Comics are ART! (?)
Kevin McShane
Hey gang, I'm currently working on a webpage that examines why comics
are not seen as a legitimate art form in American culture. I'd
appreciate any and all feedback or ideas you people have. Here are some
questions to get your brains jogging:
1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
forms of art?
3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
that notion?
4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
"lowbrow?"
Again, any and all commentary on this issue would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Kevin McShane
a.k.a Der Lobraumeister
Lobrau Productions
http://www.oberlin.edu/~kmcshane
remove "dogs" from the above address for personal responses.
rbailey
Kevin McShane wrote:
>
> Hey gang, I'm currently working on a webpage that examines why comics
> are not seen as a legitimate art form in American culture. I'd
> appreciate any and all feedback or ideas you people have. Here are some
> questions to get your brains jogging:
>
> 1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
>
There's no question that comics are art. I would even put them ahead of
writing and illustration, because comics surpass both of these by
combining both. Comics have both the advantages of graphic art and the
written word. A potent combination, that in the right hands, can produce
magnificent work that can compete with the best of painting or
literature.
> 2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
> forms of art?
Because the ones writing these texts are usually high-brow snobs that
probably think paint splattered on a canvas is better than the most
polished comic page.
> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
> that notion?
Narrow mindedness, mostly. Just becuase a number of kiddie strips have
populated the comics page, selling numerous merchandise aimed at
children, many dismiss comics as having no artistic merit.
As for changing this notion, it is true that the modern comic page needs
signifigant changes to be a vital artform. But I do not think the
changes should be made to impress high brow art critics who think of
comics as 'kid stuff'. Most could care less of what they think. I think
comics should make strident changes so cartoonists have free reign, and
so that they can suceed better as both art and entertainment (yes, I do
think that art can be entertainment too).
Anyway, people who think of comics as the artistic equilivent of Sesame
Street obviously do not have a decent comics education. Any foray into
the comic's past will uncover a number of true expressive artists
(McCay, Herriman, Sterrett, Kelly, Schultz, Watterson, etc.). The comics
have already made their point. Let narrow minds think what they want to.
>
> 4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
> works of art,
The same reason Andy Warhol was praised for printing pictures of a
cambell's soup can.
>while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
> "lowbrow?"
Becuase art critics are insane.
> Again, any and all commentary on this issue would be much appreciated.
> Thanks.
You're welcome.
see ya in the funny papers,
SgtWalrus
M. Wesley Osam
In article <344433...@dogs.oberlin.edu>, Kevin McShane
<Kevin....@dogs.oberlin.edu> wrote:
> 1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
Of course.
> 2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
> forms of art?
Mostly due to the writers' lack of knowledge. Of course, there's also
the issue of what textbooks they should be in. Are comics visual art or
literature? Or should they be their own subject?
> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
> that notion?
Mostly because of the low quality of most of the comics people see. We
can change that notion by making better comics.
The field of comic books is a major problem. They're mostly sold in
stores that attract adolescent males, and drive away most normal people.
Bookstores don't want to carry comics. Thus, the really good, intelligent,
adult comics don't sell well because the audience that might enjoy them
mostly isn't aware of them, and most people equate comics with superheroes.
> 4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
> works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
> "lowbrow?"
It is one of the eternal mysteries. Personally, I think Lichtenstein is
just a plagiarist. I'd like to put blowups of the original panels he
painted from on a gallery wall and see how the critics react.
--
"Why do you look so skeptical?" M. Wesley Osam
"Because I've seen too much." wo...@iastate.edu
"Then why do you keep looking?
"Too much is never enough." -- Bill Griffith, "Zippy the Pinhead"
LVJeff
Kevin McShane wrote:
> 1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
Comics most certainly are art. Anything that can be appreciated as
an individual's form of self-expression can be considered art.
> 2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
> forms of art?
I would go with two notions here. The first is answered by your
question number 3, below (i.e. perception as "kid's stuff"). The second
is, perhaps, that it is a story-telling medium; that is, there are words
attached to the drawings, there are many drawings in succession, they
are produced for commercial purposes, etc. The things appreciated in
art history texts can be seen as "laboured works": one piece of art that
took time to complete and is meant for display, the main gratification
for the artist being the mere appreciation of the work (this may sound
very corny, and I apologize for anything sounding ignorant here; really,
I am no art major). Comics were not created with the same spirit,
although many cartoonists have decided to pioneer that spirit with their
own creations.
The comics industry is still too commercial for their products to
be seriously considered as "art," but with decent, dignified cartoonists
who really love their work, that idea may one day be changed.
> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
> that notion?
