the UK guardian has a great page up at the moment of ten bad paintings. it's a mix of more or less easy targets that people (curators, critics, artists) think are plain bad, more respected work which they feel compelled to apologize for trashing, and pictures they actually like but feel are flawed.

i like this page for a couple of reasons - hearing people articulate (albeit very briefly) why they don't like an example of an artform can help you understand better why you like or dislike other (or even the same) work; and it emphasizes the subjective and sometimes arbitrary process of canonizing art. another reason is the very funny outpouring of spleen, as if these people have finally got the chance to reveal their true feelings about a relative or coworker they've pretended to like for years. "I really hate so many paintings," writes one. "All those really busty Rubens in the National Gallery, for instance. But I tell you the one I really loathe...."

"I realised I just didn't like any of Holman Hunt's paintings - The Scapegoat and all - full stop," writes jonathan glancey, guardian architecture critic, "And precious little Victorian Catholic art in general. Sorry. Sorry."

i think that "sorry. sorry." is telling (and hilarious) - we're told to appreciate and value something because of some critical consensus, but we often forget that we have the freedom to dissent from that consensus, especially when it's an artform like painting where the consensus is typically formed by 'experts' (as opposed to pop music, where the consensus derives from either the sales charts or the collective wisdom of rock critics, a loose fraternity of hobbyists, open to anyone).

in the same vein, but about a different artform: http://www.mackron.com/random/indiebacklash.jpg - i feel like that some days. just don't make me listen to fucking pinback or death cab.