New Action #1 CGC 8.0 and New Detective Comics #27 CGC 8.5 in the Census 4 4

[tth2]

On 10/11/2021 at 7:02 AM, buttock said:

On 10/11/2021 at 12:06 AM, tth2 said:

Yes, but from reading the posts by some folks in this thread (and in others, particularly in the OA forum), it's clear that some people here think all abstract art is garbage, with their litmus test basically being whether any unskilled person could draw/paint the same thing.

Can we agree that Rothko sucks?

Naw, I like Rothko.

The modern darling who I've never gotten is Basquiat.

[BabyAteMyDingo]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:00 PM, Chicago Boy said:

I didn't think anyone else noticed Brenda Walsh's eye differential.  

A girlfriend I had years ago loved BH90210. Being co-operative, I sat down and tried to give it a chance. Soon as she came on, I said "Bye." "What? Why?" "Her eye is "Efffed up". Well, sir? She had not noticed that. Not being as shallow as I was and so it wrecked the show for her. Which was fine by me. I much preferred "Star Trek: The Next Generation" reruns.

[Bronty]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:28 PM, szav said:

For the record I think there's a lot of fantastic abstract and surreal art out there that didn't require great technical skill.  I think I just have an internal minimal level of detail in the work that's needed before I can take it seriously and not see it as gimmicky.  What I'm seeing in this collection doesn't meet my minimum standard.  As another poster mentioned, I do rather enjoy reading the effusive lofty hyperbolic word salad descriptions of the works, and the experience of viewing the works, that people come up with for paintings that are essentially three blocks of solid color etc.  There's arguably more artistry in these attempts people make to convince themselves and others that there's some hidden genius at play in these works that's only revealed upon hours of staring, than there is in the works themselves.

The point about photography eliminating the need for realism in art is interesting, particularly in light of modern technological advances that now allow computer algorithms to take photos and turn them into something that looks hand drawn... we've almost come full circle, where can visual illustrated art go now that would be truly innovative?

Well, that's why you have $150k bananas taped to walls and then eaten.  

 

[Bronty]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:28 PM, szav said:

 

The point about photography eliminating the need for realism in art is interesting, particularly in light of modern technological advances that now allow computer algorithms to take photos and turn them into something that looks hand drawn... we've almost come full circle, where can visual illustrated art go now that would be truly innovative?

Photography completed changed the playing field.   I feel like this comes up regularly, but imagine:   someone can do in five minutes with a camera what used to take you a week of hard work (after 10 or 20 years of mastering the skill, I might add).   There wasn't much "point" in painting realistically after that.   Which is how you get to impressionism and pointillism and cubism and essentially all forms of experimentation since.    It COMPLETELY reshaped fine art.    It took away the main purpose of painting and left it searching for a new purpose.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:41 PM, szav said:

I guess but I wouldn't call Banksy's "work" illustrative or even visual art...it's performance art.  Give people a lineup of 5 pictures of bananas to choose from and how many will pick out the Banksy version?  No better than chance I'm sure.  Ask them about the story and many will have heard of it.

Not a reference to Banksy.  An actual banana.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6269261/banana-art-taped-to-wall-eaten/

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:46 PM, szav said:

So I'd certainly agree photography largely eliminated the need for realistically drawn painting of real life situations, portraits, landscapes etc, but it didn't eliminate the need or desire for realistically drawn fantastical situations, super hero comics, sci-fi, dungeons and dragons etc etc... realistically drawn pictures of things that couldn't happen in reality.  However, computer animation and CGI have now progressed to the point where perhaps no one needs to do this by hand either.  Pretty much any situation or image you could conjure up in your mind can be done via computer assistance in a highly realistic manner, further eliminating the need for people to do this skillfully by hand.  That is unless you just like the hand drawn, not fully realistic quality of certain art which many people clearly do.

 

 

 

Yes, you can't take a photograph of a dragon, but that shift to digital happened long ago.    Most illustration art went digital circa 1995.   The movies you bought on dvd, the video games you bought, the product illustration of an orange on your orange juice.    All of that...... and think about the mountain of products that entails... all or almost all of that used to be hand done.   

I've collected video games for many years so if this means anything to you, pick up any super nintendo box.    Now pick up any N64 box.    99% chance the super nintendo box art is traditional and the N64 box art digital.

These days, a product on a shelf that has a hand rendered illustration... that's a total exception.   

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:23 PM, szav said:

really only see their work when I fall for the ludicrous click bait headlines

that's really the point right?  What else is an artist today supposed to do to get noticed?     If there's no real purpose (in a traditional sense) to what they do, then attention is in short supply.   Gotta make those headlines if anyone is going to notice or care.

