500Club Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 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. This is a great comment that well captures the middle ground of this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I have never heard of Roy Litchfield either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunsicker 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted November 10, 2014 Author Share Posted November 10, 2014 I have never heard of Roy Litchfield either. He's the love child of Rob Liefeld and Roy Lichtenstein. The one that bet his dad couldn't paint better than the characters from comic books? I guess RL thought, if you can't beat 'em, swipe em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 But what about Philip Guston? What about him? I suspect that you may have more to say about him than anyone else here would? 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? What about him? I suspect that you may have more to say about him than anyone else here would? Nah, not much to say other than I like him quite a bit; just curious where the Big G. stood. He was controversial when he moved into his final period. I also just wanted to take a break from the current debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Philip Guston?? my KID could paint like that! : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 His incessant use of reds and pinks shows he has no knowledge whatsoever of color theory. But, he's a GENIUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 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. So, essentially, great art is determined by who is least popular...? So, if an artist is poo-poo'd, that means liking their art is "contrarian, edgy, controversial, challenging", and that gives the work its artistic merit...? Can't the simplest answer be that their art is sub-par...? Listen, people didn't like Beethoven's late work, either. There were actual (GASP!!) augmented chords in it! This music was jarring to the ears of the generations of music who had grown up with Bach and Mozart's clean, pretty melodies and staid, predictable major and minor triad development (though Mozart, had he lived, would have made Beethoven look like a veritable Mendelsohn...the best thing that ever happened to Beethoven's career was Mozart's death...but I digress.) So, the idea that the modern can be jarring to the familiar isn't a new one. The nice thing about art, all artistic expression, is this: that which is truly great will endure...that which is not will fade and be forgotten. Time is the greatest, and most objective, judge of art that exists. 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 . 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. well if you think copycat RLspoon is pretty good then you must think Howard Finster is Rembrandt reincarnated FoggyNelson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited November 10, 2014 by Rip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunsicker 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Sisyphus comes to mind as I read this thread. Syphilis comes to mind when I read this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Hieronymus Bosch. Now there was a guy who obviously wasn't copying anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Sisyphus comes to mind as I read this thread. Syphilis comes to mind when I read this thread. Syphilis might be less painful. 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. Syphilis comes to mind when I read this thread. Now that is challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Hieronymus Bosch. Now there was a guy who obviously wasn't copying anyone. Bosch is beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav 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. Picasso and Duchamp could draw if they wanted to as evidenced by their early work. Guston - not so much not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
