2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[plitch]

*CHOP*

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".

 

One of my favorite quotes from Picasso is, "I spent my entire adult life learning how to draw like a child."

 

I might have paraphrased, but you get the idea.

[Foolkiller]

Aman:

 

Well, strictly from a debate standpoint, I think that you took the argument in the place that your side needs to go. Obviously, I don't agree, but I like that you went and took the point all the way, which I personally enjoyed. I did the same eventually in equating all art equally when I held that position.

 

But I have come to believe that there are objective qualities that make up art. There are objective qualities that determine whether art is better or worse. What we are debating is a question of quality. There's no doubt that Kirby and Romita are "artists". That part I agree with. But are they on the same level as other more accepted "masters".

 

When you look at the quality of movies, and you look at certain directors, or actors, do you judge that all actors are of equal merit? So then there is no such thing as "bad acting" because it is all subjective in the mind of the viewer. There is no standard to judge what is better or worse. Of course not. If the actor or the director does a bad job in conveying the story, that is the objective standard by which we measure the quality of the performance. And acting, as most actors would tell you, is an art.

 

Painted, drawn or sculpted art is much the same. Over time, some of the objective standards remain constant, others do not. Some are universal among cultures. I think craftsmanship, the artist's message, the thought that went into the piece, are all things universally looked for when judging art. That is why the child's scribble is not as high quality as a Kirby.

 

Paul:

 

I believe that quote was meant to convey the notion that the artist wanted to recapture the freedom of expression that children have, and the lack of inhibition, but in terms of technical quality, I'm not sure it's applicable.

 

We hear all the time in the Biblical sense that children are often the gateway to heaven. This is of course not a literal translation but rather metaphorical.

 

Naturally, I'm sure you knew all of this already.

[plitch]

Feh. Lawyers.

Make you feel stupid and then make you feel good about it.

 

But, I'm sure you knew that.

[Foolkiller]

I think I'm going to file suit... it seems like people have been dumping on lawyers on this boards lately. In fact, I'm going to personally name you in the suit Paul. But if you don't have any money, forget it.

[heartened]

But I have come to believe that there are objective qualities that make up art.

 

Hi Brian,

 

The problem is that EACH of us has our own objective qualities that we consider as art. We go through our own set of values, and then decide whether something is appealing and "art" to us. Every person is different, and hence it is difficult (impossible) to come up with a set of criteria that everyone will agree on. Hence, nothing has truly universal appeal. Ten different objective opinions could come up with ten different conclusions.... hence, in the end, it is subjective.

 

That being said, I will concede that certain members of society, the nebulous "those in the know", may have a certain set of objective standards that THEY believe to define fine art. But to say those standards are universally accepted? I don't think you can go that far. What about the other 99% of us?

[heartened]

it seems like people have been dumping on lawyers on this boards lately

 

go figure

[Foolkiller]

Hari,

 

So does that mean if you can find one person who disagrees, then ultimately the question of quality of art can have no objective definition? Is the definition of right and wrong transitory as well, so long as one person disagrees? Murder then, is right, as only defined by a group, and if another group believes murder is right, then of course, it is fine.

 

I think you can come up with objective standards that are universally acknowledged. This does not mean that everyone has to agree on liking or disliking a certain piece. But I think there are criteria that can be ascertained for saying (x) is better than (y). But first you have to determine, does art have defined qualities that make it up. If it does have definable qualities, there are objective standards that can be applied.

[FFB]

I think I'm going to file suit... it seems like people have been dumping on lawyers on this boards lately. In fact, I'm going to personally name you in the suit Paul. But if you don't have any money, forget it.

 

I think he's at work right now -- posting in the course and scope of his employment. Sue CGC under the respondeat superior doctrine.

[heartened]

Hari,

 

So does that mean if you can find one person who disagrees, then ultimately the question of quality of art can have no objective definition? Is the definition of right and wrong transitory as well, so long as one person disagrees? Murder then, is right, as only defined by a group, and if another group believes murder is right, then of course, it is fine.

