delekkerste

Hey now, let's leave Nic Cage out of this.

One of my friends and his business school classmates got their friend a print by one of her favorite artists for her 40th birthday recently. But, they placed it behind a print of a Kinkade painting, so that is what she first saw when she unwrapped the package. I can only imagine her shock...

I hope we can all agree on that. (thumbs u

Chris, if anyone in the hobby can be called a champion for the comic art medium, it's you - I know you will defend to the death just about any form of comic art that isn't the pornographic smut that clogs up CAF, and I respect your enthusiasm and genuine passion. That said, I just find your view of the art world to be entirely too cynical (and, as you all know, I'm an extremely cynical/skeptical person myself). I'm not denying for a second that that ego, money, connections, marketing and pseudo-intellectual gibberish don't all play a role in the buying and selling of artwork at galleries and at auction, but you seem to focus only on those points (which are certainly not exclusive to the "fine art" world) at the expense of all the legitimately worthy art that has been produced over the past century and all the genuine interest, passion and study on the part of its admirers. I know that, being both *the* champion for OA and a lawyer by training, you probably feel even more aggrieved by the Lichtenstein situation than almost anyone. But, let's just forget about Lichtenstein completely, as that horse has been beaten to death in this thread already - what do you think about the rest of Modern and Contemporary art? Is it all just a scam? Does it all "fail to inspire", "criticize" and "spit in the face" as Ted says? Can we at least agree that there is merit, even if not everyone "gets it"? Can we agree that different thinking people might come to different conclusions about the same artwork? And, if so, doesn't that say something positive about the artwork itself?

Ted, your arguments are so full of straw-men that I think my hayfever is acting up. I'm not grouping Picasso with Lichtenstein in terms of any academic or stylistic comparison, nor was I only addressing your points of view. Rather, many posters here have pretty much dismissed everyone from Picasso to Hirst and everyone in-between for one reason or another, and I was addressing the entirety of this anti-Modern/Contemporary (which is the grouping I actually used, if you'll look above) movement. Why is it that your and the other critics' opinions here seem to matter more than anybody else's? How is it that only you "can tell the difference between what is successful and what is not" while all the people who collect and study and critique the material cannot? I think most people have already figured things out, and they're not all just buying into some "emperor's new clothes" scam perpetrated by dealers and moneyed interests, as some have implied in this thread. I respect your right to disagree, but this "I know what art is when I see it, and so can any other member of the general public not brainwashed by critics, curators, historians, dealers, auction houses, collectors, etc." theme just smacks of baseless anti-intellectualism. This is not like economics, where there is academia and real world practice; there is no real distinction between art critique in the real world and academic worlds except between those who accept it as a legitimate scholarly pastime and those who dismiss it all as an elaborate con game that any Joe Sixpack can see even if Joe Millionaire can't. I know which makes more sense to me... This is some seriously self-aggrandizing stuff here. If anyone is playing the role of the Philistine in our scenario, it's certainly not those who have actually spent the time to analyze, critique, study and evaluate all aspects of Modern/Contemporary art versus the Joe Sixpacks who wander into MoMA and bemoan that their 6-year old could paint that Pollock. While I could see tastes changing and pre-20th century art regaining some of its lost favor in the coming years, I am metaphysically certain that the appreciation of Modern/Contemporary art is not going to be consigned to the dustbin of history like the world is flat theory. That's just utter bollocking nonsense. I'm not saying you have to love all Modern/Contemporary art (I repeat: it's certainly not my favorite either) or turn a blind eye to the shenanigans that Chris and others have described, and I'm certainly not saying that Lichtenstein acted in the best manner possible. But, to take this view that all the intellectuals out there are actually idi0ts who have been manipulated and that the entire output of the past century of art "fails to inspire", etc. and adds nothing to the artistic canon or the dialogue of art history and culture, is, to me, prime facie arrogant and absurd.