Society is full of biased pre-conceived stereotypical conceptions.
Due to the nature of people in general, it practically can not be
helped. Pick your favorite anything, and it probably has pre-conceived
notions attached to it for the average schmoe. I'll give you two other
examples of works/past-times regularly perceived as kid's stuff:
animated cartoons and video games. As an adult, I have full enjoyment
of both, but if I tell this to my average peer, he/she may tell me to
grow up. It's all unfair, but we live with them because they can't be
avoided.
Comics have had the kid stigma for a long time, due to their
"lowbrow" humor, cartoony drawings, and talking animals. However, good
comics can reverse this if there's more of them. For instance, I
haven't heard of _anyone_ perceiving Doonesbury or Dilbert as kid's
stuff. Young office dwellers are the ones who find it fashionable to
post the latest wry Dilbert comics on their doors. But, really, there
should be room for everything, even the talking animals, so full and
general acceptance as an adult medium will continue to be a struggle.
> 4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
> works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
> "lowbrow?"
Lichtenstein is considered "highbrow"? Don't some people call it
"pop art"? I don't know that much about Lichtenstein personally, but
didn't he have a lot of detractors?
Hmm, I feel like I should take a course in art history. Oh well, I
know what I love, and I love the comics, and I, for one, could never
look at it as purely lowbrow commercial kid-fare. We can do our part
not only by creating quality work, but by letting others who are
interested know what we think. I ranted to a colleague about the comic
industry, and she was surprised by the stuff that went on in the comics
world and how seriously one could take them. What little we can do is a
lot.
> Again, any and all commentary on this issue would be much appreciated.
> Thanks.
That was fun.
--LVJeff
--
========================______________________________________... . . .
| from LVJeff | "If you hear only one song this year,
| ale...@ucla.edu | there's something terribly wrong with you."
======================== - Kitty Carlisle, Easy Writers
Who in the heck is
Kevin McShane wrote:
...
> 1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
Gee, why is something art or not? Why not ask a hard question?
I call my self a signartist, most other people call me a signpainter.
But
either way I make a living (or close) designing and handlettering signs
and
misc. projects. Am I an artist? People pay big money for sign
collectables.
People who don't think of comics as art, probably draw the line
(although arbitrary) between commercial art and fine art. It all
depends on
that persons perception. Classical painters were kept by patrons who
may or
may not have paid well. I'm paid by multiple patrons to advertise or
decorate.
(they also may or may not pay well) One does commercial art, the other
fine.
One of us is usually called an artist and the other not. Low brow, or
high
brow, good or bad quality and pre-conceived ideas all go in the mix.
Why is something art? Who cares? (now somebody help me down, my feet
are getting
sudsy)
> 2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
> forms of art?
Most texts are written about "fine art" not commercial or other.
There are books on the history of comic art. You're just looking in the
wrong pigeonhole.
> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
> that notion?
Is being "kid's stuff" a bad thing? One of my favorite books
is "The Little Prince" and I'm not exactly a kid any more. (I'm just
not
a kid any less) If you mean change pre-conceived ideas that if a story
is told in cartoon style that it is immature, I don't think you can ever
change a mind that someone isn't using. The only thing you can do is
put forth quality work and let people decide how they want to
categorize.
> 4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
> works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
> "lowbrow?"
Because in "modern art" the artwork became the idea instead of
the physical piece. It's called the decline of civilization. It
mattered
more that he was "in" and "deep" than any work he ever did. Suppose I
opened an empty art gallery as an exhibit. I also let it be known that
my idea was to show the vacancy of depth in art. If somebody had
decided
I was "deep" the show would be a success and I'd be in the text books.
What work did I do? "Highbrow" can be a synonym for snob.
> Again, any and all commentary on this issue would be much appreciated.
> Thanks.
Well you wanted commentary you got it. Don't despair and don't
give up. Keep doing the best work you can and don't let other peoples
negativity get to you. Comics *are* art. Life and living is an art.
Do what you love, play nice, be happy.
(this message brought to you by me and my dad)
Rag
Stewart Neill
(Heavily edited so it would post)
> SgtWalrus
>
> > Kevin McShane
> > a.k.a Der Lobraumeister
> > Lobrau Productions
> > http://www.oberlin.edu/~kmcshane
> > remove "dogs" from the above address for personal responses.
******Cudos to you sir!******
--
Homepage http://www.freeyellow.com/members/cartoonist
Cartoonists Ring http://home.pacbell.net/twolf/ringhome.htm
Toon Links Page http://home.pacbell.net/twolf/toonlink.htm
Jamey "Quacky" Powell
Kevin McShane wrote:
>
> Hey gang, I'm currently working on a webpage that examines why comics
> are not seen as a legitimate art form in American culture. I'd
> appreciate any and all feedback or ideas you people have. Here are some
> questions to get your brains jogging:
>
Yes.
