2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[Aman619]

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.

 

I think art CAN be quantified by objective standards. And I dont see how this would permanently exclude comic artwork as the standards may morph to include genres that are currently not endorsed.

 

Is a moral relativist someone who sees both sides of an issue, lives in greys, not black and white? or someone who condones murder out of respect for thtas individuals 'right' to do as he pleases?? Name a superhero who is a Moral relativist and Ill get it...

[Foolkiller]

aman:

 

I'm actually surprised to hear that you've never studied it, but whether you realize it or not, you're advancing a lot of the arguments that have been debated for years in Philosophy... the beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument over art is an offshoot of moral relativism.

 

Basically, it's exactly what it sounds like. There is no right or wrong, good or evil, because cultures adapt and interpret things differently. Thus what is the "right" in one place may very well be the "wrong" somewhere else. Bertrand Russell is a famous moral relativist of more recent repute. Ultimately, the analogy would be this, art is just your likes and dislikes, no standards... thus right and wrong are merely up to me as well, whether I feel it is right or wrong is solely up to me. No objective moral truth.

 

A slightly more temperate version of that would be the materialist v. spiritual worldview, but that debates the existence of God more than the question of a universal set of morals.

[Aman619]

thanx for the MR 101 wrapup... thought it was something along those lines..

 

So yes, I have always tried out the other side of an argument. And I believe strongly in the idea of cultures believing in, or adhering to. ways of life or ethics that work for them but are abhorent to us in the West, and vice versa. Isnt this in large part what we face as a nation today around the world? I also believe in standards too.

 

"Right and wrong" for me ARE solely up to me, but as a society, we must surrender to the will of the people, or the dictators (of taste in this matter) depending on where we live. Isnt that along the lines of the Supreme Court finding on pronography...community standards will decide. In this debate, the "community" of art historians etc has clearly decided against comics...... for now....

[delekkerste]

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.

 

Your statement is factual, but does not rule out there being guidelines, if not outright standards, on what makes something attractive or beautiful. High cheekbones, a clear complexion, full breasts, good birthing hips...for most of the Western world and for a very long time, these traits have been positively correlated with feminine beauty (of course, there has been a trend towards thinner women in recent decades due to a number of factors, but it has not invalidated the above).

 

How is it that similar standards do not exist for art (and perhaps a modified set of standards for abstract art)? Without *any* guidelines or standards, how can we say if an artist or one of his works, whether comic related or not, is good or bad? If you say that John Romita Sr. is a better penciller than Al Milgrom, what are you basing that on? 100% pure emotion without any regard to technical or artistic considerations? Again, I don't believe this is a position that most of those arguing for pure subjectivity would be willing to argue, as it's pretty indefensible.

 

I'm not saying that comic art can't be beautiful - in its own context. It's a very limiting medium, though, and the vast majority of work was produced on a tight budget and schedule, intended for mass distribution to hormone-addled teenage boys. It *is* art, yes, but it never really aspired to be "great" in the larger sense. I think we can and should applaud great comic art for what it is - the best of what has been produced in its little niche. But when you start comparing it to art that doesn't have the numerous limitations that comic art has, it's a much tougher comparison and you should expect significant pushback. I believe that is entirely justified based on pure facts alone, and that all this talk of "snobbery" holding comic art back is both unnecessary and untrue.

 

 

btw - - Does your girlfriend read or like comics?

 

We're "just friends"! She's not a comic fan, though I know she has some awareness of them. Next time I hang out with her I'll get her take on comic art specifically to get a neutral third-party opinion.

[Foolkiller]

aman:

 

This is just one of those things that takes too long to get into... not that it wouldn't be interesting. The Supreme Court decision along pornography is a little different in my mind, because they aren't not dealing with the "right" and "wrong" of pornography, but rather its legal status, which are two different questions.

 

 

 

 

thanx for the MR 101 wrapup... thought it was something along those lines..

 

So yes, I have always tried out the other side of an argument. And I believe strongly in the idea of cultures believing in, or adhering to. ways of life or ethics that work for them but are abhorent to us in the West, and vice versa. Isnt this in large part what we face as a nation today around the world? I also believe in standards too.

 

"Right and wrong" for me ARE solely up to me, but as a society, we must surrender to the will of the people, or the dictators (of taste in this matter) depending on where we live. Isnt that along the lines of the Supreme Court finding on pronography...community standards will decide. In this debate, the "community" of art historians etc has clearly decided against comics...... for now....