 

I think you can come up with objective standards that are universally acknowledged. This does not mean that everyone has to agree on liking or disliking a certain piece. But I think there are criteria that can be ascertained for saying (x) is better than (y). But first you have to determine, does art have defined qualities that make it up. If it does have definable qualities, there are objective standards that can be applied.

 

Hi Brian,

 

By Universal I think you mean majority. And so, I agree that murder is thought of as wrong by a majority of people. But, I don't think that's a fair comparison. Would you say the majority of people like every piece that "those who know" consider fine art? Do the majority like the Mona Lisa? Do the majority like Pollack?

 

And, just as an aside, it isn't universally accepted that murder is wrong. How about war? How about capital punishment? How about (dare I say it) abortion?

 

I'm certainly pro-choice, of course, but you get my point.

[Foolkiller]

Hari,

I don't want to divert into the whole moral relativism argument because well, it's been going on far too long and far too high a level to adequately discuss via a message board. You can guess I'm a Natural Law guy.

 

But I totally understand what you are saying.

 

I think you'd get far fewer people supporting abortion if they truly viewed it as murder. I think there's a debate upon when human life begins and the question of "personhood" and development. Anywho... this is a place I think we ought not to go.

[heartened]

Agreed

 

I think we agree to a far greater extent than we disagree.

[Illiterati-migration]

But I have come to believe that there are objective qualities that make up art.

 

Hi Brian,

 

The problem is that EACH of us has our own objective qualities that we consider as art. We go through our own set of values, and then decide whether something is appealing and "art" to us. Every person is different, and hence it is difficult (impossible) to come up with a set of criteria that everyone will agree on. Hence, nothing has truly universal appeal. Ten different objective opinions could come up with ten different conclusions.... hence, in the end, it is subjective.

 

That being said, I will concede that certain members of society, the nebulous "those in the know", may have a certain set of objective standards that THEY believe to define fine art. But to say those standards are universally accepted? I don't think you can go that far. What about the other 99% of us?

 

This is why this argument is ridiculous. Clearly you have no concept of the "qualities" of fine art, yet you continue to argue against it. It's absurd. Whether something qualifies as "fine art" or not is not a matter of "universal appeal", it's a matter of CRAFTSMANSHIP and METHOD.

 

Comic art will NEVER reach that level because it is so (relatively) easy to create in comparison to other "higher" art forms. There is no true "method" for one to master, there is no "craft", it's just any ol' guy or gal sitting and drawing. There is no "form" for comic art; the form is just whatever the person creating the book WANTS it to be on that particular day. Thus, there can be no "Master" of the form, nor can there be any REAL qualification for ranking one artist/creator ABOVE or BELOW another beyond personal preference.

 

"Fine art", as an entity, is NOT as abstract a concept as many on the outside would believe. There are standards for art of which the layperson simply is unaware (this discussion being a case in point). Again, with the concept and ideals of comic art being virtually REINVENTED on a monthly basis, there is no way to even distinguish WITHIN the comic art genre WHO is superior beyond personal preference and current market trends.

[Aman619]

Foolkiller, I appreciate your appreciation of my remarks earlier. As you are a confessed attorney. I think I can understand your point of view and desire to treat 'art' similarly to your training, that is to qualify and examine through a systematic and logical approach, 'good' art from 'bad' at, 'high art' from 'low art'. This is in general how the 'art establishment' goes about it. They critique, discuss,and argue academically the merits of pieces, artists and art movements. SOme are rejected as frivolous or low, others exalted and 'accrepted.'

 

I could say "but who cares what they think... I like it anyway !!" about a certain piece or genre... but the fact remains, they are the true voice and civilization's guides to 'art'. And I agree by and large with the choices they have made. Im not trying to disrupt the art world's system of sifting the good from bad.

