2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[Illiterati-migration]

Thats your best ? PATHETIC !

 

[blowout]

You're response, however, was downright condescending, and insulting.

 

Was it any more "condescending and insulting" than YOUR response to which I was replying? Read it again:

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

 

Get a grip, Hari.

 

By the way, your long-winded, short-fused hissy-fit didn't go a long way toward proving why comic art should be considered anything above and/or beyond the usual notebook sketchings of any high school sophomore of a modest talent level. If anything, you provided me with further evidence of the "collector's anxiety" I was referring to in my post.

 

 

Apparently you only want people to contribute to "your" thread (as you have so called it a few times now) if they are in absolute agreement with you. Nope. No inferiority complex there.

 

What are you talking about MK?

 

Hari is one of the most level-headed posters on the forum and I don't see any sign of a so-called 'hissy fit'.

 

What is your real agenda here?

 

It is one thing to put forward reasoned arguments in the comic art vs fine art debate on this thread, but you have gone way beyond that by resorting to completely uneccessary personal attacks.

[Illiterati-migration]

You're response, however, was downright condescending, and insulting.

 

Was it any more "condescending and insulting" than YOUR response to which I was replying? Read it again:

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

 

Get a grip, Hari.

 

By the way, your long-winded, short-fused hissy-fit didn't go a long way toward proving why comic art should be considered anything above and/or beyond the usual notebook sketchings of any high school sophomore of a modest talent level. If anything, you provided me with further evidence of the "collector's anxiety" I was referring to in my post.

 

 

Apparently you only want people to contribute to "your" thread (as you have so called it a few times now) if they are in absolute agreement with you. Nope. No inferiority complex there.

 

What are you talking about MK?

 

Hari is one of the most level-headed posters on the forum and I don't see any sign of a so-called 'hissy fit'.

 

What is your real agenda here?

 

It is one thing to put forward reasoned arguments in the comic art vs fine art debate on this thread, but you have gone way beyond that by resorting to completely uneccessary personal attacks.

 

Thanks for the input, O Irrelevant One.

[FFB]

You're response, however, was downright condescending, and insulting.

 

Was it any more "condescending and insulting" than YOUR response to which I was replying? Read it again:

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

 

Get a grip, Hari.

 

By the way, your long-winded, short-fused hissy-fit didn't go a long way toward proving why comic art should be considered anything above and/or beyond the usual notebook sketchings of any high school sophomore of a modest talent level. If anything, you provided me with further evidence of the "collector's anxiety" I was referring to in my post.

 

 

Apparently you only want people to contribute to "your" thread (as you have so called it a few times now) if they are in absolute agreement with you. Nope. No inferiority complex there.

 

What are you talking about MK?

 

Hari is one of the most level-headed posters on the forum and I don't see any sign of a so-called 'hissy fit'.

 

What is your real agenda here?

 

It is one thing to put forward reasoned arguments in the comic art vs fine art debate on this thread, but you have gone way beyond that by resorting to completely uneccessary personal attacks.

 

I think he is mad about the way Hari responded to a serious post with "I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother." Hari is a good dude, but that response would have ticked me off too. Of course, once you get Logan in "I hate you" mode, there's no bringing him down without showing him something that will shock him out of the moment. Kind of like spraying a dog with water to get him to stop fighting with another dog.

 

In case you're curious, this is the equivalent of spraying Logan with water:

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Now THAT is a nice scuba cover .

[Illiterati-migration]

You're response, however, was downright condescending, and insulting.

 

Was it any more "condescending and insulting" than YOUR response to which I was replying? Read it again:

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

 

Get a grip, Hari.

 

By the way, your long-winded, short-fused hissy-fit didn't go a long way toward proving why comic art should be considered anything above and/or beyond the usual notebook sketchings of any high school sophomore of a modest talent level. If anything, you provided me with further evidence of the "collector's anxiety" I was referring to in my post.

