Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million 2 2

[comix4fun]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Thanks to plenty of leafy greens and the occasional Fiber One bar, I create at least two brilliant works of art every day.

 

 

 

It was an interesting comment...most of the finest artists, their own harshest critics, believe the majority of their work to be fecal matter. "Art" and poop are both produced in alarming numbers.

[Bronty]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Thanks to plenty of leafy greens and the occasional Fiber One bar, I create at least two brilliant works of art every day.

 

[Bronty]

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

 

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.

 

I can respect your viewpoint, but at the end of the day, if I want to look at a log of then like Chris said I can do that several times a day.

 

I guess one has to either accept or reject 'conceptualism' as I called it above. I can respect the train of thought that leads one there, but exploring those thoughts means that one's destination is the Fancifully Ridiculous. Some can accept that, 100 years later most still don't, to this very day, because most people myself include prefer to view (representational) pictures; if I want to "view" ideas I'll read a f'ing book

[SC in SC]

In other words, because we don't agree that Warhol and Pollock were geniuses our opinion must not matter because we can't comprehend the ideas and impact they had onthe world? I understand how they impacted our world completely. Warhol wasn't a talentless hack, but he was a poor representation of humanity regardless of his impact on our society. I have found him to be a vain, self-centered, and particularly unimaginative person regardless of what he may have painted.

 

As for my assertation of modern art as a whole, I have found it has very little intrinsic or artistic value to me but I don't dismiss it as a genre any more than I dismiss Harlequin romance novels for their contribution to the romance genre even though I find them to be pedantic and repetitive garbage.

 

From what I've seen so far of his art I find that Lichtenstein had artistic talent, but lacked imagination and creativity. What he had was cleaverness and an ability to copy other artists' work. I find nothing creative or novel in the works that he gave to history. I think his work is trivial and derivative and that is about all the value it has for me. He should have been sued and dismissed like a journalist who has falsified a story instead of celebrated.

[Terry Doyle]

Wow, so no credit for his contributions to technique (e.g., the use of enlarged Ben-Day dots . . .

 

 

Was this during his 'Warren Kremer' period?

 

 

[Bronty]

heh

[delekkerste]

Was this during his 'Warren Kremer' period?

 

British humour. :doh:

[Ted Knight]

Cleverness is a poor substitute for inspired creativity but, unfortunately, all to often in today's world, it passes for the real thing. Hence, I've always viewed Lichtenstein as one of the worst kinds of artist in the 20th century. He obfuscates and reduces to the ridiculous to make a one-line point that is dubious in it's meaning. And then pretends that he gets something that everyone else has been mystified about, thereby exacerbating the current emperor's new clothes environment that pervades the modern era.

 

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?

 

FWIW, I appreciate your willingness to be the lone voice of defense for contemporary art. I don't think that anyone here is falling back on enlightenment painting, impressionism or symbolism as the last great movements in art because of it's figurative and symbolic content. I think that what you are hearing is the very thing I referred to in my post: that most contemporary art fails in it's fundamental purpose- to communicate a complex, meaningful idea to it's audience. As I've said, there are exceptions, but avant-gardeism is really built on a hyper-subjective view of art, one that emphasizes differences over similarities in the experience of being human.

 

For me, this is the antithesis of great art. It doesn't inspire, empathize, commiserate, or celebrate. And often, it denegrates, demeans, or otherwise devalues aspects of our society. A little bit of criticism is quite useful and goes a long way. But we're talking about an entire period of fine art that has been dedicated to only criticism. It is far easier to spit in every one's face than to take part in a real act of creation. And that is the cop out the vast majority of artists take today. Again, there are exceptions (always there are exceptions). But this is what turns most people away from contemporary art. Or at least, this is what I hear and read from the general public.

 

Technique, or process, matters little compared to content. I do appreciate craft and innovation as much as anyone, but I'm not looking to assess who had the best method of stroking a canvas or applying color. I'm looking for the end product. The image and the story it tells are so much more important to me.

