RockMyAmadeus

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too? Yeah, my degrees don't mean much, except to employers and potential students, so bringing them up is rather meaningless.

And what are they doing that is a repudiation of the Abstract movement? Art, like sharks, must always move, or it dies.

What he said. I'm fairly certain everyone here agrees with this. Glad to see that clarified, as that's an awful lot like what it sounded from your earlier post: People just go gaga over Impressionism, it's no challenge to like Impression, there's nothing controversial, or edgy, or challenging about liking it...implying, of course, that that which IS controversial, which IS edgy, which IS challenging to like...going against the flow, as it were...is preferable, simply because of its contrarian nature, and not because of any intrinsic artistic merit it may have, in and of itself. I agree with you completely: there's a lot of out there, but the is vital in producing that which is great, by creating an environment in which experimentation...and failure...is tolerable. The challenge, then, becomes: is this piece of abstract art ? Or is it genius? Does it follow established rules of art? If it breaks them, does it break them from an underlying foundation of craftsmanship (Picasso, for example), or is it from an underlying foundation of laziness, hackery, and lack of talent? Does it have artistic merit apart from popularity, or is it just popular, famous for being famous (Samuel L. Jackson)? Does it ride the coattails of the fame of its creator, or does it stand apart, on its own? Theses are all questions that must be asked, of each and every piece, before it can, or should, be pronounced "art." Yes, but the question isn't whether it angers and incites controversy....rather, for whom it does so. If my work angers and incites controversy amongst people who don't give two squats about art, and have never even Googled pictures of fine art, much less actually spent time in a gallery, who the hell cares? If it angers critics, however, people who have made their whole careers on telling everyone else what is, and what is not, art...ahhh, NOW I've got something worth looking into! And any controversy is good controversy, where the artist is concerned, because controversy is exposure. Whether their art is garbage, or it is genius, the fact that people talk about it is what is important for them. Haven't we moved on? Surely, we shouldn't still be talking about the great artists of the mid-20th century, should we? Pollock's been gone for almost 60 years. In music, Phillip Glass, Pawel Szymanski, Wolfgang Rihm, these are the composers that are relevant NOW, doing 21st century work...who are the Jackson Pollocks of 2014?

He's the love child of Rob Liefeld and Roy Lichtenstein. BASTARDO!!! I was hoping to get through ONE thread...just ONE...without Liefeld's name being brought up. Poor Liefeld....the only way his name is brought up in a discussion about great art is as the ultimate foil.

He's the love child of Rob Liefeld and Roy Lichtenstein. BASTARDO!!! I was hoping to get through ONE thread...just ONE...without Liefeld's name being brought up.

So, essentially, great art is determined by who is least popular...? So, if an artist is poo-poo'd, that means liking their art is "contrarian, edgy, controversial, challenging", and that gives the work its artistic merit...? Can't the simplest answer be that their art is sub-par...? Listen, people didn't like Beethoven's late work, either. There were actual (GASP!!) augmented chords in it! This music was jarring to the ears of the generations of music who had grown up with Bach and Mozart's clean, pretty melodies and staid, predictable major and minor triad development (though Mozart, had he lived, would have made Beethoven look like a veritable Mendelsohn...the best thing that ever happened to Beethoven's career was Mozart's death...but I digress.) So, the idea that the modern can be jarring to the familiar isn't a new one. The nice thing about art, all artistic expression, is this: that which is truly great will endure...that which is not will fade and be forgotten. Time is the greatest, and most objective, judge of art that exists.

This pretty much sums it up. How much Pollock smiled and nodded politely when people admired his work, and saw deep, hidden meaning to it, and how much he chuckled to himself when he knew that they had bought it, is anyone's guess. When you look at #5, do you see an artist who was consciously trying to create something with incredible depth and gravitas, employing all the considerable skill at his command to create something which he considered the best representation of his ability...? ....was he just splashing paint around for fun, with no thought to form, design, lighting, etc...? ...or was he just tapping into that sub-conscious master inside and expressing his art without conscious thought...simply creating to create, for his own satisfaction, regardless of what others thought of his work, and whatever resulted, that was what he intended? He is reported to have said, when it was damaged and he repainted it for the buyer “He'll never know. No one knows how to look at my paintings, he won’t know the difference.” Hardly a ringing endorsement from the artist's own mouth for the artistic brilliance of his work. Since abstract art is generally detached from reality (hence "abstract"), it's difficult to determine its artistic value objectively (yes, I understand that I betray my realist roots.) The question becomes: How much in modern art is there to be seen...and how much of it is seen to be there...? Does it have merit because of its intrinsic artistic value...? Or does it have artistic value solely based on the individual impressions and reactions of others to the work, the artist, outside influence, etc .? Who's to say? If you see a wonderful interplay of form and design, with the use of light delightfully counterbalancing the weight of the materials used, a remarkable and insightful commentary on the post-WWII flight of Americans to suburbia, and I see two triangles and a square, arranged on the floor...who is right?

I didn't say it was schlock. I like the Impressionists. Everybody likes the Impressionists. My Mom likes the Impressionists - it's her favorite art movement, just like it's the favorite art movement of many people who don't know anything about art. It's easy on the eyes and easy to like. Just like Salvador Dali, the Pre-Raphaelites and all the other genres that are beloved by comic collectors and the general populace. I'm not saying there aren't different levels of appreciation. But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years. If you believe there's nothing challenging about the Rouen Cathedral series, or much of Monet's work, you're not looking.

By the way....that piece by Monet, and many other masterworks, can be seen for free at the Getty museum in LA. If any of you are visiting, or live in the area, I HIGHLY recommend going up the hill and spending a few hours staring at art. The only cost is $15 for parking. No, I don't work for the Getty (although.... ) It's fun to see a billion+ dollars worth of art in a room about the size of a basketball court.

