I DON'T LIKE THAT!

    It's ok if you don't like a piece of art. It doesn't mean that the artwork should not be presented to the world. You are just not having a rewarding experience by viewing it. If it's not your cup of tea, simply move on. It takes personal courage for an artist to present works to the public, knowing that they may be disdained and/or ignored. But the need for self-expression is so very powerful in humans, as is the desire to share the results.

    It is not highly unusual to see in local art festivals works that do not measure up to academic standards of technique, composition, and color. But who are we to deny a sincere artist a spot to present his or her efforts? Are there really any absolute rules about art? Absolutely not.

    Here are a few pieces by well-known artists that I don't enjoy looking at. It doesn't make them bad art because I don't enjoy them:

   Painter Mark Rothko did a huge series of color field paintings in the 1930s and 40s that just make me say, "Who cares?". 

   Revered sculptor Alexander Calder was praised in the 1930s for his mobiles, but they look like grade school projects to me.

    The grand booby prize from me goes to the self-proclaimed painter of light, Thomas Kinkade (may he rest in peace). I only want to see scenes like that in a Disney park.

    And here are some West Coast pieces that I DO find pleasurable or very interesting to view:

LA's Relja Penezic paints scenes that catch the essence of living in California. 

Sonoma County's Clark Mitchell has a history of perfectly depicting in pastels the forms and light of Northern California. 

To throw a curve here, I also love the works of the dearly departed bad boy of clay sculpture, Benicia's Robert Arneson.

    Each person's experience with art is unique, and that's just fine.