Banksy.
So what, he does a bit now and then, thats it.
Cant even draw feet.

Agree with Kaws

A couple comments, it is pretty cool when there is an artist who's work you have seen and passed over because it didn't do much for you, then on learning a bit more about the artist, history, context or whatever it becomes compelling. There are also cases where I see something and really like it but I don't understand it or even why I like it. I guess that is what makes art interesting for me.

Then there is all the unoriginal repetitive stuff that I just find boring (Dolk, Martin Watson, MBW to name a few).

When I first saw this I wasn't impressed, now it is one of my favorite paintings



www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/1180

I agree but thats not what I was saying or asking wit the thread.

As mmmike was saying its about finding out more about the artists that just don't click for you in the hope you can reassess how you view the work.

Also standing up and saying "Oh s**t I never understood the hype either, your not alone"

Agree with kaws, grown men with 4ft teddy bears?? It's all about the $$ been said many times on here don't jump in and buy because everyone else is thinking you will make a profit. You seem switched on, so buy what you like, Njoi...

There's three artists in this world I'm having a really hard time understanding. It's Alexander Calder, Lucio Fontana and Donald Judd. All very minimalistic, and I can't figure out how they become this popular, I've to read more.

there are tons of artist who aren't my favorite, but I can understand why others would like them... but that would be a whole different topic/thread

Cleon Peterson.

I have never understood his appeal; his works seem pretty racist to me. I've tried giving him the benefit of the doubt, rationalizing that he's trying to provoke a discussion about the stereotypical images of blacks and violence in the media. But then I realize that would give him too much credit: nowhere in interviews I've read does he display this kind of awareness. In fact, he has said that his images simply depict violence in society, and are meant to be somewhat humorous.

What am I missing?

Nothing wrong with wanting to learn more to appreciate things

I think its tough to answer all these questions with an artist like kaws who has been around for awhile and his art has changed over the past decade. I also dont think there are always simple answers for questions like this, as there at times are multiple reasons an artist might do something. Artists also start with an idea that changes into something different as the image and artist evolve. Kaws I think is a perfect example of this progression aesthetically that started with graffiti, yet evolved into a more mature style influenced by his personal experiences but not relying on his past. Your best bet is to google interviews where the artist talks about his work in order to get a better grasp of what he might or was saying at a particular point in his career. Here is a recent talk with the artist that gives some insight into his beginnings.

3 of my favorites to be honest and certainly in Calder's case the barometer of the wider art market.  All 3 are worth reading up on but what they share in common is a strong sense of communication/story telling with their art and their audience.  

Calder is one of the cooler revolutions in art.  At the turn of the 20th century you had the fauve movement changing the way the world viewed and thought about art and really the inception to the contemporary market as we look at it today.  Do you like Mondrian?  Mondrian, for those who don't know, used white and black paint and tape to make grids and city streets accentuated with primary colors which gives a very bona fide effect of movement when you are standing in front of his work.  It had a profound effect on Calder in the 30s who carried that conversation a step further with his mobiles. It's no coincidence that most of his mobiles share the 3 most common primary colors that his mentor, piet mondrian, used to communicate motion in 2 dimensional paintings.  Calder took that principle a step further into the 3d mobiles that many of us admire to this day.  Not to downplay his watercolors or sculpture but for me personally it's the mobiles and recognizing the talent of his day to carry the conversation further than ever before. 

In the case of Fontana, I was right with you until i studied the work about a decade ago.  It always seemed simplistic to me but then i learned it was flying way over my head.  His art is mostly a reflection of the space age.  Again, bold primary colors with slits/knife marks down the middle to represent a hole to another dimension and to wonder what lies beyond?  Radical at the time and somewhat tame by today's standards but with hindsight among the defining art of that period.  As a species we werere racing into orbit and visiting the moon and you had artists begin to wonder where it all might lead and trying to communicate that in their work.  Oversimplifying it for the thread but do read up on his egg sculptures as they're awesome. 

Judd more than the other pair owes more to the fauve artists because it's so conceptual.  Sorry for jumping all over the place but fauve (brief period from 1905-09 ish from memory) was when artists began to mess with compositions.  Humans had green faces and skies were painted purple.  So the multi century practice of portraits and landscapes with dreamy or pristine accuracy was drawing to a close. Fauve bridged the gap between reproduction and radical departure and spoon fed the birth of cubism.  They look old by today's standards but were revolutionary in their day and Judd carried the conversation further with his minimalist stacks that for the time were radical because they were neither paintings nor (recognizable) sculpture like everything else up to that point.  The better stacks appearance wise are true goose bump art which is why they command what they do. 

Sorry for the longwinded post but i like this thread.  I don't get a lot of the artists mentioned either but the three you mentioned are infamous because they changed the conversation between artist and public.  At its most basic, this is all story telling anyway and the best story tellers that communicate the most gorgeous or shocking stories are the ones we and history remember.  

Like others in this thread, I don't see the story being told differently by many of today's artists either but very possible that too is flying way over my head.  What's amazing to me is just how weird art has gotten in a matter of 110 years and to wonder where it goes from here?  But, the fact is not lost on me that art is very hot right now and it's a tiny fraction of the artists that the world is celebrating today who will be remembered tomorrow for using similar tools as the artists before them to communicate in a bold new way with their audience. 

Thanks man, much appreciated

Stik, KAWS, Os Gemeos.

Ones just a stick man, the other looks like a toy and the last looks like a badly drawn Simpsons cartoon character.

I just don't get them at all but each to their own and good luck to them : )