 

But we are still debating whether that system will or can open its doors to comic art. Im still not convinced by any reasons Ive heard here yet that it CANNOT nor WILL NOT ever happen. Their standards my appear stuffy but they are not written in stone. Those in 'charge' change every generation as does the populace whom they reflect and 'serve' as gatekeepers to the generations to come, selecting and preserving that which they deem worthy of passing on as examples of man's creativity etc. blah blah

 

you compared art to acting, and well, making movies is FAR from a solitary creative act like painting. An actor may be great but the -script horrible, or vice versa. The director may desire an approach that turns out to be wrong... the editor may assemble the film (the actor's 'work') in such a way as the work is diminished etc etc and all we ever get to judge is what we get to see. In short, a film is a collaboration not a solitary creative act. More like going to war with an army than lets say a tennis match, one on one, where ones talent is matched against another's.

 

As an example, 6 months ago, did you even remember Thomas Haydn Church from his TV series as a good actor?? No. He was a failed actor and former TV "star" who couldnt get elected dogcatcher... Same with Virginia Madsen, a sexpot starlet with a career on the rocks now that she's over 40. But hey, look at them now! Two great roles in an interesting popular film and BAM - - Academy Award Nominations and the Red Carpet baby!!. Is anybody saying they are bad actors right now???

[delekkerste]

But I have come to believe that there are objective qualities that make up art. There are objective qualities that determine whether art is better or worse. What we are debating is a question of quality. There's no doubt that Kirby and Romita are "artists". That part I agree with. But are they on the same level as other more accepted "masters".

 

There have to be some objective standards. It makes no sense that those who disagree with this and thus feel free to tout Kirby or Romita or Bolland or whoever else as being a great artist on par with major fine artists (i.e., "it's all subjective") simultaneously fail to acknowledge that the aforementioned comic artists' works have objective qualities which separate them from the Al Milgroms of the comic art world. Or, am I to believe that Hari's Bolland Killing Joke page is no better than a page from a filler issue of Batman drawn by some journeyman?

 

I was at the Met last night for a viewing of the new Rubens exhibit (sadly, it's not as good as the full exhibit that I saw at the Albertina a couple of months ago...they only shipped over the drawings and none of the paintings). Looking at these drawings, I thought to myself that even Frazetta's pencils look pretty unspectacular by comparison (and you can guess where that puts the work of regular comic artists). Anyway, me and my non-comic fan friend were admiring these amazing drawings and she commented that she doubted if many contemporary artists had the skill to draw anything close to that...the lighting, the perspective, the amazing grasp of anatomy. Is there not something to be said for vision, skill and talent? I then recounted to her the argument we've been having on the Boards here and I could see, as someone who has done a fair amount of academic study in aesthetics, her blood starting to boil over...

 

I'm not sure that "universally accepted" or "absolute" standards exist, but I am more sure that "everything is 100% subjective" is a ridiculous proposition to make outside of a theoretical philosophical context. Is all beauty really in the eye of the beholder? Have the powers-that-be who conspire to determine what is and isn't fine art also brainwashed us all into believing that Charlize Theron is a gorgeous woman while Roseanne Barr is not? Or is this notion of subjectivity only limited to the fine art world? Because if you think about the ramifications of what you are saying, you'll find yourselves defending a lot of positions I'm sure you don't believe in. Unless you're telling me that you'd rather fancy a shag with Roseanne than Charlize...

[Aman619]

Unless you're telling me that you'd rather fancy a shag with Roseanne than Charlize...

 

you wont like this answer anymore than all the other posts in this vein, but Me? hell no, Charlize is a bit skinny but shes gorgeous and sems like a very sweet woman too. Roseanne is a fat foul faaaking broad. happy??

 

but so what? If youre going to compare taste in women with art, youre barking up the wrong tree. Because men choose women for far more reasons than beauty. Have you never noticed the many couples in the park or on the streets or in restaurants holding hands and madly in love with their not-nearly-as-pretty as Charlize girlfriends/wives? Is there something wrong with these men or their mates for not waiting for Leonardo DiCaprio?

 

People like art .... or dont. Sometimes they like something because others 'tell' them to. Sometimes they like stuff everyone turns their nose up to.

 

btw - - Does your girlfriend read or like comics?

[Norrin_Radd]

I was at the Met last night for a viewing of the new Rubens exhibit (sadly, it's not as good as the full exhibit that I saw at the Albertina a couple of months ago...they only shipped over the drawings and none of the paintings).