 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:41 AM, tth2 said:

The whole point of pop art was to elevate the most banal, disposable aspects of everyday life.  So the label from a soup can found in the millions on store shelves every day.  A completely generic panel from a comic book indistinguishable from millions of other comic panels found on newsstand and drug store shelves every day.  

These recurring discussions crack me up.  The only people who ever place so much importance on "skill" and "effort" in determining whether art is "good" are those who have no artistic skill themselves.  Those who do have skill know very well that skilled artists are a dime a thousand (I can find you very skilled artists in the backstreets in China, Vietnam, Myanmar who can crank out really good work for peanuts).  Which isn't to say that being technically skilled and having a good eye isn't a good thing, but since the advent of photography the need for technical skill has been greatly diminished. 

Put another way, how many of the people in these threads who constantly bash abstract art have put their money where their mouth is by supporting a "realistic" artist by commissioning a portrait of themselves or their family?  

As the one you're quoting/dissing, I will say 1) I do not have artistic skill (so good guess) but 2) that is one major reason why I appreciate artistic skill, just as I enjoy music all the more because I cannot perform (and presumably cannot compose) it myself.  I can enjoy music played without skill when it's played by a child or an animal, because then it comes from the heart.  But a person who has no skill, makes no effort to employ any, and is just banging keys on a piano and calling me a philistine for not understanding it... I'm not gonna hang around for it, even if some museum decides to pay him a fortune and puts a label in front filled with essentially random words from transcendental meditation chants strung together.

3) I am not down on things that lack skill but show a unique and engaging perspective.  There's plenty of abstract art I like, a lot, but not the pieces that are essentially blank canvases or look like someone spilled a drink on it and they're accompanied by a label that is full of con artist speak.  Finally, I am mostly talking about people whose pieces show little if any skill beyond mine and do not appear to have anything interesting to say, and even show the very same sort of disdain for pretentious self-proclaimed art lovers that I have myself.  I applaud them not for their skill or their vision but for dissing those people openly.  I just would prefer not to pay money to see what they've done, because then I feel as if I, too, have been scammed.       

Edited October 12, 2021 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:43 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

As the one you're quoting/dissing, I will say 1) I do not have artistic skill (so good guess) but 2) that is one major reason why I appreciate artistic skill, just as I enjoy music all the more because I cannot perform (and presumably cannot compose) it myself.  3) I am not down on things that lack skill but show a unique and engaging perspective.  There's plenty of abstract art I like, a lot, but not the pieces that are essentially blank canvases or look like someone spilled a drink on it and they're accompanied by a label that is full of con artist speak.  Finally, I am mostly talking about people whose pieces show little if any skill beyond mine and do not appear to have anything interesting to say, and even show the very same sort of disdain for pretentious self-proclaimed art lovers that I have myself.  I applaud them not for their skill or their vision but for dissing those people openly.  I just would prefer not to pay money to see what they've done, because then I feel as if I, too, have been scammed.       

just out of curiosity, because I've seen a couple people say this, what abstract art do you like?

Most of it does squat for me personally.   Exaggerated styles, I enjoy a lot.   But pure abstraction?   Not my cup of tea as whatever value it has, to me, is conceptual.   I like for there to be some visually engaging aspect to artwork, and if the art is a total abstraction all that's left to really work with is shapes, colors, textures.   That's okay but to me its more compelling when there's at least some attempt at representation.

to put it another way, I can appreciate Malevich blank or monochrome paintings as a huge thing conceptually because of the date they were made - something like that was really subsersive and forward thinking at the time.   I appreciate the thought that went into it and can understand it to be an important work.    But to look at?  Pass.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:45 PM, szav said:

This is more due to business and financial considerations versus preference for or merit of the artwork itself.  That’s not to denigrate digital artwork, much of it is worthy of great praise in my opinion. 

I feel like I’m wading into one of those conversations more suited to the OA forum here where you forget what people are even debating, and we’re mostly in agreement though  I think.  Still let me reiterate … what ever the reason for the birth of the sort of art Rothko produced, and whatever personal reason people have for liking, I still think it’s unimpressive.

well, see my post above and see if you agree.

I think its because the value of the work is more conceptual than visual.

A lot of people, myself included, want to have some element to appreciate with the eyes.   Something like the Malevich above, you can really only appreciate with the mind once you have some sense of what was going on at the time.   

Look - here we are debating abstraction and the role of photography *one hundred and ten* years after Malevich came to the same conclusions we are coming to here.    He had that figured out at a time when people were just starting to have electricity and cars.   That's really remarkable.    Think about 1910 and what that world must have looked like.    Horses on the streets.... and you've got a guy painting white squares.   That took cajones back then.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:07 PM, szav said:

This just makes the performance good not the art.  

