No.

Tacky is such a crappy term anyway. It’s just so rude to criticize somebody like that who is trying to decorate in a way that makes them happy, and often it’s another way of saying “things poor people can afford.”

(Its different when you’re talking about Trump’s golden office or something; this isn’t universally true)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not tacky but a bit immature and less intentional?

So you're only allowed to like art if you have originals that are either undiscovered-and-inexpensive or if you are rich enough to buy expensive originals?

Hanging prints that you like seems like the opposite of less intentional.

Ha, my H is like this. He pays 10x the price for an original when a perfectly good print is available. I don't get it, they look the same.

10x the price? I can get good quality prints for less than $100 (usually less $50). Large paintings are thousands if not tens of thousands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not tacky but a bit immature and less intentional?

So you're only allowed to like art if you have originals that are either undiscovered-and-inexpensive or if you are rich enough to buy expensive originals?

Hanging prints that you like seems like the opposite of less intentional.

Ha, my H is like this. He pays 10x the price for an original when a perfectly good print is available. I don't get it, they look the same.

Anonymous wrote:No, framed prints can look great. Personally I wouldn’t hang like a print of the Mona Lisa (although maybe this could work in a tongue in cheek way with quirky, maximalist decor).

Art /= Decor

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not tacky but a bit immature and less intentional?

So you're only allowed to like art if you have originals that are either undiscovered-and-inexpensive or if you are rich enough to buy expensive originals?

Hanging prints that you like seems like the opposite of less intentional.

No, framed prints can look great. Personally I wouldn’t hang like a print of the Mona Lisa (although maybe this could work in a tongue in cheek way with quirky, maximalist decor).

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not tacky but a bit immature and less intentional?

How did you arrive at 'a bit immature and less intentional'?

Maybe not tacky but a bit immature and less intentional?

Prints can be lovely. If you want to make them a bit nicer, use glass instead of acrylic in the frames.

Hang what makes you happy. It would be incredibly rude (and yes, tacky) for an invited guest in your home to judge you based on how you choose to decorate.

Anonymous wrote:Do you like it? Do you want it in your house? Those are the only questions you need answered.

+1 Who is the arbiter of "tacky" OP? I'm assuming your house isn't being featured in Architectural Digest. If not, just do whatever you want/can afford.

I have prints that my DH bought me when we first started dating. It's of places we wanted travel to together. They are now over 20 years old, and still on the wall. Shrug.

If you like the artwork, it's good. It's tacky to hang prints of artwork that you don't care about or dislike.

Do you like it? Do you want it in your house? Those are the only questions you need answered.

We love art but by no means have the funds to only buy original pieces. I still want to decorate our home. Is it tacky to buy framed prints? I'm not talking about the Mona Lisa or anything recognizable, but rather prints from Society6 or Anthropologie or the like?