I meant to add above that I am extremely sensitive to color; I would never select a painting which clashes with my sofa nor would I create artwork which would serve as a dissonant note unless I was aiming for that effect, which I would not anymore as I am now interested in harmony. No matter what the element in the room, artwork, furniture, accents, etc. I must love or at least really like each piece and they must go together, to me, to create a cohesive whole, or it doesn't enter my space. I think to denigrate and reduce the concept that some people are looking for all the elements in their environment to flow, down to anything in the right size and the right color will do, is unfair, inaccurate, and a disservice. Are there people who would select something for their wall by color and size? Sure. And there are people who would let others buy their furniture and who could care less about the overall effect or about 'decorating'. But let's not paint everyone with the same brush, or make some peoples choices, who choose to use selective parameters for whatever they choose to add to their environment, somehow 'wrong',

I worked at a corp headquarters and they had a lot of corporate art around the walls...it was amazing how the people would complain and insist they change the artwork until they got one that was pleasant to look at. So I guess a lot of people don't want to work with distressing art either. Well, if you think about it, you spend more of your waking hours at work than you do at home, so it makes sense. While a lot of it was abstract, the most popular were the landscapes and the brighter or softer colors. The least popular were the ones with a lot of black and dark colors or reds that seemed almost violent. Though there was one outside my office that I loved...it was 4 flame-colored, powerful horses that you almost couldn't identify at first as they were emerging from the flames.

I don't think this is really a quantum, black/white, on/off sort of issue. It's more on a continuum, but it's not really linear either. It's more like a Venn diagram, a bunch of overlapping circles where parts of A, B, C... may contain something by itself, parts overlap with one other circle, parts all overlap, etc.

I was on a house tour this weekend and it's run by a neighborhood association, the people who show their houses volunteer, and they are not vetted in any way so it's a real mixed bag, and you'll rarely see a real showplace, and you'll see a couple of real dogs.

This year there was one house in which almost every decorative item seemed to be aiming for provocative, and a lot of things seemed to indicate "buying power" one hallway was decorated with Hermes and Chanel boxes and bags, for example. Off-putting, really, that everything was meant to show something.

There was another house that was all about displaying art. It was good quality art, displayed gallery style, and only the two bedrooms displayed any personality. It was two combined apartments, but the actual apartments meant so little that there were two identical kitchens in place, one looking completely untouched. The apartments were a shell for the artwork, and the furniture was high quality, corporate looking, completely anonymous--all supressed for the display of the art. The art was nice, the apartment was nice, but it didn't seem all that livable to me.

A third was the loft of what was obviously a gay power couple. Everything was brand new, it all matched in aesthetic, the art was clearly picked to match the furniture, and even the "collections" such as they were, look like they were bought as prefab collections. I felt like they walked into a local furniture store that sells this sort of stuff, spent a few hours buying it all and then wrote a single check for it all. This apartment was actually a crowd favorite. Maybe because it was like a tasteful hotel. And some of the art was interesting, it just didn't seem too personal.

A fourth was a small house that I had seen before, even more full this time, of art and crafts from three different centuries and all over the world. It has a lot of personality. But there was still an awful lot of attention paid to what went with what. Some of the art was purely decorative, and the way things were put together, it was clearly meant to "go with the sofa" --things were not only divided by subject matter in some cases, they were also divided by palette. The art was used decoratively and it worked.

A few years ago there was the house of a woman in her nineties. The house is on the market now, she recently died at 100. The house had clearly been decorated sometime in the 1940s when she first bought it and it was filled with antiques and traditional furniture, and a lot of prints and small oils and watercolors. The house had a very tight palette, and there wasn't a single piece of art that seemed to convey any sort of emotion at all, it was all decorative. And the overall house was completely charming. I don't think the art really needed to make any kind of statement.

I would say that the house that was closest to the "match the sofa" was the gay power couple's. I am not sure that the notion that gay men have great taste is at all true anymore. It was tasteful in a very trend-driven way.