 

Reubens?

 

 

I'm kinda glad I never saw the "full exhibit".

[Foolkiller]

This is one of the few times I kind of bemoan the limitations of a chat board. It's hard to really expound on a lot of these ideas given the years and years this fundamental debate has been going round and round.

 

Just out of curiousity, for those of you who believe art cannot be quantified by objective standards, would you also say that you are also moral relativists? I'm just trying to see if there's a correlation.

[Aman619]

ask that again in English please. I read and collect comic books and never studied that stuff...

 

seriously, it just boils down to a guess as to if and when THEY will ever invite us poor cousins to the ball. Whether they do or not, we'll still be enjoying our little kegger in a van down by the river with our comicy scribbles on the wall.

 

hey, anybody see the article in the NYTimes today about that collagist who's the rage this week? He mailed his collages to friends and each added a piece and now its ART! And in other pieces he carefully glued down recipts and movit tkt stubs etc and drew circles aroind them in cratyons and paint. COOL! I only mention this to be a dickk... no seriously, THIS is 'art'., I mean it must be cause its taken seriously by the NYTimes critic and others who know., right? So how do exhibits and cases like this fit into the grand scheme of this discussion?

 

by the way, I like these pieces and agree that they are neat! So is Rubens. So is Kirby and Frazetta. so what?

[shrunkenhead]

 

 

It's absurd. Whether something qualifies as "fine art" or not is not a matter of "universal appeal", it's a matter of CRAFTSMANSHIP and METHOD.

 

 

"Fine art", as an entity, is NOT as abstract a concept as many on the outside would believe. There are standards for art of which the layperson simply is unaware (this discussion being a case in point).

 

Agreed. While tastes and styles may shift from one century to another, what has kept the fine art world going is largely Craft with a captital "C." Just like acting, writing, or any other creative skill, subjectivity is not enough.

 

wouldyoukensider this line toooobee rittenwell bcawse gewdriting issubjectif?

 

Of course you wouldn't. Why? Because it defies the rules of grammar, the rules that separate those of us who can write from those of us who can't. You wouldn't read an entire novel that was written like this, unless it was written by a genius like James Joyce who knew the rules and broke them for a very specific reason.

 

Similarly, visual art has its own grammar, as does acting, music, etc. It's not just a matter of a little elite club picking what's good and what's bad; that's a gross oversimplification. The only reason that such an "elite" club can even exist and function is because there is a larger consensus as to what's good art, bad art, grammatically correct, incorrect, etc.

 

Artists who sucessfully manipulate their rules of grammar do so because they still adhere in some ways to the rules they KNOW that they are breaking. Take a Tom Waits song, for example. It's all clang, boom and steam. Sounds like noise, right? But underneath all that tumult there is a distinctive melody, harmonies, chord progressions that make grammatical sense, etc. It's only because there's a skeleton holding up the foundation that the musical experiment works at all.

 

If I sat and screamed in your ear for two hours would you call it music? (maybe you would if your name is John Cage, but I digress).

 

To suggest that good art is not largely about craft nullifies the work of real artists. And if you do that, you're sinning. You're failing to realize those wonderful few moments of fragile, mortal genius that have luckily come your way.

[shrunkenhead]

 

hey, anybody see the article in the NYTimes today about that collagist who's the rage this week? He mailed his collages to friends and each added a piece and now its ART! And in other pieces he carefully glued down recipts and movit tkt stubs etc and drew circles aroind them in cratyons and paint. COOL! I only mention this to be a dickk... no seriously, THIS is 'art'., I mean it must be cause its taken seriously by the NYTimes critic and others who know., right? So how do exhibits and cases like this fit into the grand scheme of this discussion?

 

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't suggest that an art critic from the NYtimes of all places is infallible. I think again you're hitting on one of those sensational stories. It makes good copy, but maybe it does or doesn't make good art. To get the skinny on modern art, or at least a sincere discussion, I think you need to go to better sources. Some academic small presses, maybe.