[Aman619]

Gene -- believe me, I could run down the list with you of who I think sucks and who the masters in the comic art genre are. Theres an astounding amount of junk. IN MY OPINION. but here we are really at the nub of the situation... thats MY opinion. I KNOW I am right cause I can draw and KNOW who else can do it... (and I say that KNOW ing toungue in cheek that its all a matter of opinion....)

 

so dont get me wrong Im not saying all art is 'good' art except from an existentialist point of view. Think of art as people. Dont we as a socirty and in all our religions stress and preach that all men are created equally? Yet some are more respected... some are more talented. etc But do we cast aside the less smart, pretty, less creative? Well, yeah, but - - - we 'shouldnt' since we know deep down we are equal. Same with artwork.

 

 

"Does a page of original art not posess the same rights as a sponge????"

--taken freely from Spencer Tracy

[Illiterati-migration]

 

 

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.

 

We are very definitely on the same page.

 

I suspect we are talking to people who have been known to ask why "EVERYTHING" isn't "art" considering some of the "art" they have seen.

[DESTRO-migration]

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.

-------------------------------------

 

Boy,

 

What in blazes are you talkin' about ?

 

The form is THE COMIC BOOK !!!!

 

What makes a Great Cover ?,....Ive seen good covers,..and Ive seen bad,....a good cover realizes the form of the objective comic book.

 

Just cause the canvas is blank doesnt mean there are no limitations.

 

You smokin' CrAck or juss a plain dumb-[#@$%!!!] ?

[THE_BEYONDER]

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.

-------------------------------------

 

Boy,

 

What in blazes are you talkin' about ?

 

The form is THE COMIC BOOK !!!!

 

What makes a Great Cover ?,....Ive seen good covers,..and Ive seen bad,....a good cover realizes the form of the objective comic book.

 

Just cause the canvas is blank doesnt mean there are no limitations.

 

You smokin' CrAck or juss a plain dumb-[#@$%!!!] ?

 

[Illiterati-migration]

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.

-------------------------------------

 

Boy,

 

What in blazes are you talkin' about ?

 

The form is THE COMIC BOOK !!!!

 

What makes a Great Cover ?,....Ive seen good covers,..and Ive seen bad,....a good cover realizes the form of the objective comic book.

 

Just cause the canvas is blank doesnt mean there are no limitations.

 

You smokin' CrAck or juss a plain dumb-[#@$%!!!] ?

 

What is the "form of the objective comic book"? Please tell ALL of us, as I think your input would REVOLUTIONIZE the world of comics. (Someone had better get Scott McCloud in here. He'll be interested to hear this one.)

[DESTRO-migration]

Dip,

 

An 'objective form' is an A-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L idea.

 

 

It does not exist in reality doofus.

 

YOU are the one who brought up the notion of 'forms' (when you said there was none for comic books/comic book art

 

Do you not even understand your own arguments ?

[Illiterati-migration]

Dip,

 

An 'objective form' is an A-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L idea.

 

 

It does not exist in reality doofus.

 

 

 

 

From your earlier post:

 

What makes a Great Cover ?,....Ive seen good covers,..and Ive seen bad,....a good cover realizes the form of the objective comic book.

 

You may be too stupid to continue this discussion. Let's go ahead and put you in "time out" for... oh, how about... two hours?

 

Maybe in those two hours you could call a friend over who can type and express themselves in a coherent manner via the written word. It would help you greatly. Well, not "greatly", because you'll still be contradicting yourself all over the place and speaking of things that don't exist as if they do, but it will help you.

 

As much as you can be helped. Now sit down and learn something.

[DESTRO-migration]

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.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Duh,....I write things and than cant defend them. Ummm,..uhh,..please excuse my stupidity.

 

MAJORCHAOS

[DESTRO-migration]

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.

 

DO YOU RECOGNIZE HOW STUPID YOU ARE !!!!!

 

Now,..Ive seen alotta dumb as$es on this board !!!

 

BUT YOU PACO,..TAKE THE CAKE !

-----------------------

 

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.(Im just gonna randomly keep posting that statement its so dumb).

[DESTRO-migration]

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.

[DESTRO-migration]

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 !

[Norrin_Radd]

[THE_BEYONDER]

Are you okay?

[Norrin_Radd]

Are you okay?

 

I think he short-circuited.

 

[october]

Are you okay?

 

I think he short-circuited.