 

 

Apparently you only want people to contribute to "your" thread (as you have so called it a few times now) if they are in absolute agreement with you. Nope. No inferiority complex there.

 

What are you talking about MK?

 

Hari is one of the most level-headed posters on the forum and I don't see any sign of a so-called 'hissy fit'.

 

What is your real agenda here?

 

It is one thing to put forward reasoned arguments in the comic art vs fine art debate on this thread, but you have gone way beyond that by resorting to completely uneccessary personal attacks.

 

I think he is mad about the way Hari responded to a serious post with "I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother." Hari is a good dude, but that response would have ticked me off too. Of course, once you get Logan in "I hate you" mode, there's no bringing him down without showing him something that will shock him out of the moment. Kind of like spraying a dog with water to get him to stop fighting with another dog.

 

In case you're curious, this is the equivalent of spraying Logan with water:

 

 

 

I love all you fat [#@$%!!!]ers.

[FlComicFan]

Much as I enjoy comic art I dont see it being received as fine art anytime soon. Neal Gaiman won a literary award for a comic story and the response from the critics was to change the rules so a comic could never win again. Just enjoy it for what it is and look on the positive side, as expensive as a lot of comic art is now can you imagine if the "fine art" community got it with their galleries and shows and $$$$$$$ creating B.S.

[krazykat-migration]

Ummm, the real question here is value, right? Obviously, the

determination of whether something is "fine art" or not is not determinative of

its value to any particular person. Whether I think Kinkade is a fine

artist or a printmaker(my real opinion of his work is probably not

printable, though apparently there are many on this list not as judicious in

their language) has nothing to do with how his work is valued in the

marketplace. Clearly if you find the right buyer and seller, a piece by

Jack Kirby-or a 70's cover by Rich Buckler for that matter, is more

valuable than plenty of things people call "fine art" So who cares really

except in the long run of what is held by musuems etc. for future

generations to view. 20 years ago you would not have seen Parrish being

purchased by fine art Museums-now Atlanta's own High Museum has purchased

two in the last three years. Can Leyendecker be too far behind-then

Schulz, Herriman, McCay and Foster and finally, Kirby, Spiegelman, Ware and

..... Krazy Kat

[Foolkiller]

I think I know what you're saying Krazy, but it seems a little jumbled.

 

But the problem I have with that line of thinking is that, as I've said, art has no quality then. Truly anything can be art or fine art. It simply is beholdent to whatever the viewer believes it to be. There are no universally applicable standards, and thus anything can be viewed as art. I cannot accept that.

 

Endurance of the piece and universal appreciation are two things which I think are factors in judging "fine art".

 

Quite honestly, it will be a sad day in American culture when Kirby is on the same level as Andrew Wyeth or Ver Meer.

[Norrin_Radd]

I think I know what you're saying Krazy, but it seems a little jumbled.

 

But the problem I have with that line of thinking is that, as I've said, art has no quality then. Truly anything can be art or fine art. It simply is beholdent to whatever the viewer believes it to be. There are no universally applicable standards, and thus anything can be viewed as art. I cannot accept that.

 

Endurance of the piece and universal appreciation are two things which I think are factors in judging "fine art".

 

Quite honestly, it will be a sad day in American culture when Kirby is on the same level as Andrew Wyeth or Ver Meer.

 

That's where I think this thread took a wrong step. One group of people trying to convince another group of people what IS and ISN'T art.

 

There is NO fine art or un-fine art. There is just art. Don't try to justify whether your art is better or worse, just enjoy it. I'm sure Hari does, and I know I do. I love looking at my Black Panther cover, as well as, my print of Seurat's "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of the Grande Jatte" that I got at the Chicago Institute of Art.

 

The beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder. Period. Accept it or don't accept it. It doesn't change the reality that it's all a matter of personal taste.

 

 

I would rather this thread go back to it's original purpose, which is showcasing our favorite comic art (whether you own it or not).

