Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[MrBedrock]

But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

That is silly. There is something challenging about all of it. Everyone of the art movements you speak of was radically different then whatever came before. As such they were challenging to their times.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And what the hell does that even MEAN, "pre-digested and easy to understand"...?

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

I've stared at that piece with my own two peepers, in person, at some length, and I STILL find new things that I hadn't seen before, and when I say "seen", I mean "experienced", because much of what you "see" isn't what is there, but what IS NOT. It's breathtaking, and I imagine when you see the series together, it's even more breathtaking.

 

But that's schlock, pre-digested, easy to understand.

 

 

I didn't say it was schlock. I like the Impressionists. Everybody likes the Impressionists. My Mom likes the Impressionists - it's her favorite art movement, just like it's the favorite art movement of many people who don't know anything about art. It's easy on the eyes and easy to like. Just like Salvador Dali, the Pre-Raphaelites and all the other genres that are beloved by comic collectors and the general populace. I'm not saying there aren't different levels of appreciation. But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

 

If you believe there's nothing challenging about the Rouen Cathedral series, or much of Monet's work, you're not looking.

[delekkerste]

You asked for an example. It was a casual, not-meant-to-be-critically-dissected response. It was, in no way, meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive catalog of his taste in art.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself...

 

 

You don't think it's telling that he chose Haddon Freaking Sundblom and the Pre-Raphaelites when asked for examples of art he likes?

 

In any case, I'm not wrong. Logan - do you like de Kooning, Mondrian, Rothko, Basquiat, Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg, Twombly, Malevich, etc.? I didn't think so. Do you like the Impressionists, Salvador Dali, Maxfield Parrish, Golden Age of American Illustration artists, The Studio artists' "fine art" work, etc.?

 

Right, then.

[delekkerste]

But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

That is silly. There is something challenging about all of it. Everyone of the art movements you speak of was radically different then whatever came before. As such they were challenging to their times.

 

Yeah, but that's not what I said. I said that it's not challenging to like it. Everybody likes it, whether on a superficial level or on a deeper level.

[kav]

So now 'challenging' has become the definition of 'art'?

[delekkerste]

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.

[Rip]

So now 'challenging' has become the definition of 'art'?

 

No but it is certainly a component of ground breaking artwork that tends to mark the movements through the centuries.

[kav]

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.

[Rip]

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.

 

Maybe they should have put them up in a gallery and signed them R. Mutt.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Rip

[Logan510]

You asked for an example. It was a casual, not-meant-to-be-critically-dissected response. It was, in no way, meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive catalog of his taste in art.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself...

 

 

You don't think it's telling that he chose Haddon Freaking Sundblom and the Pre-Raphaelites when asked for examples of art he likes?

 

In any case, I'm not wrong. Logan - do you like de Kooning, Mondrian, Rothko, Basquiat, Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg, Twombly, Malevich, etc.? I didn't think so. Do you like the Impressionists, Salvador Dali, Maxfield Parrish, Golden Age of American Illustration artists, The Studio artists' "fine art" work, etc.?

 

Right, then.

 

Such pap compared to thievery and skullduggery. Bravo

[delekkerste]

So now 'challenging' has become the definition of 'art'?

 

I have great appreciation for aesthetically pleasing art. That said, nobody needs to still be painting Bible scenes, still-lifes, portraits of aristocracy, etc. in this day and age, at least not unless they're bringing something new to the table. This ain't the 19th century (or earlier) anymore. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw the "Macbeth"-inspired play "Sleep No More" a year or two ago. It was a deconstructed, more modern version of the play where you physically went to different rooms and experienced different parts of the story. Frankly, I didn't care that much for it, but I did admire that they tried to do something different with it, something that challenged the viewer and wasn't like every other Macbeth production that's been done for hundreds of years.

 

Similarly, a lot of Modern/Contemporary art is really, really bad. If people weren't pushing the boundaries, though, taking risks to create new, innovative and challenging art, we wouldn't get the truly inspired art that we've gotten either. I think it's terrible that there are people like yourself - trained in the arts, no less! - who seem to be dismissing decades of artistic achievement with one broad stroke. Of course not everything is going to appeal to everyone, but there is still a lot of interesting art out there to like that isn't just chocolate box art or other uninspired retreads of what has come before.