He gave me a single artist (a commercial illustrator who was good at what he did, but hardly a titan of Western art & civilization), an art movement (could not get more saccharine or cliched) and has told us in numerous other posts what he doesn't like. It doesn't take an analytical genius to figure out that a "million other things" is utter hyperbole, excludes a huge amount of the art created over the past century (which, statistically, is most of the art that's ever been created), and tilts strongly towards easy-to-understand, figurative paintings. Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself. You asked for an example. It was a casual, not-meant-to-be-critically-dissected response. It was, in no way, meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive catalog of his taste in art. Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself...

Yeah, funny how you like a "million things in-between" and yet I bet that million doesn't include titans of the art world like Warhol, Rothko, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Twombly, de Kooning, etc. To a man, all just hacks and frauds compared to people who drew saccharine pictures like the Pre-Raphaelites. That's not what he said. That's what you're saying he said, which is a straw man argument, which is poor debate form.

I can debate why they are influential to me, that their influence on me was legitimately deserved, and that I believe there was no shell game. And I could gather together others who feel the same to join the debate. Then some ignoramuses who feel differently could join in on the other side with some lame- opposition. We could call it a chat-board. A chat-board where my side wins that debate. Huh. This is a side of Mr. B that I don't think I've seen before.

And what the hell does that even MEAN, "pre-digested and easy to understand"...? Is THIS "easy to understand": I've stared at that piece with my own two peepers, in person, at some length, and I STILL find new things that I hadn't seen before, and when I say "seen", I mean "experienced", because much of what you "see" isn't what is there, but what IS NOT. It's breathtaking, and I imagine when you see the series together, it's even more breathtaking. But that's schlock, pre-digested, easy to understand.

Can't say that I'm surprised. You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome. Not surprised that you like a wide range of art that's been pre-digested and is easy to understand. (thumbs u Not only is that incredibly snobbish, it's not even a legitimate statement. Logan gave you a single artist, and an art movement, and you've now determined that ALL the art he likes is "pre-digested and easy to understand"? Again, I say... Nobody does snob like GP.

Better yet, why do you tell us what kind of art you think is brilliant? I'd be especially interested if you like any art from the second half of the 20th century or if you think it's all a sham. I'd like to know what artistic qualities you hold in high regard. My guess would be they're the same qualities that can be replicated by any half-decent Chinese or Vietnamese back-alley copyist for a hundred bucks. Here's what I wrote about Pollock in the Great Art Thread in the Water Cooler: 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. Were you one of my instructors at the Art Institute? I didn't swallow it then sir and I'm not swallowing it now. So what you're saying is the art he likes sucks and the art you like rocks? No, what I'm saying is I'm never going to be convinced that Lichenstein was anything other than a plagiarist and that Pollock was anything other than a sham. Teachers I had back then used flowery platitudes trying to justify those hacks. I didn't buy it then, I'm not buying it now. Taste in "art" is subjective and I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot like. But if we're discussing the merits of the "art" or "artist" ( I use the terms lightly when it comes to those two ), I feel I'm just as entitled to my opinion. Think about it this way...In the grand scheme of things Ditko and Kirby were not especially great artists. In our world they are the masters. Nirvana was not a musically exceptional band, but they changed everything in the world of music. Night of the Living Dead was not a great movie but it is taught in film schools everywhere because its creation changed the world of film. Same with Pollack and Lichtenstein (among others). You may not like them, you may debate the merits of the work, but you can't deny that they were important and influential. Yes, but you can debate why they were important and influential, and whether that importance and influence was legitimately deserved, a shell game that the public fell for, or something in between. Samuel L. Jackson has made millions of dollars working in movies, and he's a marginal actor, at best. But damn if people don't love the way he says "mothereffer!"

No.

My guess is that TJ has the most complete Maxx set in 9.8 as far as the regular run. I sold him most of mine along with some graded ashcans including a black 2. I haven't looked at the registry for a few years though. Then there's IbeforeE (not sure if that's her exact board name) and she has the complete ashcan run graded and there's one more boardie with a complete ashcan set as well. Still waiting on him to put it in this thread! Did you get that #2 from me? I've been keeping track of the various ones I've sold...I started with 10, and have 3 left. One of the other ones I had was the one sold earlier this year. I've only seen two others #2s out there not from my hoard. I don't know what numbers they are, but IbeforeE has one, and oftimespast had the other, back in...I want to say 07.

There are some people with some pretty cool Maxx stuff around here.... Gee, I wonder who that could be? I would imagine it's several of the people posting in this thread.

(boy, this will get me in trouble) Why haven't these artists made better choices in life, that they are in the predicaments they are at this stage in the game? Bob Kane was an artist. Stan Lee was a writer. Bob Kane died a wealthy man. Stan Lee is worth a fortune. What made those guys succeed, where others have failed? Was Bob Kane special? Is Stan Lee special? Or did they simply make better choices in life? Why are people made to feel sorry for those who had their entire lives to prepare for this time, and did not spend their money wisely? Yes, I know, heartless. "You don't know the circumstances!!" etc. (I love Russ Heath's work, and I'm glad HERO has helped him.)

There are some people with some pretty cool Maxx stuff around here....

I don't know whether to be honored or insulted...

What is "Miltipas"? Is that a misspelling of Milpitas?

No.

Usually not a good sign when a Boardie's wife jumps in to defend him. That usually doesn't turn out well. Has anyone trotted out the bully card yet? You just let them worry about that Oh, and you That's sexist.