Ted, thanks for the thoughtful response, but I disagree with almost everything you said here as it is not really a list of facts, but rather your viewpoint and your understanding of the viewpoint of "the general public". To say that Modern/Contemporary art does not "inspire, empathize, commiserate or celebrate" is, to me, a completely nonsensical statement, given that I know and have encountered many who are inspired, etc. by the artwork. I think the millions of visitors every year to the MoMA, Guggenheim, Centre Pompidou, etc. might have something to say about it as well. I hope you realize the implications of what you are saying, that basically every scholar, collector, admirer, museum patron, artist, etc. who enjoys these forms of art, which are lacking in purpose other than "demeaning criticism" (again, totally disagree), is just a fool who has bought into the most elaborate con game of the past century. Whereas you may look at a Rothko and think it's just a bunch of blotches of color that doesn't "communicate a complex, meaningful idea to its audience" (which is really just your view of the fundamental purpose of art), I've been to the MoMA with a friend who was almost moved to tears by one example. I disagree that Modern/Contemporary art has a singular fundamental purpose, as you said, and I also disagree that it lacks the qualities and power to inspire and "spits in everyone's face". I do believe that technique is important and that it is most definitely NOT just about "the image and the story it tells" as you concluded with. Sometimes it is not about the story at all, but rather the emotions and feelings that it evokes, or the mood of the time period it reflects or the state of mind of the particular artist at the time, for example. Tim posits that it is no coincidence that art moved more and more into abstraction as photography took hold; having studied art history, I would also add that it is no coincidence that it took hold as the 20th century unfolded with horrors like WWI and WWII happening that had never been seen by so many on such an enormous scale. Does Picasso's Guernica "fail to inspire"? If he, or someone else, had painted a realistic representation of the atrocities committed on that Spanish village, would it have become as much of a symbol as it did? Did Bacon not take part in a "real act of creation"? Do his pictures not ask questions and tell stories? And while you may not be "looking to assess who had the best method of stroking a canvas or applying color", are we not to applaud those who broke away from established orthodoxy to redefine the narrow view of what art should be that you seem to hold? Should abstraction never have occurred at all? Should found objects never have had a place in art? Should pop imagery have remained in comic books and advertising? Should text and pictures never have been combined?

British humour. :doh:

I like pretty pictures even more than the next guy (as my CAF gallery will attest!), but I'm open-minded enough to appreciate Hirst's vivisected sharks or Manzoni's brilliant "Artist's S***" as well. Funny you should mention Macbeth, as I actually saw "Sleep No More", the near-wordless, deconstructed, voyeuristic, interactive version of "Macbeth" during its run in NYC this summer. Was it "singularly poor and imprecise"? Perhaps; I did not really enjoy it very much myself, though my girlfriend and her friend did quite a bit, as did many others. That said, who needs another cookie-cutter, boring production of Macbeth, especially if it's not a big-budget production with big names? Isn't it a good thing that people are taking chances with art and trying to advance the dialogue? Like I've said before, it seems as though many here are stuck in the 19th century and would be very content if art had just remained purdy pictures of landscapes, portraits and still-lifes, with all the art movements and developments of the past 100+ years being dismissed as high-falutin', bamboozling, gimmicky, meritless nonsense being peddled by high-brow intellectuals and greedy dealers in an incomprehensible, pseudo-intellectual vernacular at the expense of the common sense of the average man. I wonder how many Lichtenstein critics out there have any real understanding of and appreciation at all for Modern and Contemporary Art? My guess is not many judging from all the anti-Warhol, anti-Pollock, anti-everything Contemporary Art comments that have been made here over the years. As I've said, it's not my preferred genre either, but I can at least respect the ideas and profound impact they've had on not just the art world, but on culture in general.

Happy Birthday. (thumbs u Or, you could look at the Rouen Cathedrals as innovative in its deconstruction and technique, and in its use of serial imagery as a technique/concept in art and the Pop Art movement. Which may just sound like high-falutin' artspeak to some, but, since art has quite necessarily moved away from traditional figurative representation over the past century-plus, so the conversation has also necessarily moved away from just admiring "how purty a painting is". I think you just have to appreciate the work for what it is. I like a lot of Jones' art, and the fine art efforts by other artists who have worked in the comics medium, but I no longer harbor any illusions that any of it is more than just pretty pictures.

