RockMyAmadeus Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I have never heard of Roy Litchfield either. He's the love child of Rob Liefeld and Roy Lichtenstein. BASTARDO!!! I was hoping to get through ONE thread...just ONE...without Liefeld's name being brought up. Poor Liefeld....the only way his name is brought up in a discussion about great art is as the ultimate foil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadpoolJr. Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 25 pages and no one brought up the the artist poop cans yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Knew one artist who videoed himself taking a dump every day. See, when wanna-be artists see other geniuses getting away with BS it seems to empower them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Great art tends to challenge the preconceived notions of what art is. They challenge the established sensibilities and help create a new movement to explore and discuss. They also often anger people. It's one of the reasons why Picasso and Duchamp are considered far and away the two most influential artists of the 20th century. It's why "The Luncheon on the Grass" is considered one of the greatest and most groundbreaking pieces of the 19th century. What he said. No one said that the least popular art is the greatest - of course that's absurd and wrong. However, it should come as no surprise that great art challenges the notions that came before it and will often anger and incite controversy. Of course, 50 years later, the battle over Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art is over for all but those whose artistic sensibilities are mired in 1945, if not 1895. Sure, we'll see if a number of currently popular artists' work stands the test of time, but, if anyone seriously thinks that Warhol and Lichtenstein are going to be found out as frauds and expunged from the pantheon of great art over the course of time, all I can say is, good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I cant think of any fine artist that ever got expunged. Once you're in, you're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Picasso and Duchamp could draw if they wanted to as evidenced by their early work. Guston - not so much not at all And it matters why that they could draw? Drawing is an overrated skill. My wife is a trained artist - she's the most creative person I know and she can draw with the best of them. That and $2.50 will get her to her real job on the subway in the morning. Plain vanilla drawings? WHO CARES. Been there, done that for hundreds of years. Sorry Kav - it's just not that interesting. At least poop in a can or someone recording their bowel movements isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 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. We got both kinds, Country and Western!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Being able to draw can weed out the outright frauds. Anyone who says theyre an 'artist' but never learned the most basic skill, well, ya gotta wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Ps if you think people taking a dump is interesting you can always hang out in men's rooms It could be your 'art gallery' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 All these artists can draw. Except maybe the can pooper. You went to art school. Every other kid could draw. Drawing skill is just one aspect of being an artists, and poor drawing skills don't disqualify artistic achievements. All of the artists we have discussed traveled on a journey from drawing.... Look at Mondrian. We haven't discussed him, but I'm sure there are many folks who say "big deal, colored rectangles!!" But look up HOW he got there, to see and paint those shapes. It wasn't in Freshman Design 101. He got there over many years, dis tilling what he liked about what his eyes were seeing in the world, the intersection of lines everywhere. He slowly and methodically eliminated them, focussing on the if relationship to the adjacent lines. And it all started with drawing landscapes. He drew like 1000s of other people, but where he TOOK his drawing was unique. And memorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Ps if you think people taking a dump is interesting you can always hang out in men's rooms It could be your 'art gallery' Just like it's not gay if it's a three-way, it's not art if it happens in a men's room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 All these artists can draw. Except maybe the can pooper. You went to art school. Every other kid could draw. Drawing skill is just one aspect of being an artists, and poor drawing skills don't disqualify artistic achievements. All of the artists we have discussed traveled on a journey from drawing.... Look at Mondrian. We haven't discussed him, but I'm sure there are many folks who say "big deal, colored rectangles!!" But look up HOW he got there, to see and paint those shapes. It wasn't in Freshman Design 101. He got there over many years, dis tilling what he liked about what his eyes were seeing in the world, the intersection of lines everywhere. He slowly and methodically eliminated them, focussing on the if relationship to the adjacent lines. And it all started with drawing landscapes. He drew like 1000s of other people, but where he TOOK his drawing was unique. And memorable. I defy you to prove Guston could draw by showing one such pic Absolutely the people in my art school could not draw Poor drawing disqualifies otherwise EVERYONE is an artist. All they have to do is come up with a clever gimmick. Art is the only arena where you can claim to be something with no skill. A musician has to play SOME instrument or sing. They can't just whack pumpkins with a gerbil and call it 'music' 'Art'-absolutely you can do that and be a 'genius' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 25 pages. And nothing new since page 1 (and really not even then). Two thoughts: 1. What's really lacking in this thread and among comic book artists is Humor (about the work product). The Pop Artists elevated the everyday to an In-Joke, even their own status as 'artists' and nothing beats boredom quite like sarcasm. That's why Warhol is so quotable and Lichtenstein isn't. Andy did it with pictures AND words. That should appeal to some around here 2. Pop Art doesn't exist anymore. Pop is Life. That's why the early artists and pieces are still hotsht fifty years later. The Movement was a few seconds ahead of all of Life integrating, a process that went exponential with the Internet and only gathering more velocity with immersion-Interconnectivity, where all experience is product and product is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 All these artists can draw. Except maybe the can pooper. You went to art school. Every other kid could draw. Drawing skill is just one aspect of being an artists, and poor drawing skills don't disqualify artistic achievements. All of the artists we have discussed traveled on a journey from drawing.... Look at Mondrian. We haven't discussed him, but I'm sure there are many folks who say "big deal, colored rectangles!!" But look up HOW he got there, to see and paint those shapes. It wasn't in Freshman Design 101. He got there over many years, dis tilling what he liked about what his eyes were seeing in the world, the intersection of lines everywhere. He slowly and methodically eliminated them, focussing on the if relationship to the adjacent lines. And it all started with drawing landscapes. He drew like 1000s of other people, but where he TOOK his drawing was unique. And memorable. Damien Hirst is known to not be very adept with a pencil or paintbrush, and much of his mass, assistant-produced work is utterly craptastic to be sure. But, F me if something like A Thousand Years isn't bloody brilliant. I even like the pickled shark. So, no, I don't think that not being a skilled draftsman means you're a fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 They can't just whack pumpkins with a gerbil and call it 'music' 'Art'-absolutely you can do that and be a 'genius' I am all over this whacking pumpkins with a gerbil idea, except that I'm against animal cruelty. Maybe a taxidermied gerbil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBedrock Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Being able to draw can weed out the outright frauds. Anyone who says theyre an 'artist' but never learned the most basic skill, well, ya gotta wonder.... How many musicians can read music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 This is the type stuff I saw in art school: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatterEaterLad Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Wow. An unrelenting fine art debate. In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his. A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age. And for the record, I get the context of the art world in which Lichtenstein stuff was created. My degree is in art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Being able to draw can weed out the outright frauds. Anyone who says theyre an 'artist' but never learned the most basic skill, well, ya gotta wonder.... How many musicians can read music? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBedrock Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