[tth2]

Warhol wasn't a talentless hack, but he was a poor representation of humanity regardless of his impact on our society. I have found him to be a vain, self-centered, and particularly unimaginative person regardless of what he may have painted.

And you think most other artists are saints? You clearly haven't hung around many artists or other creative types, because the vast majority are generally vain, self-centered, brittle, insecure, etc., and many are not very nice people at all, particularly if they become really successful.

[tth2]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

[comix4fun]

Warhol wasn't a talentless hack, but he was a poor representation of humanity regardless of his impact on our society. I have found him to be a vain, self-centered, and particularly unimaginative person regardless of what he may have painted.

And you think most other artists are saints? You clearly haven't hung around many artists or other creative types, because the vast majority are generally vain, self-centered, brittle, insecure, etc., and many are not very nice people at all, particularly if they become really successful.

 

 

So you're saying they are human beings?

 

I agree with what you are saying though. The left brain stuff that makes them brilliant also costs them in the practical, business, day to day living side of things most of the time.

 

 

From experience, the best artists I have ever met are incredibly insecure.

 

The insecure ones are the ones that are never satisfied with their craft, are never happy with the finished product and strive to get better to correct their flaws and you can really see it when you follow these guys for a decade or two.

 

The secure, brash, arrogant artists are the ones where you can't tell their work from 20 years ago from what they drew today. They stagnate at best or erode at worst.

 

 

[Ted Knight]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it.

 

A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery.

 

But yes, it is astonishing how cheap talent is in Southeast Asia. Wasn't it Giordano that went to the Philippines to find talent in the likes of Ernie Chan (Chua) because of this?

[The Troll King]

Cleverness is a poor substitute for inspired creativity but, unfortunately, all to often in today's world, it passes for the real thing. Hence, I've always viewed Lichtenstein as one of the worst kinds of artist in the 20th century. He obfuscates and reduces to the ridiculous to make a one-line point that is dubious in it's meaning. And then pretends that he gets something that everyone else has been mystified about, thereby exacerbating the current emperor's new clothes environment that pervades the modern era.

 

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?

 

FWIW, I appreciate your willingness to be the lone voice of defense for contemporary art. I don't think that anyone here is falling back on enlightenment painting, impressionism or symbolism as the last great movements in art because of it's figurative and symbolic content. I think that what you are hearing is the very thing I referred to in my post: that most contemporary art fails in it's fundamental purpose- to communicate a complex, meaningful idea to it's audience. As I've said, there are exceptions, but avant-gardeism is really built on a hyper-subjective view of art, one that emphasizes differences over similarities in the experience of being human.

 

For me, this is the antithesis of great art. It doesn't inspire, empathize, commiserate, or celebrate. And often, it denegrates, demeans, or otherwise devalues aspects of our society. A little bit of criticism is quite useful and goes a long way. But we're talking about an entire period of fine art that has been dedicated to only criticism. It is far easier to spit in every one's face than to take part in a real act of creation. And that is the cop out the vast majority of artists take today. Again, there are exceptions (always there are exceptions). But this is what turns most people away from contemporary art. Or at least, this is what I hear and read from the general public.

 

Technique, or process, matters little compared to content. I do appreciate craft and innovation as much as anyone, but I'm not looking to assess who had the best method of stroking a canvas or applying color. I'm looking for the end product. The image and the story it tells are so much more important to me.

 

Try as I might, you said exactly what I had been trying to say but far more eloquently.

[tth2]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it.

 

A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery.

Valid points. But on the other hand, I don't think it's a coincidence that art became more and more abstract following the advent of photography.

[Ted Knight]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it.

 

A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery.

Valid points. But on the other hand, I don't think it's a coincidence that art became more and more abstract following the advent of photography.