Wow, so no credit for his contributions to technique (e.g., the use of enlarged Ben-Day dots), the development of the Pop Art movement, or all the work he did in his career outside of the brief period (1961-1965) he worked on the cartoon-themed pieces for which he's come under such heavy criticism here? His Rouen Cathedrals (a number of which are currently on exhibition at LACMA), anyone?

Well, at the end of the day, the value of anything can only go up if others want to buy it. So you could make the same comment about collectors of any collectible, including comic OA. Oh yeah, for sure - it's amazing how certain memes develop and spread like wildfire via groupthink in the comic OA world. There's also a profound unwillingness to analyze and be critical about the art in any way. Not saying that fine art collectors aren't subject to much of the same (though at least there are art critics and scholars who can somewhat offset the cheerleading from the dealers), but it's definitely a pot/kettle situation if anyone thinks the same doesn't happen in comic OA.

It's an incredible lack of skill if he was going for realism instead of the lurid, melodramatic parody he intended, with the garish colors and backgrounds, and all the nurses in the series wearing surgical masks that were intended exactly as you said it - to look as if they were added post facto. Is it great art? Maybe, maybe not. But, the series certainly did capture the imagination of a great deal of people. Let's face it - few people would want the tattered originals of those paperback covers hanging in their Greenwich, Connecticut mansions, which is why they sell for $800 in Heritage's Illustration Art auctions to people like us. But, when a respected artist gets the idea to blow up copies to huge sizes (you have to see these in person) and then paint over them to create the desired effect of something impactful and interesting that would look great in a 15,000 square foot mansion or Park Avenue penthouse, yeah, then a lot of people start to take notice. What is a bikini except a bra and panties set cut from different fabric and a gentlemen's agreement that it is acceptable to wear one in certain public places? Well, maybe some feel that there's not much more difference between an $800 original nurse paperback cover and a $3 million Richard Prince nurse painting (I would argue otherwise), but there's a gentlemen's agreement that says the latter is "worthy" and the former is not. You can call that art world snobbery, but, the reality is that there is just a different set of values. The latter may be derivative, but the art world values the idea, the inspiration, the technique, the impact, the presentability and the rarity of it. It does not value as highly the original, which is just a literal representation of a scene from a long-forgotten third-rate novel done by an artist who was assigned the job and told what to do. And, while the monetary difference is admittedly obscene, I don't think the art world is wrong to value the idea higher than the drafting skill shown in the final products, as the latter is really much, much, much more common than most comic book fans seem to realize.

OK, it was art, but it was low art, and not because it was comic book art and not gallery fine art, but because all of these were generic drawings of no-name characters from no-name 10 cent magazines often done by no-name artists who themselves probably had no illusions about what they were doing for a living. If Lichtenstein committed a crime, it was a misdemeanor, not a felony (in the moral sense, not the legal sense). Maybe he was a jerk, but he was a brilliant jerk. It seems as though everyone who believes he was a jerk also believes his art sucks because he was a jerk. Which gets me to my points about anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism, because clearly a lot of people are following this kind of logic: 1. Lichtenstein didn't properly credit the source material, hence he is a jerk. 2. Because he is a jerk, I think he's a plagiarizing copier and his art sucks. 3. And because the fine art world embraces this plagiarizing copier, the collectors must be fools and the dealers and critics and museums must be pulling a fast one over everyone. 4. Hence, I'm also against art world snobs and studied art critics because they've clearly drunk the Kool-Aid while I can see with my own two eyes that this guy is a plagiarizing copier and a jerk of a human being. That's a little facetitious, but I don't think it's that far off the mark. And, clearly some of the comments made lead me to believe that people are, by and large, unaware about the vast majority of Lichtenstein's other work, which has nothing to do with the comic panels he worked on for only a few years in the early and mid 1960s, and yet they feel justified in condemning the man's entire career. I also see very little mentioned about the ideas he had, the techniques he used, how iconic the images are now because of him, how many critics railed against him initially (i.e., making him a star wasn't some kind of organized conspiracy by the Establishment), the impact he has had on generations of artists that followed, etc. I mean, let's face it - love him or hate him, he's an important figure in art history. Maybe he was a jerk, maybe he wasn't the best draftsman, maybe he benefited from the right representation - say what you will, he still matters, in the positive sense of the word.

