A Review of Great Art But I Don't Know it's Great

Hello, and welcome to the first issue of the Lakeside Leo! In this article, I will be reviewing some pieces revered and viewed as ‘Great Art’ from the eyes of a critic who knows absolutely nothing about these pieces. This is bound to be funny, so keep reading!

The pieces of art I will be reviewing are the following:

1. Starry Night (Vincent Van Gogh)

2. The Mona Lisa (Leonardo Da Vinci)

3. The Persistence of Memory (Salvador Dali)

Number One, Starry Night!

Hmm. First impressions, it looks like an Average Joe depiction of a town, with a watchtower (which, for some reason, looks like seaweed). The painting itself is a little basic, and lacks much imagination, as it simply depicts a town at night, with a lot of huge stars. There are a few unexplained swirls above, possibly a depiction of the Northern Lights, but unlikely, as the colours are dull. Then again, it could be a depiction of an underwater city, explaining the seaweedish watchtower, and the swirls are ocean currents. The painting seems very blurred, lacking clear, definitive lines. Overall, it’s a dull, unclear painting that doesn’t make too much sense. 3.5/10.

Number Two, The Mona Lisa!

Technically this was never named, but oh well.  It’s a regular painting of a lady, perhaps the painter's love. The colours are quite faded, but that can pass as the painting is hundreds of years old. However, the colour scheme is a bit monotone, and the physique of the woman is a little off, so overall the painting feels wonky and boring. I mean, it’s an OK portrait of a woman, it’s just that it’s an average woman painted averagely (Is that a word?) with an average colour scheme and an average background. Overall, it’s a decently average painting, but doesn’t quite pique my interest. 5.5/10. 

Number Three, The Persistence of Memory!

What apocalypse has befallen this world such that clocks are melting but for some reason, the tree stays completely untouched? If I’m correct, the flash point (the point at which something catches on fire) of wood is much lower than the melting point of metal, which is around the same temperature as water’s evaporation point, and yet, there is liquid water in the background (or is that melted clock?) There is a physics-defying crack in the center of the ground. (That beige spot in the center) Is this like a parallel universe or something? Where the laws of physics are repealed? If so, it’s an ok portrayal of the aftermath of the apocalypse there. Overall, I kind of like this. It gave me quite a good think. 7/10.

In totality, great art is what us, humans, decide is great art. I was reading earlier today that the Mona Lisa got stolen, and then it became famous. (There’s a book called ‘The Mona Lisa Vanishes’ on that heist if you want to read it). Apparently pretty much nobody wanted to see it before then. So before you go along with the crowd, stop and think, ‘Is the crowd a wee bonkers or not?’