I am not sure that a person who buys art to match the sofa and only to match the sofa would feel denigrated by this notion. There are people who don't really attach meaning to art, it simply fulfills a role in the decor. I don't think that most people in GW are that close to this end of the continuum, I think they have more interest in it than that, but if not, I am not sure that it matters much. Some people don't care much about art. Some people don't care much about music. Some people don't care much about sports.

Linelle, I love that piece. It too gives me a shiver but in a good way!

Ah, a Venn diagram. That's an excellent analogy. I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my post, as this is a subject that I find fascinating.

It feels trite to say that art is extremely subjective, because, well ... DUH. I find it interesting how some people are highly sensitive to what is hung on the walls, some people have very little interest in it, and others are somewhere in the middle.

I don't feel that I will ever want to match my art to my sofa, although I would be lying if I said that I didn't give at least SOME thought to how all aspects of my décor relate. I currently find myself unhappy with the painting of a woman wearing a colorful shawl that we had hung in one of the upper art niches this past weekend. She feels "too Latin" to me now, whereas the rest of the artwork has a decidedly Native American vibe. I loved her in our old home, which was once filled with a lot of Mexican pieces, but I don't envision living with her for much longer in this new space. She will continue to BOTHER me until I remove and replace her with something I love more. That's not quite the same thing as "matching the sofa", but I have a need for my artwork to communicate in one language, if that makes any sense.

If others want to choose their artwork based upon couch colors, what is that to me? It's not the way I would go about it, but so what? They wouldn't decorate their homes the way that I choose to decorate mine. As I said above, there are no right or wrong answers or choices. There couldn't possibly BE any right or wrong choices when it comes to something as personal as art.

Fascinating subject. I find it difficult to find art that speaks to me, in my price range, especially, so when a piece speaks to you "Loud and clear", I think you should listen!

I find my taste to run all over the place, so none of my pieces are cohesive in color, style or subject. It has become quite a bit of a problem, to be honest.

And what is disturbing tends to run counter to average in that pieces that evoke an emotion are appealing, such as your example of the sad-eyed girl. She is expressing something honest. Yet, I find benign historical portrait art to be downright creepy! I do not want their shallow, soulless eyes looking at me! Those are the faces of the façade people I have known in my life, and I want nothing to do with them. Ever.

I've been thinking about this thread on & off - while folding laundry, stripping beds. Furnishing my first home in my 20's I absolutely bought prints to "go" with the room's decor. We pretty much bought them already matted & framed, too. That's what we knew & what we could afford.

We've come a long way from that but this post made me wonder if my tastes are still undeveloped and pedestrian because I don't want to display certain images in my home.

I am moved by artwork and there are certain pieces I love to see when I visit friends' homes. My dad's doc has a piece in his personal office that I really like. It has faceless subjects in it, similar to those sueb20 posted above. One of the only reasons I enjoy being there is to see the painting again. I remember being enchanted by so much of the art I saw in Istanbul. Many were military & battle scenes in heavy gilded frames - neither is my thing, but they were riveting. Would love to see them again, but can't begin to imagine them in my New Englander.

I agree with pal's assessment that it really isn't a black/white, on/off issue.

If others want to choose their artwork based upon couch colors, what is that to me? It's not the way I would go about it, but so what? They wouldn't decorate their homes the way that I choose to decorate mine. As I said above, there are no right or wrong answers or choices. There couldn't possibly BE any right or wrong choices when it comes to something as personal as art.

But art that’s chosen as a decorating element isn’t the same as art chosen because it appeals to you on a deeper level. Finding a piece to fill a space isn’t the same as acquiring a piece you love and then finding a place for it.

Interesting thoughts about how we perceived artwork when we were younger, amck. In my 20s and early 30s, I had matted/framed prints that I thought were cute, or that conveyed the overall look I wanted for my home at the time. The thought of some of the Victorian prints I had hanging at one time makes me cringe now. I don't actually LIKE prints of little rosy-faced children from the 1800s, but that seemed to be what was "in" for the look I thought I wanted, so that's what I had. (Nothing against Victorian décor if that's your thing. It's just not MY thing, and I'm not sure why I didn't recognize and/or admit that right away.)