And I'll repeat myself from the other thread as well: Figurative representation, taken to the extreme by the hyper-realists, is not the height of artistic expression. Would the art world really have been better served if it had never branched off into abstraction and people were still only doing portraits and still-lifes and landscapes? To say that "my kid could do what Pollock did", as some do, or ask what the point of it is really misses the point. The point is that Pollock and others who led the revolution in Abstract Expressionism broke new ground in determining what art could be. This group of artists put New York City on the map as a leading art capital and arguably influenced nearly every artist that followed by firmly breaking away from realistic representation (not that they were the first, as various European movements had started to do so starting with the Impressionists). Doing so also represented a complete rebellion against established artistic norms and traditions and thus often conveyed themes of anarchy, disorder and nihilism even without portrayals of figures. In developing his own style, Pollock also revolutionized painting technique - just think about what painters had been doing for centuries versus how Pollock created his paintings. So, no, it's not just about talent, representation or even just passion. It's about challenging established norms and changing what billions of people in generations who followed think about what art is and can be. It's about innovation. It's about intellectual revolution. It's about cultural impact. It's about changing the course of history. Jackson Pollock did it. Hilo Chen...not so much. I might also add that most abstract artists went to art schools and were trained in classical drawing and can probably draw/paint figurative representations as well as most commercial illustrators and comic book artists. Being reasonably involved in the art world, including serving on one of the acquisitions committees at the Guggenheim Museum, I have come across ample evidence in my experience of this. I was at the home of a very prominent NY financier earlier this week and saw his and his wife's amazing collection of Modern and Contemporary Art, which included a slew of amazing Bacons (including 2 that were in the recent exhibitions at the Prado, Tate and Metropolitan Museums), a Picasso, many first-rate Warhols, De Koonings, Lichtensteins and Twomblys, among others. Easily a 9-figure collection. Now, Modern/Contemporary Art is far from my favorite thing (I'm very partial to Baroque art, particularly 17th century Dutch/Flemish), but, seeing so many masterpieces assembled under one roof, I couldn't help but be hugely impressed. Even if you prefer portraits and landscapes, to be surrounded by so many examples of innovative and influential styles and iconic images was really breathtaking, and to hear someone who is very passionate and knowledgable talk about the art in its proper historical context was really quite a good learning experience. Abstract art is not just some big joke being perpetrated by museums, art dealers and high-brow art critics. If you think it is, I would respectfully suggest that you take a course about it (as I did a couple of years ago) or otherwise do some serious reading and study into it first. I'm not saying that there isn't a huge amount of ego, salesmanship, insane pricing and some pseudo-intellectual chicanery in the contemporary art world, but that just comes with the territory; it doesn't detract from the merit and importance of decades' worth of these works.

Let me just say that: 1. Lichentenstein did a lot more than just comic panel paintings, which he only worked on for a few years. Some of his other work is brilliant. He's not a hack, far from it. 2. Regarding the comic panels, yeah, maybe he should have somehow acknowledged the original artists. But, that stuff was even more disposable back then than it is today, and it's not like he took a Brian Bolland cover of a trademarked character, he took random panels from disposable 10c comics that would have faded into the dustbin of history had he not turned them into art. 3. Art is not just about the finished product. It's about new thoughts, new ideas, new techniques, new ways of expression and new ways of feeling. Sure, Don can create a faux-Pollock in his kitchen, but he wouldn't have been able to if Pollock hadn't done it first and called it art. Not to mention, Pollock's work is mesmerizing. As for Lichtenstein, he didn't just take a big lightbox and trace those comic panels - go read about what he did and how he did it. 4. Those Peanuts themed pieces are horrific and hardly worthy of comparison. 5. There's a marketing aspect to art, sure, though I suspect that's more prevalent now than back then. I can accept that there's not a lot of great artists these days, but are we supposed to deny that Warhol, Lichtenstein, Johns, Rauschenberg, etc. are great artists, even if they were all represented by the preeminent kingmaker of the day? I think this #OccupyTheArtWorld mentality is not only anti-elitist, but bordering on anti-intellectual as well. I would suggest doing some study into the art movements from the Impressionists through the present to see how they evolved. After doing so, I think many will realize that art is an important reflection of culture and history at its time, and not just the product of whatever the galleries want to flog onto the public at any given moment.

