bed? What’s with the bed?
I feel a little bad about it because I sort of like Donald Judd. I’ve always thought those spaced stacks are really beautiful.
You did better than I did. And the bed? What’s with the bed?
I feel a little bad about it because I sort of like Donald Judd. I’ve always thought those spaced stacks are really beautiful.
I got 92% having no familiarity with his work. Not sure this proves what it means to.
I got 92% having no familiarity with his work. Not sure this proves what it means to.
92% Bing!!!
92% Bing!!!
92% as well, never having heard of the guy. I missed the bed.
92% as well, never having heard of the guy. I missed the bed.
92%, 10 years of Crate and Barrel employment. The daybed got me.
92%, 10 years of Crate and Barrel employment. The daybed got me.
75%, not knowing anything. missed the bed too, as well as the first two. seems easy now though, just look at the pictures which look nice and have backgrounds
75%, not knowing anything. missed the bed too, as well as the first two. seems easy now though, just look at the pictures which look nice and have backgrounds
the bed was one of the only things i got right.
the bed was one of the only things i got right.
Your score is 67%
I suck
Your score is 67%
I suck
92%
i will now Discuss this quiz in our Art Forum
92%
i will now Discuss this quiz in our Art Forum
100%. Who am I?
100%. Who am I?
oh snap! (like one of these pieces if you tried to sit on it)
oh snap! (like one of these pieces if you tried to sit on it)
100 percent. win.
100 percent. win.
Wait, he’s not related to Winona is he?
Wait, he’s not related to Winona is he?
I got 100%, and don’t know anything about him. The settings make it too easy– Some are obviously shot in art galleries. And no one taking pictures of furniture puts two of the exact same thing next to each other. Nor do they take pictures straight on– Furniture is usually shot at an angle, I think to make it look bigger.
I got 100%, and don’t know anything about him. The settings make it too easy– Some are obviously shot in art galleries. And no one taking pictures of furniture puts two of the exact same thing next to each other. Nor do they take pictures straight on– Furniture is usually shot at an angle, I think to make it look bigger.
100%. I love the bed.
I’d never heard of him before.
100%. I love the bed.
I’d never heard of him before.
Yeah the photo backgrounds are a huge problem. All the pieces that are just the object on a white background are clearly catalog pics and all of them are cheap furniture.
Would be interesting to see this quiz with those kinds of goofs removed.
Yeah the photo backgrounds are a huge problem. All the pieces that are just the object on a white background are clearly catalog pics and all of them are cheap furniture.
Would be interesting to see this quiz with those kinds of goofs removed.
i don’t really think the validity/accuracy/whtvr of the quiz means anything as to why this is funny
i don’t really think the validity/accuracy/whtvr of the quiz means anything as to why this is funny
it woudl be funnier if people were getting more wrong.
it woudl be funnier if people were getting more wrong.
maybe, but i didn’t feel any need to actually take the quiz
maybe it’s because i know who donald judd is and have even been to his foundation in marfa, texas, twice (there’s a lot of other, better ((more interesting)), stuff there)
maybe, but i didn’t feel any need to actually take the quiz
maybe it’s because i know who donald judd is and have even been to his foundation in marfa, texas, twice (there’s a lot of other, better ((more interesting)), stuff there)
Yeah, they sorta cherry-picked the pieces. I’m kind of happy so many people are doing well.
So, yeah. I think the quiz is a cheap shot.
Yeah, they sorta cherry-picked the pieces. I’m kind of happy so many people are doing well.
So, yeah. I think the quiz is a cheap shot.
Cheap shot but fun. Thanks, Matthew. Two things: 1–the way this quiz collapses time is also dumb. Of course cheapo furniture can bite Donald Judd’s style NOW, after it’s been fifty years or so of art history giving them the guts to do it. 2–Judging an artist by his worst or most questionable stuff is dubious. Fun and flattering but dubious.