I have no doubt that I still retain pedestrian and undeveloped tastes when it comes to art, but they are MY tastes. So at 53, I'm not shy about admitting that I like something, even if it doesn't appeal to most people. And really, who is to say what's "undeveloped"? I'm thinking of a particular folk artist whose work is often of a kindergarten quality, yet she has an enormous fan base that thinks nothing of paying big bucks for her work. Are there tastes undeveloped, or so highly evolved that they see the beauty in very simplistic lines?

But art that’s chosen as a decorating element isn’t the same as art chosen because it appeals to you on a deeper level. Finding a piece to fill a space isn’t the same as acquiring a piece you love and then finding a place for it.

Well, no. I don't think it's the same either. I'm just trying to convey that there is nothing inherently WRONG with choosing art based upon couch color. If matching the mat and frame to the cushions is the only compelling consideration, that's fine. What is hung on the walls doesn't hold the same importance for everyone.

But art that’s chosen as a decorating element isn’t the same as art chosen because it appeals to you on a deeper level.

Those two are not mutually exclusive...

To some extent, even the patrons of artists who turned out to be Great Masters, commissioned pieces that were meant to fill a certain spot and to contain particular color palettes. I really think that it's possible to buy art that is both powerful on some level and matches the decor on another.

One of the rooms in the house I grew up in was redecorated primarily as a guest room about 10 years after my sister left home. It was redone in a specific palette and the art was completely innocuous and decorative. In fact, it was bought from a catalog of decorative prints that interior decorators would get that cross referenced the offerings by subject matter and color palette. One of the prints in the room was an ok quality print, the smaller ones were actually printed like greeting cards and mounted on top of the mat--they really weren't any form of art at all. All of the cost was probably in the frame.

The thing was, it was still a perfectly nice looking room and the art, such as it was, contributed to the effect. A couple of nieces actually preferred that room because the other guest room had a (perfectly innocent) portrait that "stared at them" at night.

We actually lifted that first room, lock stock and barrel from my parents' house and completely recreated it, innocuous motel art and all, as the guest room in my sister's house (albeit minus wallpaper). It's still a good room, perfectly charming as a sorta feminine guest room, totally dated by current standards. Oddly enough the prints have developed some cache simply by being the prints that hung for thirty years in the house we grew up in.

I agree with Cindy that this is two different sorts of processes at work here--but will add that I don't think they are necessarily mutually exlusive.

I would say the thing that I don't care to see and am a snob about is things that have become really ubiquitous. Here it seems to be the Audrey Hepburn "Holly Golightly" image with the cigarette holder, from IKEA. I've just seen it so much that I'd rather have an empty wall than something so commonplace.

I also have lots of cute art and I actually really like/semi collect handcrafts which tend to be decorative in nature. I value "women's work" type stuff so needlepoint, rug hooking, quilting...that kind of thing.

I like outdoors, animals, plants, landscapes, etc. Monet, Albert Bierstadt, and anything with deer :)

Here's my vintage kitchen 'apron wall' (still finishing painting and floor tiles) with Peter Rabbit tucked into the mix. My taste is whimsical, but I never include anything that makes me uncomfortable.

LL, I love Bierstadt and everything Hudson River School.

Lavender, it's interesting that you bring up deer in a thread about "uncomfortable art" because one of my favorite local painters did a painting of a deer that had been hit by a car. He said he "couldn't not" paint it, because the position of the deer is still graceful. It's a beautiful painting in a way, even though the deer is obviously roadkill. I've seen it in two shows, so obviously no one has bought it.

I have a crucifix that I recently hung in our room that I do find disturbing- the crucifixion is really a horrifying, barbaric story and I would imagine a terrible way to die. but, it was my mother's and my grandmother had one just like it and it reminds me of them and I wasn't sure really what else to do with it... so I have mixed feelings about it..... but, I have it hanging because it is part of my childhood memories and was my moms...

I don't think I would want a random piece of disturbing art hanging in my home, but I also think what some people find disturbing i might not find disturbing in the least....