I agree. The advent of photography created a sort of identity crisis for the art profession as it no longer had the monopoly on visual representation. And yet, very powerful representational art was created after the widespread use of photographs. I believe this is due to the fact that the camera isn't capable of being selective. It captures all, equally by the nature of the apparatus. There are ways around this but generally speaking, this is where representational drawing and painting are still stronger than the camera lens.

 

The other factor, one that I believe had more of an impact on the world of art (including comic and illustration art) than any other is the opening of Japan and the cultural exchange that followed. The exposure of Japanese prints radically impacted all segments of the American and European art world (possibly Chinese, also although I am unaware of those). I think one could make a very strong case that the modern concept of abstraction originated there. And, of course, this coincides with the advent of photography.

 

The concept of abstraction is both powerful and fraught with mishaps. Abstraction to transcend the literal in an effort to grasp the essential can be incredibly compelling. But "pure abstraction" that has no basis in reality is really a nasty joke on the viewer. It isn't art. It may be something else, something new that has an, as yet, undefined purpose. But it isn't really art.

 

I sometimes wonder if much of contemporary art is an example of people reproducing something without understanding the reason it was created in the first place, too insecure to acknowledge that they didn't fully understand it. And now we've gone through 5 or 6 generations of this pretense to arrive at a state of total confusion. If this is so, it's both sad and comical, but hopeful because opportunity for progress abounds.

[Bronty]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

 

but that's really neither here nor there Tim. Sure, any representational piece can be copied. And so can any conceptual piece - in fact, since many don't require much in the way of technical skill they are far easier to copy. Ie. an artist painting pretty pictures for $5 a day would probably give you a week's worth of art gladly for $5.

 

There is a huuuuuuge difference between inspiring the public with your own unique work and just copying someone else's work, and that holds equally true whether we are talking about representational or conceptual work.

 

And that's the entire crux of this thread. Is Lichty's work original and unique, or is it a copy of someone else's work. Objectively it has to be a little of both, and that's why there are differences of opinion on his work.

[tth2]

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".

 

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is.

 

In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you).

 

You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation

 

In other words, pretty pictures is where its at.

The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality.

 

I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing.

 

While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more.

This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it.

 

A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery.

Valid points. But on the other hand, I don't think it's a coincidence that art became more and more abstract following the advent of photography.

I agree. The advent of photography created a sort of identity crisis for the art profession as it no longer had the monopoly on visual representation. And yet, very powerful representational art was created after the widespread use of photographs. I believe this is due to the fact that the camera isn't capable of being selective. It captures all, equally by the nature of the apparatus. There are ways around this but generally speaking, this is where representational drawing and painting are still stronger than the camera lens.

 

The other factor, one that I believe had more of an impact on the world of art (including comic and illustration art) than any other is the opening of Japan and the cultural exchange that followed. The exposure of Japanese prints radically impacted all segments of the American and European art world (possibly Chinese, also although I am unaware of those). I think one could make a very strong case that the modern concept of abstraction originated there. And, of course, this coincides with the advent of photography.

Totally agree with this, although I think photography buffs might not agree with your characterization of cameras not being selective. Western artists were not as influenced by Chinese art, although since Japanese art was heavily influenced by Chinese art you could say that they were indirectly influenced by Chinese art.

 

But "pure abstraction" that has no basis in reality is really a nasty joke on the viewer. It isn't art. It may be something else, something new that has an, as yet, undefined purpose. But it isn't really art.

This I absolutely would not agree with. Color and shapes, even if not representational of anything, can be pleasing to the eye in and of themselves. If you come from the Islamic art tradition, where colors and patterns predominate because depictions of people wereas not permitted, the idea that art has to be representational in some way would be completely alien. Someone like Pollock then took it a step further by not being tied to geometric patterns.

[Ted Knight]

But "pure abstraction" that has no basis in reality is really a nasty joke on the viewer. It isn't art. It may be something else, something new that has an, as yet, undefined purpose. But it isn't really art.

