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

[comix4fun]

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.

 

 

Wow, I can hear you so clearly. I would have thought the ivory on your tower wouldn't conduct sound so well from all the way down here in the art history gutter.

 

You did use the word pedestrian twice though...that's good for bonus points I think.

 

"Lifts it From the Gutter of History" ...utterly classic.

 

 

This post gets 4 cigarette holders "UP"

 

[SC in SC]

I agree that the panel was a throw-away piece of nothing that no one cared about. I also agree that Lichtenstein's theft and use of it is the only reason people remember it. Where I disagree with some here is that it wasn't "high art" regardless of what people believe. It was theft, plain and simple, and not worthy of the praise that it gets. Good marketing and good spin is why Lichtenstein's copy of the comic panel became famous, not because of artistic talent or genius.

 

Lichtenstein took a very specific image that was created by someone else and claimed it as his own without changing anything of the image. That is theft.

No, he's not Bernie Madoff, but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing. They're wrong too. Theft is theft, be it of millions of dollars or of a simple panel of comic art that's worth less than a dollar.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the idea that taking something that isn't yours is theft, but there are some here who simply don't seem to understand that. It is my sincere hope that you eventually learn that lesson the easy way, rather than by having your possessions (either material or intellectual) raided and taken by someone else for their own purposes.

[Whizzer]

Just to clarify here, having a disdain for Lichtenstein, (as I do, due to what I view as his plagiarism) doesn't preclude appreciating modern art.

 

I greatly enjoyed the Warhol exhibition at the Tate Modern here in London a few years ago. I can even appreciate SOME of Hirst's work; the Pharmacy installation for one.

 

I just happen to think that RL is a chancer who got lucky, and that as a comic artist he was inferior to those he stole from.

 

[pinupcartoonguy]

If, as you say, theft is theft, you do realize that every time an art draws a, say, Marvel or DC character for a commission they are violating the publisher's trademark, which is in essence, theft.

 

I agree that the panel was a throw-away piece of nothing that no one cared about. I also agree that Lichtenstein's theft and use of it is the only reason people remember it. Where I disagree with some here is that it wasn't "high art" regardless of what people believe. It was theft, plain and simple, and not worthy of the praise that it gets. Good marketing and good spin is why Lichtenstein's copy of the comic panel became famous, not because of artistic talent or genius.

 

Lichtenstein took a very specific image that was created by someone else and claimed it as his own without changing anything of the image. That is theft.

No, he's not Bernie Madoff, but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing. They're wrong too. Theft is theft, be it of millions of dollars or of a simple panel of comic art that's worth less than a dollar.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the idea that taking something that isn't yours is theft, but there are some here who simply don't seem to understand that. It is my sincere hope that you eventually learn that lesson the easy way, rather than by having your possessions (either material or intellectual) raided and taken by someone else for their own purposes.

[furthur]

I guess anyone who likes modern art must be sitting in an ivory tower. Perhaps that is so, but my tower is well decorated with Kirby, Wrightson, Miller, Foster, Hogarth and other comic art that I love.

 

Three thoughts SC

 

1. There is no one that thinks what Madoff did was not wrong. This was simple theft. He took money, said he was investing it which was a lie and he was using the money for himself and his family. Pure theft with victims who had devastating consequences as a result.

2. There are two ways I might analogize Lichtenstein's use of the image.

 

a) fair use-in commenting on pop culture, Lichtenstein took a small piece of a larger image and re-contextualized it. I can take a panel from a story and comment on it in an article or otherwise and its not theft-its clearly protected commentary. Lichtenstein did it though art.

b) satire-Lichtenstein used the panel to satirize disposable pop culture-again, a use of something verbatim that is not theft.

 

I understand the arguments on the other side of this, but everyone who looks at this material understands-as the people who look at Warhol's campbell soup cans understand-that the original image was not created by the artist-the art was in the contextualization of the existing image. You can like this art or not, but to say this is theft is like saying the Dada artists "stole" a urinal or a rake when they were recontexualized as art. This isn't like that person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed that was recreating stuff by Dave Stevens and other artists and going to comic shows and selling it as his own work. Everyone who looks at this stuff and value it enough to pay millions for it know exactly how it was created and why and its that context that gives it value.

 

I can understand why its "Ivory Tower" to have to go beyond the surface of this art to see its value. Clearly it is what it is-a giant almost verbatim painting of a comic strip panel.Yet we ourselves pay tens of thousands of dollars for images of comic characters whose creators have never gotten a nickel from the folks who appropriate their characters for our enjoyment. One might also note that this period was perhaps what put Lichtenstein on the map, but he had a long and productive career utilizing themes very different from copying comic panels.

 

I will leave it at that.

[delekkerste]

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.

 

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?

[comix4fun]

I guess anyone who likes modern art must be sitting in an ivory tower.

 

 

 

That's not true. There are plenty of people who love modern artwork, impressionist artwork, comic artwork, pop art, renaissance art and every other style in between but find a way to enjoy the art they love without basically calling people who like other kinds of art, for lack of a better word, low.