Oh jeez, Pal. Even in death, after being euthanized, my cats were beautiful, but I would never.

n/a

He was still their boy. They were either hanging on to what little was left -- or taking pictures thinking about insurance or a lawsuit. You're right -- after further reflection, nothing may have ever been done with them and I would doubt they kept them long term. That's not what you'd want to remember after the shock wore off.

Yeah, probably taken for a lawsuit on the advice of some lawyer...

I need no pictures to remind me of how my brother looked in death. It's seared into my memory, as is the memory of the last time I saw my SIL alive. Some things need no photos.

After Dad died, I had to remove the pic of him and Mom...I found it too upsetting. To this day, no pics of him in the house...I prefer to remember him through the things he made that I have displayed.

I mentioned Hillstead Museum before, but it's worth mentioning again...how beautifully decorated the rooms are around the magnificent art they collected. The art defines the room...the room enhances the art. Definitely not mutually exclusive.

Amazing, cpartist! I might never have noticed the dark aspect of the seemingly benign breakfast scene, had you not pointed it out. Wow.

Thank you Auntie. One can create "disturbing" art that still would look "pretty" on the wall. The couple who bought that drawing hung it in their dining room. They wanted everyone to always remember 9/11.

Pal- Almost anything with deer....

No, I want to look at art in my home that I like, that makes me feel good, comforted. I think that if I had to look at art in my own home that I didn't like, that it would make me sad. Your home is the one place that you should feel content and happy, not stressed or angry because of the art that is on the wall.

K Sissy, the question wasn't about art you didn't like, but art you found disturbing. You can like something that makes you stop and think or makes you question or remember something other than a calm landscape or idealic still life. Art that makes us think is just as important as art that allows us to unplug.

Cpartist, I love your drawing (I would have thought it was a painting with that rich, saturated color, but you said drawing.....). Have you ever seen Jan Wooster Scott's A Different Place Entirely? It is a landscape, but when you look closely, it is not the moon in the night sky but the earth at a distance. I have only seen images of it, but I love it.

Right. I don't think anyone would purpose to live with art that makes them sad or angry. But art that "disturbs" you is, I believe, art that takes you out of your comfort zone and does cause you to think and explore why the piece evokes a feeling in you. It unsettles something inside you that makes you go beneath the surface.

Right. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't buy it or want to own it. But placement of it in your home definitely matters.

Art is a very personal choice. In my house, where I come to relax and destress, I wouldn't want art that was disturbing. I equate that with art that I don't like, etc.

Cpartist, I love your drawing (I would have thought it was a painting with that rich, saturated color, but you said drawing.....). Have you ever seen Jan Wooster Scott's A Different Place Entirely? It is a landscape, but when you look closely, it is not the moon in the night sky but the earth at a distance. I have only seen images of it, but I love it.

Thank you lascatx. Yes it's a drawing. Colored pencil to be exact. It's the medium I work in.

What a fun drawing A Different Place Entirely? is. I bet most people miss the fact that it's the earth and not the moon. I can see why you love it.

Right. I don't think anyone would purpose to live with art that makes them sad or angry. But art that "disturbs" you is, I believe, art that takes you out of your comfort zone and does cause you to think and explore why the piece evokes a feeling in you. It unsettles something inside you that makes you go beneath the surface.

I think you just explained it perfectly!

My typing stinks -- worse since I started using this laptop, but her name is JANE Wooster Scott. Sigh

I believe I'm going to change my answer ;)

One of my favourite watercolours is of an abandoned prairie farm. In addition to it being of a lovely landscape, it's unsettling in that it makes me wonder about who lived there; did they have a hard time of it? Did they leave under sad circumstances? I enjoy this painting but it's not all kittens and butterflies.

I once worked with an attorney who had this Wyeth print hanging outside his office. It always made me uncomfortable.

OK, actually it downright gave me the CREEPS. I was never quite sure what HE liked so much about it, but he apparently found it pleasing. She looks like she's just been scared half to death in that house, and has run as far away as possible before collapsing in the field and turning to stare back at it in horror.

That's Christina's World. Not creepy at all.

Christina's World

Yes, Cindy, that's Wyeth's story. But you see, the thing about art is that it allows us each to concoct our own. It's still very creepy to me.