People don't pay for "good."  They pay for noteworthy.   See Liefeld, Exhibit A..

So the audience ends up with what it deserves.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Dark Knight]

Heading to the Immersive Van Gogh exhibit today.  Pretty excited about this one 

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:18 PM, szav said:

That’s certainly true of some people, particularly wealthier people because noteworthy is in shorter supply than good I suppose?

 

I suppose?   That's always been Tim's point, and its not without merit.  

But... all of us place value on the noteworthy, not just the wealthy.   We all have badly drawn comic art we'd enjoy to own right.   I am allergic to Don Heck art, because I had to wade through so much of it while collecting Tales of Suspense comics, which was the first major run I put together.     Yet, that TOS50 art on Heritage, I'd love to have.   First Mandarin.   

I am generally pretty ill when looking at Trimpe art, but Hulk 181 pages?    I'd be a big puddle of goo for one.   

Sure, I'm with you, my favorites are both noteworthy and well rendered.  

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:28 PM, szav said:

I don’t want to derail any further so my last comment will be… is it too much to ask that the $60,0000,000.00 stuff be both?  

 

Is it too much to ask that 100k comic art be both?

Almost anything you can ask about a 60m Rothko you can ask about a 100k Liefeld.

(Besides, some 60m fine art IS nice to look at, and some 100k comic art is nice to look at too.   We are only talking about a subset here).

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 3:28 PM, szav said:

I don’t want to derail any further 

I'm not sure if you got the memo about internet debates, but this tete a tete is supposed to go on for another three days, minimum.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bronty

[fishbone]

On 10/7/2021 at 2:58 AM, Mr bla bla said:

This piece is not sporting any artistic skills. Its warm air. The emperor is not wearing any cloth.

All I can add is, do you know how many people out there would think that us here should be committed for even spending a thousand dollars on a comic book ---  and thousands, or even millions ??!!!   They would laugh and guffaw at us for eternity !

Punk rock music ??  How many just laugh at this being actual "music" ?? Norwegian Death Metal ?? What, are you kidding me ?! It's f****g noise man !!

and on and on it goes ....... but those that are "into" these things just get it, it is "their" thing --  that's all. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by fishbone

[Aman619]

back to Banksy, I love his work.  He is exceedingly clever, and his "simple" stenciled work is just perfect for his ideas.  I also like that Malevich with the black and red rectangles.  They are placed at a dynamic relation to each other on the canvas.  But at the same time, I think more could have been done.  Im sure his other works positioned the squares in more evocative or successful configurations..?

in all creation of art, the artists works with "negative space".  Thats the areas around the "objects"... its just as important to the whole as the subject matter. It provides the tension that holds it all together.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/12/2021 at 11:48 AM, Bronty said:

just out of curiosity, because I've seen a couple people say this, what abstract art do you like?

Most of it does squat for me personally.   Exaggerated styles, I enjoy a lot.   But pure abstraction?   Not my cup of tea as whatever value it has, to me, is conceptual.   I like for there to be some visually engaging aspect to artwork, and if the art is a total abstraction all that's left to really work with is shapes, colors, textures.   That's okay but to me its more compelling when there's at least some attempt at representation.

to put it another way, I can appreciate Malevich blank or monochrome paintings as a huge thing conceptually because of the date they were made - something like that was really subsersive and forward thinking at the time.   I appreciate the thought that went into it and can understand it to be an important work.    But to look at?  Pass.

Very good question.

I tried to answer with a name or two that pops into my head of someone's whose pieces I liked, I realized that some people might say "that's not abstract. it's _____".    And I further realized that while I know I have liked I remembered so few that I cannot recall many visually and there's even fewer pieces to which I could attach a name.  So while I have liked a lot of abstract art I've liked little to the degree that I made an effort to remember their names or seek them out latr. 

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 4:23 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Very good question.

I tried to answer with a name or two that pops into my head of someone's whose pieces I liked, I realized that some people might say "that's not abstract. it's _____".    And I further realized that while I know I have liked I remembered so few that I cannot recall many visually and there's even fewer pieces to which I could attach a name.  So while I have liked a lot of abstract art I've liked little to the degree that I made an effort to remember their names or seek them out latr. 

Thanks for the honest reply.   It sounds like you're open minded to it, but you don't REALLY like it to any great degree.

That makes perfect sense to me, tbh.

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 7:10 PM, szav said:

 

 

How many different poses of and renditions of the same 50 or so super heroes and villains does one need?

With feet, or without?