 

There are plenty more people that have been able to state what you stated and to give the perspective you gave without the heaping piles of "art-speak" condescension. Frankly, the way you said what you said is one of the main reasons so many people share a disdain for the art world gibberish that continues to be regurgitated every time one of the pillars of the movement are attacked for lack of imagination or respect.

 

That's where the Ivory Tower reference came from.

 

There's far too much belittling and elevating of artwork in the clear view of 20/20 hindsight. There are too many people willing to see auction results as a validating factor of the "worth, depth and meaning" of an artist, period or piece. It's high art now. Why? Because enough people with enough money think so. They curate the exhibits, buy at the auctions, write the books, and are seen in the media.

 

Art, and beauty, are in the eye of the beholder and I will continue to bristle when people feel the need to elevate one piece by completely insulting another. Those artists creating those comics have every right to every artistic protection and respect for their creation that the guy hanging in the Soho gallery selling his pieces for millions does.

 

An artist and his creation deserve the respect to be credited as such regardless of appropriation by someone with more powerful patrons later.

[Ted Knight]

 

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, 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 combined?

 

You're kind of all over the place, man. Let's stick with the subject at hand:

 

You have grouped Picasso's work with Lichtenstein's and his contemporaries and that indicates a real lack of understanding of either artist as they have virtually nothing to do with one another and both would probably be offended by the association. It seems like you didn't get much out of your studies of art history.

 

You have made assumptions that my view is that abstraction shouldn't have occurred at all. Nothing could be further from the truth but I think in order to have this conversation, you have to actually understand the concept of abstraction so that you can tell the difference between what is successful and what is not.

 

But is it possible that the elite personnel of galleries and museums and their patrons have been misguided for the last half century? Sure. They are, after all, just people with all the frailties that entails. An inability to ask questions and / or challenge conventional wisdom is the greatest obstacle to progress.

 

For several thousand years, people were absolutely, 100% certain that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. Anyone who suggested otherwise was laughed at or worse. I, for one, am glad that there were people to question these things to further the collective understanding of the universe and our place in it. But my guess, is that Pope Urban was just as frustrated and outraged as you are right now when Galileo said "Eppur si muove".

[furthur]

Like with many of the email exchanges that we all see online, it seems like there is way too much effort made to denigrate the person with the ideas and not nearly as much thought about the ideas themselves. I certainly never called anyone who likes comic art "low", nor do I believe that comic art itself is "low". For gosh sakes, I said clearly that I collect comic art and so why would I want to classify the art or those who collect it as low?

 

I do think that, as with all types of art, some comic art is better than others. Those valuations are necessarily subjective and much of the argument that we see is based on those different subjective views. If you think that Steve Roper Sunday stands at the pinnacle with the work of Foster, McCay, Raymond etc. in the pantheon of comic art greats then we simply disagree, but the statement that some art is pedestrian is not one that I think puts me in an ivory tower.

 

As for the idea that Lichtenstein should have either used imagery out of his own head or somehow have given appropriation to comic artists that produced them, I think that makes sense only if you take the essence of what he was doing out of the work. These were already essentially anonymous pieces of pop culture in the context he was using them. He never hid the fact that the images were culled directly from comic book or strip art sources-that was the entire point!

 

Not only that, but comic book folks revelled in the comparison of what was percieved as "high" and "low" art at the time. Why else would Marvel comics have put the "pop art" label right onto the cover of their comics in the mid sixties? MoMA famously did a "High/Low" exhibit in the 80's that explicitly compared pop art to its sources-and it was a huge success and gave anyone who wanted to look the ability to understand the transformative nature of what the pop artists were doing.

 

I like lots of modern art, I like lots of comic art. There are artists in both realms (and in other kinds of art genres ) that I admire and some I dislike and believe have varying degrees of talent. That is the nature of art and perception and I wouldn't have it any other way. I have no problem with folks not liking Lichtenstein or anyone elses art for that matter. The idea that he in particular should be despised as a thief, however, I disagree with.

[comix4fun]

Well I am glad that's not what you meant because I know you collect comic art and appreciate it so I was having a hard time reconciling the two perspectives.

 

The real problem is, when I read someone use all those wonderful art school terms....I can't get image out of my head of Thurston Howell, III speaking them.

 

 

It's transformative and speaks directly to primitive man

and his struggle to drag himself out of the primordial ooze

of blue collar life and into the enlightenment of high art....lovey."

 

It's a problem. I know. I am working on it.

[delekkerste]

You're kind of all over the place, man. Let's stick with the subject at hand:

 

You have grouped Picasso's work with Lichtenstein's and his contemporaries and that indicates a real lack of understanding of either artist as they have virtually nothing to do with one another and both would probably be offended by the association. It seems like you didn't get much out of your studies of art history.

 

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.