And your version is quite the stretch especially considering you can't even see Christina's face.

But isn't that supposed be one of the points of art, to evoke feelings from within the audience (viewer)? Even though I now know that Christina wasn't beaten up by her husband and in the process of running away, now it looks like someone ran off and left Christina to crawl back home on her own.

It makes me uncomfortable.

So what, Cindy?

What difference could it possibly make to you if my version is "a stretch"?

EDIT: Deleted my comment because it's not worth it.

FWIW, I know nothing about the print AuntJen posted, and I saw it before I read any of the narrative here about it. My initial reaction was that it portrayed an unhappy story, that the woman was staring back at the house with some sort of negative emotions. And yes, obviously that is a highly subjective reaction. But as Linelle said, isn't that the point of art? To react to it?

I love hearing/learning about art, and I adore thought-provoking art AND discussions. But I'm another one who can't have anything that makes me feel uncomfortable in my own home.

Exactly, patrice. Art derives from the creator's experience, and it is made to be shared. To that end, we as the audience are allowed to interpret the art and make of it what we will. This holds true for all forms of creative expression: Painting, dance, symphonic music, etc.

And then there are clowns, probably not all intending to be creepy.

We can't see Christina's face because her back is to us. If the artist had wanted us to see her expression, he would have revealed it to us. We are left with questions and, as curious, intelligent people are wont to do, we invent our own scenarios and answers. Don't artists want us to think and feel something about their creations?

I *do* consider my art to be a part of the whole decorting package in my space. I tend to think of it as an 'accessory', as I would a beautuful mirror, a pair of lamps, or even an area rug. It may add-to or complete the room, depending if you're at the beginning or end stages of the project. And I wouldn't purchase *anything* if I didn't like it, or made me uncomfortable, taking me out of my comfort zone. It goes without saying, we all want to evoke feelings of welcome and coziness in our homes. That being said, our choices are just 'that', and need no defending or explanation as to the whys or wherefors. It's called personal taste, good, bad, or indifferent.

That's right, patty. And the same can be said for our interpretation of art. It's our own personal interpretation and thus can NEVER be "wrong." Anyone who maintains otherwise doesn't understand the heart and soul of what art truly IS.

Art has always evoked emotion and is meant to. However in my sanctuary of home, joy calm and serenity art is my personal pallet.

Even though we can't see Christina's face her body language is revealing. I see a longing, not fear or creepiness.

Yes, interpretation is subject to one's personal opinion. If i'm watching a particular channel and an ASPCA commercial comes on, more than likely most people will either watch it or ignore it. Since I view their commericials as highly emotional, I choose to change the channel. I would have to be a narcissist to have art in 'my' home that were sad, or deemed, by myself, to have a negative conotation. It's neither good, bad, or wrong, but as you say, just IS.

In all honesty, I chose/choose a particular art because it 'fits' my decorating style. Anything contemporary or abstract, would be out of place. ;)

For me, Christina's body language evokes pathos. Maybe she's totally happy and enjoying herself, but she isn't telling me that. Instead I feel pity, maybe misplaced, but I wouldn't have it in my house.

Patty, I can't watch the ASPCA commercials either. They make me incredibly sad. I give to my local humane society and two wild animal causes, but I can't sit there and watch sad kittens and puppies.

I only have art that fills me with peace, however, as a lot of it is my own art, the nagging voice that critiques it, is often there, so a generalized sense of dissatisfaction is often present.

Christina's World is filled with anxiety, the dislike is there for me, because it portrays a crippled woman in isolation; how did she get there? Was she abandoned? What will happen to her?

Linelle, I'm with you about the ASPCA ads (also have donated for years & adopted shelter pets). The sadness haunts me long after the ad ends. Obviously, that's the point. But I switch it off as soon as I hear the music.

I used to like the Wyeth print. Always viewed it as someone waking up after dozing off in the field where she'd been relaxing. Knowing the real story I no longer see it that way.

Your home is your castle and you need to feel comfortable in it. If something makes you uncomfortable you have the power to make changes and get it upto your own comfort level.