> 2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
> forms of art?
Probably because comics are seen as too silly to be considered high
art. Same thing goes with things like video games which are, by some
definitions, art, though most people don't see them as that.
> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
> that notion?
Because they are things created for amusement, and when they were new
they were mostly for the amusement of children. Anything that is
primarily or originally something that is for children's entertainment
is usually considered juvenile despite the fact that it is almost
certainly untrue. Again, same thing with video games -- in the
beginning, they were mostly aimed at children (and a lot still are),
so people naturally assume that they're children's things.
> 4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
> works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen as
> "lowbrow?"
1) See above.
2) The drawings of cartoonists are usually simplistic and, for lack
of a more better term, "cartoony", which leads back to the entire
"comics are juvenile" thing.
--
Dean of Chemistry, B.U. | Minister of Broken Centrifuges, DNRC
DON'T GO HERE: http://home.pacbell.net/jsp-sls/index.html
"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Al Einstein
Greg Curfman
"Jamey \"Quacky\" Powell" <jspo...@chem.bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
>> that notion?
>
>Because they are things created for amusement, and when they were new
>they were mostly for the amusement of children.
Actually, I believe that the first comics were much *above* the
reading level of most children. Early strips like 'The Yellow Kid'
were editorial/social commentary strips designed to lure more of the
working class into the newspapers circulation coffers. Perhaps it is
this association of comics with the "working class" which alienated
them from the "high brows" responsible for most historical art
critique. (The history of art, after all, is really a history of art
collecting - which meant for the most part that art which satified the
needs and tastes of the wealthy survived long enough to get into
modern Art History tomes.)
Eventually, the strips did open up to children. But even today, most
strips are targeted to, and read by, people who have the money to buy
a paper and patronize that paper's advertisers. Go to a 1st, 2nd, or
3rd grade class and ask which strips are liked. In my experience, they
all like Garfield. If your paper runs Nancy, they may like that. And
they get the simple stuff (but not the nuances) of Peanuts.
Everything else is usually *way* beyond them. A sense of humor
requires intelligence and background information. Most kids just don't
have enough of that combination to "get" the strips until they are in
their teens at least.
The merchandising, on the other hand, *is* accessible to kids. The
simplest humor is easy to extract for mugs, shirts, and even TV shows.
This is why a kid can recognize and enjoy those "cute" Peanuts
characters on shirts, lunch boxes, etc. even though they don't
understand 90% of the strip's contents.
An excellent account of comic history can be found in "The Funnies -
100 Years of American Comics" by Ron Goulart. This book is highly
regarded in the industry for its scholarship and accuracy.
Greg Curfman
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/meg/
Jym Dyer
>> Because they are things created for amusement, and when they
>> were new they were mostly for the amusement of children.
> Actually, I believe that the first comics were much *above*
> the reading level of most children.
=o= Absolutely. The whole genre started out written by adults
for adults. Children loved them anyhow, even when they didn't
understand them! I remember this effect from when I was a
little kid: I read every strip I could even though I didn't
know what was going on.
=o= I also remember, as a kid, being bored with strips that
were dumbed down for children!
<_Jym_>
SedatedApe
> 1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
I can't make up my mind. On one hand they are there to sell newspapers. If it's
if the dominiant theme is to commerce, can you say it's art. If so, is Joe
Camel Art? there's a fuzzy line where copmics seem to land on. But- today
they really don't sell newspapers. At least not one paper over the other,
because the biggies are all syndicated and if the Star get it it's avaliable
to the Times, or whatever. So the drawing power is just based on the notion of
the editor, if he want's to run it. (i think that comics might be better if
Newspapers only had say 10% syndicated strips. The rest could be exculsive to
that newspaper, like local strips. That would seem to me would make it a more
valuable draw. If The SF Gate was the only place to see Zippy, for example,
fans would go out of their way to buy the Gate. Now there is no need to since
you can find it in a bunch of other newspapers.) Anyway, I kinda think that
the comics are more a public service to the fans now.
On the other hand, they say good books are the ones people read. And comics
reach a bigger auidence than a lot of other art mediums.
-- I don't limit what I say to that which I can spell
JBDonn
Somebody famous--I have no clue who it may have been--said that the comic strip
is the most perfect marriage of art and literature that mankind has yet
invented.
Anybody deny that?