This I absolutely would not agree with. Color and shapes, even if not representational of anything, can be pleasing to the eye in and of themselves. If you come from the Islamic art tradition, where colors and patterns predominate because depictions of people wereas not permitted, the idea that art has to be representational in some way would be completely alien. Someone like Pollock then took it a step further by not being tied to geometric patterns.

So now we arrive at the central question that contemporary art has been asking for some time: What is art? It seems simple enough. And most people have a "I know it when I see it" sort of definition for themselves. But the question still remains. I believe there is a clear definition out there that has been around for a very long time and still holds up today. But this is something each person has to find for themselves.

 

I think in order to better understand art one has to begin by asking why people like art to begin with. What does it do for them? It makes absolutely no rational sense that we should be attracted to such things. Every culture of man has generated it in one form or another. So, why do we like art?

 

It's a tough question. Look at my quote above and perhaps you'll see what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the composition and organization of color, line, and form do not have value. I'm saying that it serves a different purpose. The joke is that the general population has a set of expectations that art (by their definition of it) will do for them. And "pure abstraction" is doing something else (and by the way, "pure abstraction" is funny because it's neither pure nor an abstraction). I'm pretty sure this is why the vast majority of the audience is left "feeling cold".

 

I have seen many pleasing assemblies that are satisfying from a stand point of visual performance (I am an architect, after all). But, this is a very different thing than what art does for me. I think the trouble is that we have been lumping so many new things over the last couple of hundred years into what we call art that it has lost it's meaning for many. Phenomenology is perhaps the best example of this. And that has it's roots in Islamic pattern-making as well .

 

And why this gets confusing is because not only are the same basic elements (color, line, and form in the visual arts) being employed in both, but also that we are using the same set of senses to interact with them (primarily, our eyes). But to combine everything that I see with my eyes into the category of art is so broad as to be meaningless (hence, my mathematical analogy before). It's a sort of relativism that makes as much sense as saying "everything is soft".

 

But this is the understanding that I have found for myself. I don't require that others believe the same thing. Only that they consider the possibilities. If you disagree, I'm interested in hearing why.

 

Incidentally, there is representational art in the Islamic tradition, their miniatures are beautiful.

[tth2]

Incidentally, there is representational art in the Islamic tradition, their miniatures are beautiful.

This is true. I was thinking in terms of paintings of people.

[furthur]

I am not nearly as up in arms about Lichtenstein as the folks here on the CGC boards are. You would think Lichtenstein was Bernie Madoff if you read all the vitriol on these pages. Like Warhol, Lichtenstein had a cool idea using what was then completely throwaway material and turned it into high art as a comment on our culture of mass media. There is a reason that the original for the panel Lichtenstein used for his inspiration went cheap when sold by Heritage in its auction-its really a pretty boring and crappy piece of comic art-not nearly the artistry of a Foster or Hogarth or others who did fine work in comic strips (and likewise most of the material Lichtenstein used from comic books was equally pedestrian) No one would have likely paid even $200 for that Steve Roper piece if it hadn't been connected to the Lichtenstein. It was the comic equivalent of Warhol's use of Campbell soup cans. Pretending that Lichtenstein somehow ripped off these supremely talented comic artists is a joke. In 1961 stuff like this was no more considered art than clip art is today. The real joke is that Lichtenstein's artistic genius made this pedestrian piece of work that most of the people on this list wouldn't have looked at twice in an auction worth twice as much as it otherwise might be-and that is still a measly 550 bucks. I am amazed at all the griping about modern art here-and mostly all I see is sour grapes that comic art isn't more highly regarded. The fact is that its like illustration art of the 20th century. There is artistic merit in some of the work and eventually the cream will rise to the top like the work of Rockwell, Parrish and Leyendecker has done over the years. Sorry folks, but the guy who drew that Steve Roper panel was no Eisner or Foster or Raymond and the only thing that lifts it from the gutter of history is Lichtenstein's appropriation of it.