Comicopolis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This thread needs more Tupenny. Only if he is challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Sisyphus comes to mind as I read this thread. That must burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The more you stare at Tupenny the more things you discover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KPR Comics Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Not when viewed from a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I like this painting too. Whats surprising to me that if one can stare at it for hours on repeated viewings and gain deeper appreciation for all that is going on there when it looks at first like a fuzzy, faded painting of a church, then WHY is a Pollock, which repeated and longer viewings ALSO rewards with greater insight and appreciation of its deceptive complexity of shapes and relationships… WHY is Pollocks work just splatters and this is capable of such deeper thought? I can take a guess: its because it has a recognizable shape and a form at first glance, so its more like a "fun game" in which you get to see so much more going on in the execution that you saw at first. Theres a payoff to digging deeper into it. But Pollock looks like just a kids painting at first, so theres no comparison. No payoff cause my kid could do it etc etc . Yep. It's easy to recognize the shape and form in Monet's painting - it's evolutionary to what came before. Pollock, on the other hand, broke completely new ground in so many areas. No one painted like him before then, and it understandably shocked and confused a lot of peoples' sensibilities, as it still does today. Now that is truly great art. I disagree Every artist had such paint spattered canvasas strewn about. oh god. there are splatters and then theres carefully intricately and PURPOSEFULLY applied WALL of splattered paint. I suppose we should Lichtenstein Pollock too, since he clearly just took other people splatter paintings and cashed in on it without giving credit! I will give Pollock credit for not being a thief. He was a sham, but at least a semi original sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This thread needs more Tupenny. Only if he is challenging. If I am going to have to read faux intellectual blatherings, I'd at least prefer haughtiness to condescension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 As the Art Titan Andy Warhol said..."art is what you can get away with". This pretty much sums it up. How much Pollock smiled and nodded politely when people admired his work, and saw deep, hidden meaning to it, and how much he chuckled to himself when he knew that they had bought it, is anyone's guess. When you look at #5, do you see an artist who was consciously trying to create something with incredible depth and gravitas, employing all the considerable skill at his command to create something which he considered the best representation of his ability...? ....was he just splashing paint around for fun, with no thought to form, design, lighting, etc...? ...or was he just tapping into that sub-conscious master inside and expressing his art without conscious thought...simply creating to create, for his own satisfaction, regardless of what others thought of his work, and whatever resulted, that was what he intended? He is reported to have said, when it was damaged and he repainted it for the buyer “He'll never know. No one knows how to look at my paintings, he won’t know the difference.” Hardly a ringing endorsement from the artist's own mouth for the artistic brilliance of his work. Since abstract art is generally detached from reality (hence "abstract"), it's difficult to determine its artistic value objectively (yes, I understand that I betray my realist roots.) The question becomes: How much in modern art is there to be seen...and how much of it is seen to be there...? Does it have merit because of its intrinsic artistic value...? Or does it have artistic value solely based on the individual impressions and reactions of others to the work, the artist, outside influence, etc .? Who's to say? If you see a wonderful interplay of form and design, with the use of light delightfully counterbalancing the weight of the materials used, a remarkable and insightful commentary on the post-WWII flight of Americans to suburbia, and I see two triangles and a square, arranged on the floor...who is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Condescension is haughtiness taken to 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBedrock Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 If you see a wonderful interplay of form and design, with the use of light delightfully counterbalancing the weight of the materials used, a remarkable and insightful commentary on the post-WWII flight of Americans to suburbia, and I see two triangles and a square, arranged on the floor...who is right? delekkerste ... always delekkerste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Condescension is haughtiness taken to 11 Protip: This is haughty, not condescending. "Listening to a bunch of comic nerds opine on the essential character of art is the intellectual equivalent of savagely attacking my own balls with a tack hammer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat-Man_America Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This thread needs more Tupenny. Only if he is challenging. If I am going to have to read faux intellectual blatherings, I'd at least prefer haughtiness to condescension. A Pollocks on both your houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think Gene has a tendancy to post in a "my way or the highway" tone. I generally agree with Gene on this topic, but if he is going to blast others for their clipped or dismissive responses then he should be a little more measured in his responses. And saying there is nothing challenging in an older specific art movement in comparison to things done in the last 50-75 years is a ridiculous statement. In fact Gene's statement specifically applies to what you said earlier. The challenges differ and as such determine the level of the viewers' interaction and approval. There are many different types of mental exercises. I think you're misinterpreting my point, Richard. I never said that older art movements like Impressionism didn't face huge challenges from the Establishment (L'Academie des Beaux-Arts, to be precise) at the time compared to the art movements of the past 75 years, like Abstract Expressionism. I would