What do you think of this picture.

[teaandtoastwithmarmite]

Looking for a picture to go on a plain white wall above my bed. I have a grey/pinky sort of theme and on the wall opposite is a Steven brown canvas or rainbow colours with trees.

I love colour but these are really not nice. Very twee and generic. Look at etsy or similar for work by an artist not mass manufacturing stuff.

There's a lot of artwork between twee heart tree and crude sexual picture though, I wouldn't say people tend to lean towards the latter

Id put it in a toddlers bedroom

I never said there wasn’t. Address the example I gave, but you declined to do that. And the word twee. I remember watching an interview with Emma Thompson and she said Audrey Hepburn was twee.

The word is used beyond its dictionary definition to convey contempt for something that evokes innocence or goodness. When I hear or see someone use that word, it tells me more about that person than it does the subject of their mocking.

I’ve seen a lot of artwork that leans toward grim, and a lot of people who like it.

Why is it not OK for me to use the word twee, but it's OK for you to mock a nude painting describing it as a picasso in drag? Why is it OK for you to describe artwork as grim?

What you need on your wall is a big old oil painting of a pot and a kettle.

Thanks for sharing that link, I'm looking for artwork for my new place and this is exactly what I'm after!

Obviously I meant a good feeling.
though a good feeling wouldn't be bad either, but maybe better for the kitchen.

I wish people would stop calling a print from a high street shop "art". It's embarrassing.

NB OP that wasn't a dig at you; you obviously know it's not art.

FWIW I don't mind it. Wouldn't have it myself but if you like it, you go for it.

Have you explored original pieces or prints straight from artists on
for example
artfinder or artsy and so many more sites to browse online.

Or Google the style you like, lots of work will come up and search the artists own website
Original works don’t have to be really expensive.
Ive been collecting Billy Childish works for some years now ( not his huge pieces I don’t have tens of thousands ) and I’m always looking on the L13 website for new stuff from his friends/ colleagues. As an aside, originals are an investment.

What's more embarrassing is the posters pretending to be oh so knowledgeable about art and trying to belittle the OP. That really is embarrassing. The OP has asked for opinions and it's absolutely normal that some people politely say that it's not their cup of tea. People really don't have to be dickheads about it, even on MN. It's OK to be polite.

I agree @WillowtreeHouse . I call anything I hang on my walls art, silly me.

It's what you like and what you can afford and I think the JL picture sounds perfect for the colour scheme and vibe OP is going for.

Like this as well

.https://www.wayfair.co.uk/Rosalind-Wheeler--Rainbow-Soul-Tree-by-Ashvin-Harrison-Wrapped-Canvas-Painting-V114070233-L1318-K~U003969122.html?refid=GX590113844285-U003969122_2064032742&device=c&ptid=1642886527100&targetid=pla-1642886527100&network=g&ireid=139555017&PiID%5B%5D=2064032742&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-tP-i8PY_gIVa4BQBh0ztQVpEAQYBSABEgJawfD_BwE

It's a hand finished print, not a poster. It's 100% a form of art. You're embarrassing

No, it's commercial illustration not art. Someone's sat down and thought 'What can I paint that will look pretty, go in any room of the house, work with any colour scheme and sell well? People like trees, they like hearts, I'll design a heart tree.'

No artist worthy of the name thinks like that.

It's a mass-produced print, not an art print with a limited run and each one numbered. Go to some galleries and get a feel for what real art is.

It looks like a picture you'd see in the waiting room of some sort of private medical or beauty clinic. Not that I frequent those places but that's the kind of vibe it gives.

I don't like the print and I know what "real art" is, I've got several original oils and watercolours in my home. But it's hardly "embarrassing" for somebody to describe a print that has been hand finished as art. That's literally what it is.

Public service announcement - being ultra-sneery about the picture OP posted doesn’t make you look like a connoisseur of art, it just makes you look like an arsehole.

There are some really awful, snobby responses on here! Fair enough if you don’t like it but no need to sneer at it. I actually have the same print but in a different colour in my hallway and love it. We all have different tastes, it’s so rude to make someone feel like their preferences are lesser than yours.

Nope. Art is a hand-sewn couture dress or a Savile Row suit. Unique or hand-produced in small numbers. What the OP has posted is the equivalent of mass-produced dress available on the High Street.

If that's the kind of thing you like then that's fine, but it's not art, it's decorative design.

Art doesn't have to be unique or produced in small numbers. Monet painted the same cathedral over and over - at what point would it cease to become art under your definition?

You really don't understand, do you?

Monet and various other great painters painted the same thing over and over again in different light, at different times of year, each time trying to capture what they say in a new way. None of those paintings are the same even if they are of the same place. They are all unique.

This is a very odd and reductive definition of art and one with which many artists would disagree, from Albrecht Dürer to Andy Warhol.

But in any event, OP hasn't asked whether the picture falls within any particular definition of art- she's asked what people think of it. By all means say that it's not to your taste- it's not to mine either. But really the only important question is whether OP likes it and the only helpful answers have been those pointing that out. Some people on the thread have gone out of their way to post sneery remarks and I'm struggling to see why, unless it's that they think by doing so they come across as discerning. They don't.

No, I understand. I was being facetious about a requirement of art is for it to be produced in small numbers.

Your definition of what can and can't be described as art is rather narrow. When a toddler makes marks with paint, we put it on the wall and it call it their artwork. Would you describe it as art? They're not trying to communicate anything in particular or thinking about composition.

As for Savile row suits - arguably something which is designed to be functional, ie a wearable suit, is not really a piece of art. Yes it may be skillfully made and nice to look at, but the tailor isn't trying to express anything when they cut and stitch the cloth. But like a well decorated cake or an intricate hairstyle we could metaphorically call it a work of art.

Art as a definition is very broad and doesn't preclude prints.

My mum was an artist - as in Large canvas oils that sold for decent money. She was super talented - Scholarship to top art school. Later she taught Art - From fine art to really clever and beautiful abstract work. Proper.

Guess what?

She had a couple of mass produced prints in frames in the house because she liked they way they look. Not necessarily in the style of OPs choice but so what? Mass produced prints are mass produced because masses of people like them.

Things on walls should either make you smile, make you think or make you feel. If it does one of those things - it doesn't matter what it is.

OP - I don't like it - not my thing, but if you like it and it will make you happy. Hang it!