Cheap shot but fun. Thanks, Matthew. Two things: 1–the way this quiz collapses time is also dumb. Of course cheapo furniture can bite Donald Judd’s style NOW, after it’s been fifty years or so of art history giving them the guts to do it. 2–Judging an artist by his worst or most questionable stuff is dubious. Fun and flattering but dubious.
Me too.
Trick is: look at the background. White gallery walls.
But they failed to cherry pick the cheap furniture very well. You could definitly find stuff that looked weirder, more Judd-like in an ikea catalog if you tried.
Me too.
Trick is: look at the background. White gallery walls.
But they failed to cherry pick the cheap furniture very well. You could definitly find stuff that looked weirder, more Judd-like in an ikea catalog if you tried.
i scored 92%
feeling ‘proud of myself’
i scored 92%
feeling ‘proud of myself’
damn, just read how everyone got 100%
feeling ‘less proud of myself’
damn, just read how everyone got 100%
feeling ‘less proud of myself’
here is a better game for everybody to play: http://www.boowakwala.com/kids/boowakwala-world-dino-riding.html
here is a better game for everybody to play: http://www.boowakwala.com/kids/boowakwala-world-dino-riding.html
oh.
i just really like judd and grew up looking at it.
but that make sense.
oh.
i just really like judd and grew up looking at it.
but that make sense.
you fucking cheater.
you fucking cheater.
Yeah, I only missed one (the bed!) – in addition to the backgrounds, another clue is visible screws and seams in the construction of the furniture.
Yeah, I only missed one (the bed!) – in addition to the backgrounds, another clue is visible screws and seams in the construction of the furniture.
Yeah, I’m being a snob, but I think this is most effective at pointing out that most of the people who trash talk minimalist (or any kind of) art just haven’t bothered to figure it out. I’m not a Judd fan by any stretch, but it seemed pretty easy to make the basic art/trash distinction of the designs.
That one bed had me for a minute, but check out all of those knotty, whirlly spots on it. No way Ikea, etc. would use materials like that.
Yeah, I’m being a snob, but I think this is most effective at pointing out that most of the people who trash talk minimalist (or any kind of) art just haven’t bothered to figure it out. I’m not a Judd fan by any stretch, but it seemed pretty easy to make the basic art/trash distinction of the designs.
That one bed had me for a minute, but check out all of those knotty, whirlly spots on it. No way Ikea, etc. would use materials like that.
Can furniture really be ‘art’? Art (music, literature, painting, etc ) seems to exist simply to be art: to effect, move in some way. Furniture is utilitarian by definition (a chair exists to be sat upon). While a utilitarian object may be beautiful, I wonder if you can really be art. Tell me why I’m wrong. Please. Educate me.
Can furniture really be ‘art’? Art (music, literature, painting, etc ) seems to exist simply to be art: to effect, move in some way. Furniture is utilitarian by definition (a chair exists to be sat upon). While a utilitarian object may be beautiful, I wonder if you can really be art. Tell me why I’m wrong. Please. Educate me.
Artifice represent
Artifice represent
“design” sections of contemporary art museums often remove objects from their context, fetishize them, and many of the objects they fetishize are more aesthetically attractive or intriguing than they are functional (ie the Eames chair), which I think makes them more successful as art than design.
“design” sections of contemporary art museums often remove objects from their context, fetishize them, and many of the objects they fetishize are more aesthetically attractive or intriguing than they are functional (ie the Eames chair), which I think makes them more successful as art than design.
yeah, that just b/c it’s cheap furniture. ain’t no screws or seams in the good stuff.
yeah, that just b/c it’s cheap furniture. ain’t no screws or seams in the good stuff.
That was the most fun I’ve had since playing “Karen O dress-up” – http://www.roiworld.com/celebs/play.rwp?gcode=1526
That was the most fun I’ve had since playing “Karen O dress-up” – http://www.roiworld.com/celebs/play.rwp?gcode=1526
That seems fair.
That seems fair.