Couldn't have said it better myself. (worship) And, if arguing these kinds of topics is your cup of tea, check out the "Great Art" thread in The Water Cooler.

Finished the above book (a very interesting read on global culture, politics and tourism in the early 1950s) and am now 100 pages deep into Elizabeth Kostova's 2005 vampire novel "The Historian".

The Inverted Jenny: Money, Mystery, Mania - George Amick Old Masters, New World: America's Raid on Europe's Great Pictures - Cynthia Saltzman

Recently read: China Underground - Zachary Mexico (a 2009 book by an American who lived in China during the 2000s and dishes the dirt on sex, drugs, rock 'n roll, political dissent, etc. in China - good read) Jackie Stewart: Winning Is Not Enough - Jackie Stewart (3-time Formula 1 champion's autobiography, which details his struggles with dyslexia and his extensive post-F1 business career as much as it covers his racing career - an engaging page-turner) Currently reading: Around the World on $80 - Robert Christopher (a book from the '50s written by an American who traveled around the world post-WWII on the cheap - so far, it's very interesting, though I think the book is long out of print)

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker for me, though if I were interested in it, I'd certainly prefer to have the art all on one board. Yes, the stat overlay was very nicely done, but really only the DD image is original if you're displaying it with the overlay, while the original Elektra art would be tucked in a portfolio somewhere else. Not the end of the world, but worthy of some kind of discount I think, one of a kind or not.

I thought that the price of 188 was strong but this went for the same or more?? So... Then: "Well, if that DKR splash is worth $448K, this Daredevil #190 cover must be worth 6-figures, easy.:takeit:" Now:

Comparing McKean's artwork, which is more multi-media/collage/sculpture than pure pen & ink on board, to a Miller cover drawn on 2 boards instead of the usual 1 is like comparing apples and porterhouses.

It's all somewhat subjective, of course, but, of the covers that feature Elektra, I would rank #181, #174, #175, #168 and #176 all ahead of #190 for sure. #179 is a decent Elektra cover, though it doesn't feature DD or a full figure of Elektra, so that's a bit of a drawback for me. I'm not as keen on #190 either as the DD image is only a headshot and Elektra is totally blacked out in shadow and you can't see her face (which is also why I would probably rather have #174 or #175 more than the obviously more significant #168). While the 2-board factor would not be a dealbreaker for me, I think everyone will acknowledge that it would be preferable if it were on one board. None of that may matter to someone who is more focused on the key issue/historic/nostalgia aspect of the #190 cover, but, to me, I think some of the other covers offer more in the way of the actual artwork. Artistically, I think the #188 cover is actually quite impressive as well; it and #191 give early hints at Miller's style to come. So, as far as Miller DD/Elektra covers go, IMO: #181 - Filet Mignon (A+) #168, #174, #175 - Porterhouse (A) #176 - NY Strip (A-) #179, #190 - Rib Eye (B+) But, don't get me wrong - Rib Eye prepared by Miller is still tastier than Filet prepared by many other artists.

I could not agree more with you. B+/A- quality examples often sell for A-quality prices simply because that is what is available, as most of the true A/A+ quality pieces have long since found their way into black hole collections or have simply not resurfaced. Personally, I would prefer to, as you suggested, buy other material that I like instead (particularly in the illustration art world, where more of the A/A+ pieces are still available). Or, alternatively, I would prefer to wait on the sidelines until the pieces I really want eventually become available rather than paying up for something just because it's the best that's currently on offer. If these pieces never become available, I've decided I can live with that possibility more than I can live with overpaying for something I'm not completely happy with - but, to each his own.

It raised an eyebrow. :yeahok: It was not a great read. He said at the outset that he wasn't going to name names or tell any really juicy stories. Instead, it focuses on him trying to make it in show business before Bond, cruises through the Bond years and then talks a lot about his work with UNICEF. I'd say it's for die-hard Moore fans only.