[Aman619]

But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

That is silly. There is something challenging about all of it. Everyone of the art movements you speak of was radically different then whatever came before. As such they were challenging to their times.

 

 

I think Gene omitted the word "anymore" at the end of the sentence. Im pretty sure Gene knows that Impressionism was laughed at in it early days too. And, for all those who still vehemently resist all that has come after it, should be considered a gateway drug for them. In time, much of this "other modern " that bugs people will be grandfathered in and palatable to them.

[kav]

So now 'challenging' has become the definition of 'art'?

 

I have great appreciation for aesthetically pleasing art. That said, nobody needs to still be painting Bible scenes, still-lifes of iPhones and computers, portraits of aristocracy, etc. in this day and age, at least not unless they're bringing something new to the table. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw the "Macbeth"-inspired play "Sleep No More" a year or two ago. It was a deconstructed, more modern version of the play where you physically went to different rooms and experienced different parts of the story. Frankly, I didn't care that much for it, but I did admire that they tried to do something different with it, something that challenged the viewer and didn't just present it or spoon-feed it to them.

 

Similarly, a lot of Modern/Contemporary art is really, really bad. If people weren't pushing the boundaries, though, taking risks to create new, innovative and challenging art, we wouldn't get the truly inspired art that we've gotten either. I think it's terrible that there are people like yourself - trained in the arts, no less! - who seem to be dismissing decades of artistic achievement with one broad stroke. Of course not everything is going to appeal to everyone, but there is still a lot of interesting art out there to like that isn't just chocolate box art or other uninspired retreads of what has come before.

I'm only dismissing the urine christs and the paint spatterers-there's lots of great modern artists otherwise. But like I said there's lots of great artists all over the place doing unique works you'll never hear about. There's never been a lack of great artists.

[Aman619]

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!

[Comicopolis]

This thread turned fumy.

[Aman619]

So now 'challenging' has become the definition of 'art'?

 

I have great appreciation for aesthetically pleasing art. That said, nobody needs to still be painting Bible scenes, still-lifes of iPhones and computers, portraits of aristocracy, etc. in this day and age, at least not unless they're bringing something new to the table. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw the "Macbeth"-inspired play "Sleep No More" a year or two ago. It was a deconstructed, more modern version of the play where you physically went to different rooms and experienced different parts of the story. Frankly, I didn't care that much for it, but I did admire that they tried to do something different with it, something that challenged the viewer and didn't just present it or spoon-feed it to them.

 

Similarly, a lot of Modern/Contemporary art is really, really bad. If people weren't pushing the boundaries, though, taking risks to create new, innovative and challenging art, we wouldn't get the truly inspired art that we've gotten either. I think it's terrible that there are people like yourself - trained in the arts, no less! - who seem to be dismissing decades of artistic achievement with one broad stroke. Of course not everything is going to appeal to everyone, but there is still a lot of interesting art out there to like that isn't just chocolate box art or other uninspired retreads of what has come before.

I'm only dismissing the urine christs and the paint spatterers-there's lots of great modern artists otherwise. But like I said there's lots of great artists all over the place doing unique works you'll never hear about. There's never been a lack of great artists.

 

I think we ALL agree about the crucifixes and urine extremes that have ben foisted on us. Lichtenstein is NOT working in urine and found objects to make his point.

[kav]

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!

One could argue that true art would be the non-purposeful spatterings....

 

Edited November 10, 2014 by kav

[seanfingh]

 

This thread needs more Tupenny.

[KPR Comics]

Sisyphus comes to mind as I read this thread.

[MrBedrock]

But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

That is silly. There is something challenging about all of it. Everyone of the art movements you speak of was radically different then whatever came before. As such they were challenging to their times.

 

 

I think Gene omitted the word "anymore" at the end of the sentence.

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.