In music, the most overrated band is Queen

In music, the most overrated band is Queen.
In art, the most overrated artist is Picasso.
In literature, the most overrated author is David Foster Wallace.

Who's the most overrated director?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VMCeDBn1Zu0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I would argue that you use someone else than Picasso.

In movies, probably Nolan, although he knows his craft.

>In music, the most overrated band is Queen.
>Not the fucking Beatles

(not true, by the way)

Obvious answer is cuckantino

But it's actually Kubrick

Tarkovsky, Malick, Coppola

Nolan.
This isn't even a competition.

The Beatles are based. Especially post-1964.

With OP I'd argue that the most overrated artist is Jackson Pollock. Literally a hack.

>Jackson Pollock
Anyone who says this hasn't gone to college.

Nah. The Beatles actually were sort of accomplished by the end (Abbey Road, Lonely Hearts Club Band).
Queen has done LITERALLY nothing of artistic merit.

Cameron

Explain yourself

>spill some shit on a canvas

DUDE ART LMAO

>Picasso
>overrated

>In music, the most overrated band is Queen.
Fucking pleb. The most overrated band is the Beatles.

As for director, tough to say. I'd have said Spielberg maybe 20 years ago, but today he doesn't get quite as much hype, so it might be Cameron or Nolan.

I would say the Coen Brothers but I keep liking their movies.

Kubrick is a classic choice though.

Pollock was a skilled artist before he did that you dunderheads. The purpose of the piece isn't to show how skilled he is but to bring a focal point to the role of artist and observer and make that the art of the piece.

does that director have to be a faggot like all the people you mentioned?

I vote for zack snyder

bet you haven't seen his paintings in person

Literally everything you just named is great. Kill yourself

>hurrrrr this really good thing is overrated I'm le patrician

The thing about Picasso is, he'd shown in work before cubism that he knows how to draw.
Fucking Pollock. It's hard to tell who's a bigger troll of the art world, him or Warhol. But I think Warhol actually put effort into his work.

>it's a Cred Forums posters pretend to know anything about artwork thread

The beatles are the thinking cuckold's musical choice

Don't get me wrong, I like Spielberg. And the Coen Brothers. And at least some of Nolan's movies. But I'm trying to judge by whether the hype and praise they get are warrented. And for much of the time, no, they're not.

The Beatles
Jackson Pollock
David Foster Wallace
Stanley Kubrick

Mt Rushmore of overrated as far as I'm concerned

So he's an attention whore

Tarantino.

I respect Warhol, I'm not into his art much but he was such a bizarre and interesting guy (not to mention had his clique and all that other crazy shit).

Also Empire is a comfy movie.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

Jackson Pollock and his kind of abstract art was a CIA plant in the art world to discourage politically motivated art in an attempt to fight communism

The Beatles are overrated but nothing compared to Queen.

>Cameron or Nolan.

How is this even an argument? Cameron made plenty of great films like T2 and Aliens before becoming a hack, Nolan has never made anything of worth.

>posts Lebowski image
>not saying that The Eagles are the most overrated band ever
ONE FUCKING JOB user, WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THIS SHIT IN VIETNAM AND I WON'T TOLERATE IT ON THIS BOARD

>hur dur i only pretended to make bad art
The fact that he is so highly thought of for predominately his later art proves that he is in fact overrated

Is this the only good piece of modern art?
I want to see it in person one day.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what he said.

"no"

Hello scruffy

Dumb question but is this a 3D sculpture?

It's literally a tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde, the shark actually had to be replaced a few years back.

>"art"

the Beatles are the most overrated music group you idiot

I love how nobody is even attempting to dispute that DFW is the most overrated author.

It's true

Shakespeare is up there too

I'm not much of a bookfag but I'm keking pretty hard right now

That was a protest against dumb lol random art. The original was even destroyed becuse noone gave a shit, than artist decided it was arnt so he made a new one, becuse fuck you guys why not.

>Queen has done LITERALLY nothing of artistic merit
Besides ever fucking album having hit after hit and I shouldn't even need ro bring up Bohemian Rhapsody, which is more known globally then any beatles.

>Also Empire is a comfy movie.
u sure

youtube.com/watch?v=VMCeDBn1Zu0

yeah

plebs

>using sales to gauge artistic merit
Let me guess, you think TFA is the pinnacle of film.

To be fair, bohemian rhapsody is a great song.

>tfw going in the center of it and looking up
shit is nausea inducing

Isn't that exactly what Beatles fan do? There is no other way to merit art since it's taste. So whatever appeals to the most is either generalized garbage for profit or genuinely good music.

Hitchcock

Whether or not the art is "overrated" is wholly immaterial. It does disservice to both the artist and the viewer to judge a piece based upon the vaguely interpreted cultural perception of it. Just say whether the art is enjoyable, emotionally impactful, or effective, and leave the rest of it to the relativists.

>Just turn off your brain!

His process was the art, paintings are only a documentation.

By posting this you're literally agreeing with its author, look up his story.

That's not what he said

I disagree, the classic example is Pollock no 5, it's not enjoyable, neither is it emotionally impactful, although it's very effective. And yes it has a place in history for redefining abstract impressionism.

However it's something like the tenth most expensive painting ever sold. And people put it up there with paintings like haystacks, or impression, while being less historically relevant, less artistically meritorious, less in every way.

I'd say that it deserves to be called overrated.

tarantino, nolan, godard, inarritu, and scorsese immediately come to mind