totally agree that this would be a "silly", ridiculous statement. I've taken enough art history classes, read enough books and taken enough museum tours to know the history of that period and would never even begin to entertain such a ludicrous notion. What I meant was that, standing here in 2014, it is very, very easy to like the Impressionists. My mom loves the Impressionists. My suburban friends from high school love the Impressionists. I'm sure there are Monet and Renoir books displayed proudly on many a coffee table throughout the U.S. My point is that there is absolutely nothing challenging, controversial, contrarian or edgy about liking the Impressionists. There is probably no better liked group of artists in the world today - even the most hardened Philistine would have trouble not liking the Impressionists. Clearly, just from the small sample of people we have here, the same cannot be said of much of the art from the past 75 years. That was the point I was trying to make. In any case, I largely agree with your thoughts both here and in the other art threads we've had. Though, I don't think Jeff Jones was a great painter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Pontoon Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 How about Philip Guston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 If you see a wonderful interplay of form and design, with the use of light delightfully counterbalancing the weight of the materials used, a remarkable and insightful commentary on the post-WWII flight of Americans to suburbia, and I see two triangles and a square, arranged on the floor...who is right? delekkerste ... always delekkerste I'm good with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBedrock Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think Gene has a tendancy to post in a "my way or the highway" tone. I generally agree with Gene on this topic, but if he is going to blast others for their clipped or dismissive responses then he should be a little more measured in his responses. And saying there is nothing challenging in an older specific art movement in comparison to things done in the last 50-75 years is a ridiculous statement. In fact Gene's statement specifically applies to what you said earlier. The challenges differ and as such determine the level of the viewers' interaction and approval. There are many different types of mental exercises. I think you're misinterpreting my point, Richard. I never said that older art movements like Impressionism didn't face huge challenges from the Establishment (L'Academie des Beaux-Arts, to be precise) at the time compared to the art movements of the past 75 years, like Abstract Expressionism. I would totally agree that this would be a "silly", ridiculous statement. I've taken enough art history classes, read enough books and taken enough museum tours to know the history of that period and would never even begin to entertain such a ludicrous notion. What I meant was that, standing here in 2014, it is very, very easy to like the Impressionists. My mom loves the Impressionists. My suburban friends from high school love the Impressionists. I'm sure there are Monet and Renoir books displayed proudly on many a coffee table throughout the U.S. My point is that there is absolutely nothing challenging, controversial, contrarian or edgy about liking the Impressionists. There is probably no better liked group of artists in the world today - even the most hardened Philistine would have trouble not liking the Impressionists. Clearly, just from the small sample of people we have here, the same cannot be said of much of the art from the past 75 years. That was the point I was trying to make. In any case, I largely agree with your thoughts both here and in the other art threads we've had. Though, I don't think Jeff Jones was a great painter. Fair enough, though just because the impressionists are so embraced shouldn't diminish the fact that many of the masterpieces of that movement are still challenging and moving in their own right. And Jones may not have been a great painter, but for some reason one of them looks good with my couch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBedrock Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Condescension is haughtiness taken to 11 Protip: This is haughty, not condescending. "Listening to a bunch of comic nerds opine on the essential character of art is the intellectual equivalent of savagely attacking my own balls with a tack hammer." Protip #2: Condescension. "Someday little Sean's balls will drop and then he can attack them with a tack hammer. Won't that be cute!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1950's war comics Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Wikopedia has an interesting article on another spoon "modern" artist named John Seward Johnson , who's statues are revered in the modern art world but the rest of us commoner realize they are just spoon ,same with Litchfield,... I never even heard of this spoon Roy Litchfield until this thread and I consider myself well read and appreciative of good art, after seeing Litchfield's work I realize a was not missing anything . FoggyNelson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Condescension is haughtiness taken to 11 Protip: This is haughty, not condescending. "Listening to a bunch of comic nerds opine on the essential character of art is the intellectual equivalent of savagely attacking my own balls with a tack hammer." Protip #2: Condescension. "Someday little Sean's balls will drop and then he can attack them with a tack hammer. Won't that be cute!" That's more mean than condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Wikopedia has an interesting article on another spoon "modern" artist named John Seward Johnson , who's statues are revered in the modern art world but the rest of us commoner realize they are just spoon ,same with Litchfield,... I never even heard of this spoon Roy Litchfield until this thread and I consider myself well read and appreciative of good art, after seeing Litchfield's work I realize a was not missing anything . What makes you think that John Seward Johnson's work is "revered in the modern art world"? This is the type of kitschy crepe that appeals more to "commoners" than art critics. I still think this "Roy Litchfield" character was pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Pontoon Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 But what about Philip Guston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