[Foolkiller]

Actually Norrin, I find this discussion to be one of the best in ages on the forum.

 

Your assertion of your opinion that it is always in the eye of the beholder is precisely what is wrong with that line of thinking. Your assertion is based on your own concept of reality and art. Mine has objective qualified standards, yours doesn't. Whether you choose to accept that or not, is really the basis for the fundamentals of the disagreement.

[Norrin_Radd]

Actually Norrin, I find this discussion to be one of the best in ages on the forum.

 

Your assertion of your opinion that it is always in the eye of the beholder is precisely what is wrong with that line of thinking. Your assertion is based on your own concept of reality and art. Mine has objective qualified standards, yours doesn't. Whether you choose to accept that or not, is really the basis for the fundamentals of the disagreement.

 

And YOUR assertion is based on YOUR own concept of art. It's all subjective. That was my point.

 

You can say you are using "objective qualified standards", but what exactly is objective about the standards you are using? Just because more people are exposed to a piece of art and like it (your so-called "universal appreciation" ) doesn't mean that it is any more beautiful than a piece of comic art that few people know of (which may be considered just as beautiful by those who appreciate it).

 

It has been an great discussion. I have enjoyed the well-thought-out points of view like yours and Gene's and Hari's. It just seems like we're going around in circles now and should move on.

[Foolkiller]

Norrin:

 

I kind of agree that we're going around in circles... the reason I oppose the art is completely subjective point is that I used to make the same point all the time, and hold the same viewpoint, but like the moral relativist, the person who says that art is completely subjective always has the easier position to defend because you can always say, it's what I like (or any person likes) or dislikes. It's tempting to believe that's always the case.

 

You can come up with objective qualities of art -- just for one example, we call something "art" or perhaps "good art" based on what kind of feelings it evokes in the viewer -- the technical skill required to put the piece together -- the intent or message that the artist wants to convey.

 

If you can't come up with any objective qualities, why is a child's scribble any better or worse than a $30k Kirby. Why pay more for the Kirby? If I pay $30k for a scribble on a page, is that the only thing which determines whether or not it is better or worse, what I am willing to pay. Because under the "all art is subjective" framework, the child's doodle is just as good, and no better and no worse than your Kirby... so long as one person says that is the case. Thus, anything can be art and we are left with no definition for it at all.

[Norrin_Radd]

Norrin:

 

I kind of agree that we're going around in circles... the reason I oppose the art is completely subjective point is that I used to make the same point all the time, and hold the same viewpoint, but like the moral relativist, the person who says that art is completely subjective always has the easier position to defend because you can always say, it's what I like (or any person likes) or dislikes. It's tempting to believe that's always the case.

 

You can come up with objective qualities of art -- just for one example, we call something "art" or perhaps "good art" based on what kind of feelings it evokes in the viewer -- the technical skill required to put the piece together -- the intent or message that the artist wants to convey.

 

If you can't come up with any objective qualities, why is a child's scribble any better or worse than a $30k Kirby. Why pay more for the Kirby? If I pay $30k for a scribble on a page, is that the only thing which determines whether or not it is better or worse, what I am willing to pay. Because under the "all art is subjective" framework, the child's doodle is just as good, and no better and no worse than your Kirby... so long as one person says that is the case. Thus, anything can be art and we are left with no definition for it at all.

 

As usual, you make an interesting argument. But then you are a lawyer so I can award you no points.

 

I was playing devil's advocate a bit, but you are correct that there are some objective qualifications for what is "good art". It takes tremendous skill to produce something of such beauty that most people instantly recognize it as a "work of art". That is "good art". A child's scribble is not (unless that child happens to be incredible gifted... who knows... it could happen. ).

 

But trying to define what is objectively and subjectively good or bad is a quagmire. It's very difficult to come up with an exact definition of what is "good art" and what isn't. But it does make for interesting discussion (up to a point).

 

Your thoughts?