 

 

You have made assumptions that my view is that abstraction shouldn't have occurred at all. Nothing could be further from the truth but I think in order to have this conversation, you have to actually understand the concept of abstraction so that you can tell the difference between what is successful and what is not.

 

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...

 

 

But is it possible that the elite personnel of galleries and museums and their patrons have been misguided for the last half century? Sure. They are, after all, just people with all the frailties that entails. An inability to ask questions and / or challenge conventional wisdom is the greatest obstacle to progress.

 

For several thousand years, people were absolutely, 100% certain that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. Anyone who suggested otherwise was laughed at or worse. I, for one, am glad that there were people to question these things to further the collective understanding of the universe and our place in it. But my guess, is that Pope Urban was just as frustrated and outraged as you are right now when Galileo said "Eppur si muove".

 

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.

[DailySuperpower]

Scott McCloud defines art as: "Any activity which does not have the primary purpose of survival or reproduction"

 

The world is a pretty interesting place if you experience it with this idea in mind.

[delekkerste]

There's far too much belittling and elevating of artwork in the clear view of 20/20 hindsight. There are too many people willing to see auction results as a validating factor of the "worth, depth and meaning" of an artist, period or piece. It's high art now. Why? Because enough people with enough money think so. They curate the exhibits, buy at the auctions, write the books, and are seen in the media.

 

Art, and beauty, are in the eye of the beholder and I will continue to bristle when people feel the need to elevate one piece by completely insulting another. Those artists creating those comics have every right to every artistic protection and respect for their creation that the guy hanging in the Soho gallery selling his pieces for millions does.

 

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?

[comix4fun]

 

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?

 

 

I think there are more modern and contemporary artists that have created and continue to create wonderful pieces of art than I could possible name or experience in my lifetime. So many of them create the work for their own enjoyment, or never see the inside of a gallery.

 

I would never assume to be able to blanket all of an entire genre of movement in art as totally worthless.

 

I am in awe of creative people in general and artists in particular. To be able to take your feelings and experiences and express them visually, or sonically for that matter, is something to be admired across the board.

 

They, at least, deserve to be judged on their merits individually. Each artist should rise and fall on his own talents, skills, and output without being lumped into a category or group before he's given his due.

 

That doesn't mean that after giving the artist or a specific piece his/her/its due consideration that I won't consider his art a " scam " or " pedestrian " (yes I finally got to use it on my own!!) but I think all creators deserve that chance to be judged on their merits/failings and not the assumed failings or merits of the movement they work within.

 

Art, like Music or Film, speaks to everyone differently. So, of course, people will love and hate different things. They will be moved or left nonplussed respectively as well.

 

I don't mind creators using some new medium or new method to express themselves as long as I don't feel lied to or deceived by them, their process and their finished product.

[delekkerste]

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

[tth2]

but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing.

Who the hell are these people?! Even Madoff's wife and sons believe he was wrong!

[comix4fun]

but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing.

Who the hell are these people?! Even Madoff's wife and sons believe he was wrong!

 

This guy:

 

[tth2]

but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing.

Who the hell are these people?! Even Madoff's wife and sons believe he was wrong!

 

This guy:

 

[SC in SC]

but I would like to point out that there are people who believe what Madoff was doing was not a wrong or bad thing.

Who the hell are these people?! Even Madoff's wife and sons believe he was wrong!

 

Other thieves (I know plenty after years of working in and around law enforcement), and one or two hard core I had the misfortune of meeting. The thieves think he got a raw deal and was just trying to "do his thing", why I don't know and didn't care to ask, and the for some reason thought he was being railroaded (or the alcohol was talking VERY loud).

[Terry Doyle]

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

 

Ah, a seemingly amicable solution to a long-standing debate.

 

For what it's worth (probably not much!), I grew up regularly visiting the art galleries of the home town of my youth (Liverpool, UK) which boasted two major art galleries.

 

From a young age I've been exposed to a wide variety of different art styles (encompassing 'old' and 'new') . . . so I like to think my interests in original artworks are not merely confined to the 'funny-books' . . .

 

I must confess, I'm no fan of Pollack's paint-pouring artworks (sorry, Gene, nothing innovative or genius there) . . . or Lichtenstein enlargening ben-day dots, but I do like to think I recognize talent when I see it.

 

I'm hugely appreciative of Salvador Dali, for example, and have been privileged to see some of his originals in person.

 

I don't go along with what 'art experts/critics' would have us believe is good.

 

That's a bit like saying the latest (in a long line of religious nuts) should guide us, spiritually.

 

I prefer to go along with the poster (in this thread) who suggests we should go by 'what speaks to us'.

 

Like him, I go by some inner (hard to define) personal instinct.

 

I know what music pleases my ears . . .

 

I know what food-stuffs please my taste-buds . . .

 

I know what novels keeps me enthralled . . .

 

I know what TV shows or movies keep me entertained . . .

 

I know what artworks connect with me.

 

Each is judged on an individual basis/merit.

 

'BS' . . . I know and recognize instantly . . .