Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[thunsicker]

I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

 

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?

[namisgr]

Were you one of my instructors at the Art Institute? I didn't swallow it then sir and I'm not swallowing it now.

 

Are you suggesting that what you are or are not willing to 'swallow' should be an arbiter of what everyone else is or is not willing to 'swallow'?

[delekkerste]

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 kind of art do you appreciate, then? Who are your favorite artists and what are your favorite art genres/periods/movements? What qualities do you think make a great artist or great work of art? At what point in history did the art world go off the rails and become unpalatable to you?

[Logan510]

I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

 

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.

[Logan510]

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 kind of art do you appreciate, then? Who are your favorite artists and what are your favorite art genres/periods/movements? What qualities do you think make a great artist? At what point in history did the art world go off the rails and become unpalatable to you?

 

 

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

[delekkerste]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

Can't say that I'm surprised.

[Logan510]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

Can't say that I'm surprised.

 

You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome.

[MrBedrock]

I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

 

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.

[delekkerste]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

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

[Logan510]

I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

 

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.

 

 

I'll agree to influential...but I was never really arguing against that.

[Rip]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

Can't say that I'm surprised.

 

You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome.

 

They would make a nice wide range of postcards I would be happy to send to Grandma or Grandpa during the holidays.

 

 

(All jabbing aside I like that stuff also)

[MrBedrock]

 

I'll agree to influential...but I was never really arguing against that.

No, you were simply dismissing them completely as artists, even though their art influenced everything in the art world, right down the the ads you see on television and in print, the concert posters to most of the bands you listen to today, the design work to countless visual mediums you regularly interact with, and to some extent the same comics influenced by Heath and the other artists whose work was "stolen" by them.

[Logan510]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

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

 

The tone of your response isn't surprising either. (thumbs u

[Aman619]

here we go…..

[Logan510]

 

I'll agree to influential...but I was never really arguing against that.

No, you were simply dismissing them completely as artists, even though their art influenced everything in the art world, right down the the ads you see on television and in print, the concert posters to most of the bands you listen to today, the design work to countless visual mediums you regularly interact with, and to some extent the same comics influenced by Heath and the other artists whose work was "stolen" by them.

 

 

I did all that just by dismissing a thief and a hack? Aside from the time I spent at the Art Institute of Chicago, they were never used as anything but examples of what not to do. Though to be fair, the Art Institute is the only art school I ever attended where they would ask me "how do you feel" as I was working on a piece.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

 

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!"

[Logan510]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

Can't say that I'm surprised.

 

You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome.

 

They would make a nice wide range of postcards I would be happy to send to Grandma or Grandpa during the holidays.

 

 

(All jabbing aside I like that stuff also)

 

 

I think he missed the "million things in-between" part of what I wrote

[RockMyAmadeus]

I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

 

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.

 

[kav]

There is and never will be a lack of good artists. Why some luck out and become famous and others don't is part of the whole scam. Then there are those that become famous with no talent whatsoever just sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine. Sure there are some good famous artists but there's also plenty of nobodies just as good or better.

In Art School Confidential the only good artist in class was mocked. Students who scribbled childish nothings were lauded. Until they thought he was a serial killer and his works began appearing in art magazines. Suddenly he was a 'genius'.

Art is about getting known, not what you produce.

[MrBedrock]

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.

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.