[FFB]

As usual, you make an interesting argument. But then you are a lawyer so I can award you no points.

 

Man, did I ever get a good laugh out of that line. I am going to work that into one of my oral arguments someday.

[heartened]

Foolkiller and NorinRad,

 

I think you two sum up both sides of this debate very well. What we've learned is that there are clearly two camps, both with reasonable and logical arguments. That information, in and of itself, is important.

 

We're having a similar discussion now on the comicart-l list, thanks to this thread here. Anyone who is interested can come on over and partake. Many of the comic art collectors collect what some consider "fine art", so they can debate this topic from a truly unique vantage point.

 

Best,

[shrunkenhead]

 

But trying to define what is objectively and subjectively good or bad is a quagmire. It's very difficult to come up with an exact definition of what is "good art" and what isn't. But it does make for interesting discussion (up to a point).

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Norrin, not to spin the circle even further, but I'd have to put myself in the MK/Foolkiller camp on this one. Yes, you're absolutely right, it IS hard to come up with definitions of what constitutes as art. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, with some serious critical thought and effort.

 

I'll apply the problem again to literature, since that's what I know best. Using the "art is subjective" argument, Danielle Steele's (sp?) latest magnum opus is just as "good" or "better" than Joyce's Ulysses. Why? Because "I like it better" and that's "all that matters." You can see the obvious pitfalls in this argument, and I think sometimes those problems just aren't at clear to us all when we're talking about paintings and such (how many of us even took one art appreciation course in college? I've spent my life in the university system, and I'll admit I didn't!).

 

Since Aristotle's book on Poetics first circulated, critics have been trying to figure out what counts as "good" and "bad" art. What we all seem to be able to agree on is that not just any work of art will do. There has to be some reason as to why we revere one piece and revile another, even if those standards wildly fluctuate with time and geography.

 

As MK points out, just because most of us lack the critical vocabulary, that doesn't mean that such a vocabulary doesn't exist.

[shrunkenhead]

Hari, post a link?

[heartened]

www.yahoogroups.com

 

then find comicart-L and sign up for emails. You can always quit the group once the discussion runs its course.

[Aman619]

Thus, anything can be art and we are left with no definition for it at all.

 

Hold onto your hat, bucko, cause thats 100% true. Everyhting is art, hence performance art. But even confining the discussion to images, painting drawing etc, A childs scribble is as artistic as Kirby covers and as an oil painting. There are many artists who long to paint or draw as freely and unencumbered as a child does. Have you ever looked at kid's artwork?? They are totally unfettered by convention and overthinking and trying too hard to be "realistic".

 

I know you are reading this and rolling your eyes... but its true. You also compared paying 30K for either a Kirby cover or a childs scribble, but obviously, the money is a totally different subject than the artwork itself. Thats a measure of the value society and/or the marketplace places on a work of art, which is totally apart from its esthetic essense of being exactly what it is and nothing more. If many people covet it, the price goes up. If not, it sells for pennies or sits.

 

Of course as we know, in the real world, its IS the demand for a piece that determines whether it becomes accepted as "Fine Art", but that distinction too is separate from the ART itself.

 

WE should be able to discuss whether the "Good/Fine Art" club of galleries, museums and the "right people" who "know" and "make these decisions for the rest of us" will one day ask comic art to "join the elite private club of Fine Art" without having to also adhere to teh amxim that all art OUTSIDE their acceptance ios not really ART at all...

 

There was an article in the NYTimes recently about a 7 year old girl whose child-like paintings are considered so remarkably mature that galleries and collectors are battling for her work... That is a perfect example of the slippery slope of this discussion: childrens paintings CANNOT be "art", yet, here are "those who know" falling all over themselves to make a buck off this girl's work. Her work is in galleries now, if a museum were to buy a few pieces, would you accept HER work as "Fine Art?" What else would her work need? A few centuries of acceptance? Is that all thats missing? If so, we wont know about Kirby et al for quite some time.