Kentaro P Maeda
as far as the "what's art and what isn't" question goes... mike peters did
a cartoon for a dave barry article...
on the left, a trash can with a "trash can" label on it... on the right, a
trash can on a pedastal with an "art" label on it. obviously a jab at
dadaist works. anyone else find this utterly hilarious?
btw, anyone have this on computer file or know where this might be on the
web?
Ken
Bill Marcum
In message <19971021211...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
get a copy of that book.)y
>Anybody deny that?
--
Bill Marcum
"Well, actually, the Internet has been cream-filled for years" (Over the Hedge)
Constance L. Crouch
Kevin McShane (Kevin....@dogs.oberlin.edu) wrote:
:Hey gang, I'm currently working on a webpage that examines why comics
:aren't seen as a legitimate art form in American culture.
Ooo! Cool! Can't wait to see that!
:I'd appreciate any & all feedback or ideas you people have. Here are
:some questions to get your brains jogging:
:1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
I consider them a valid art form. The genre has its Klees & its Keanes,
though. I'm prob'ly a Norman Rockwell...heh.
:2. Why aren't comics included in art history texts along with other
: forms of art?
Unenlightened, snobbish elitist money-hacks who worship at the shrine of
the Almighty Galleries/Museums, who seek to flatter the "art critics," who
worship -NO-ONE- but themselves. That, or sunspots....
:3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" & what can we do to change
: that notion?
Good question, since anyone with a radish-bite of sense has always been
able to ken that strips (& FTM, -animated- comix) were clearly aiming at
-2- levels: children (obstensibly), AND their parents. It might help if
you looked up the origins of comics, which were initially aimed -entirely-
at adults, & usually political in nature.
Later, when the industrial revolution birthed the leisure class who had
the time for "non-vital" pursuits, & when children were beginning to be
viewed as a separate sort of being, not just "mini-adults," there came a
deliberate effort to please kids. At the same time, the artists couldn't
resist poking in sly double-meanings only adults would catch.
How to change it? Well, I'm a fan of simply -telling- people. In the
long run, word of mouth has started more wars, movements, religions & art
forms, etc. as any number of artificial means, such as ads or petitions.
And of course, as more people who love comics -produce- better & better
ones, such as Calvin & Hobbes, Life in Hell & Dilbert -- the ones which
have the -power- to really MOVE the human heart, mind & soul...IOW, when
more artists take their OWN art seriously, the inevitable will happen.
People often dismiss "trivial" aspects of their childhood cultures until
age, wisdom, & a dose of nostalgia (the pretty side of the fear of death)
catch up with them. Then, they begin to re-examine their own tastes, &
lo, they deem them Good.
Then -they- will begin to demand comics be appreciated as an art form. In
a way, perhaps instead of the snide putdown of the "crassness of American
culture" critics assumed Lichtenstein's art was...that was really what
Lichtenstein was trying to say all along.
:4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
: works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen
: as "lowbrow?"
<g> See answer # 2....
:Again, any & all commentary on this issue would be much appreciated.
:Thanks.
~De nada.~ |->
Go see my laid-back kitty toons (sort of "for Better or Worse" for cat
fans. Kinda. |-} )
Connie
Constance L. Crouch
Greg Curfman (meg...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> wrote:
: >=o= I also remember, as a kid, being bored with strips that
: >were dumbed down for children!
: Bravo! Sounds like you would make a good teacher.
LOL! I second that!
Connie (who =is= a teacher, also bored by dumbed-down stuff as a kid)
Constance L. Crouch
Greg Curfman (meg...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: "Jamey \"Quacky\" Powell" <jspo...@chem.bungmunch.edu> wrote:
: >> 3. Why are comics seen as "kid's stuff" and what can we do to change
: >> that notion?
: >Because they are things created for amusement, and when they were new
: >they were mostly for the amusement of children.
: Actually, I believe that the first comics were much *above* the
: reading level of most children. Early strips like 'The Yellow Kid'
: were editorial/social commentary strips designed to lure more of the
: working class into the newspapers circulation coffers. Perhaps it is
: this association of comics with the "working class" which alienated
: them from the "high brows" responsible for most historical art
: critique. (The history of art, after all, is really a history of art
: collecting - which meant for the most part that art which satified the
: needs and tastes of the wealthy survived long enough to get into
: modern Art History tomes.)
You know, I think you've nailed it.
The modern history of art (from the 16th century on, at least) has been a
strange symbiotic marriage between the moneyed classes & the bohemian,
attic-dwelling lot who snuffle along in smelly, drug-sodden lifestyles &
even smellier clothing.
I always find the contrast of the clean, stark rooms of galleries &
museums adorned with scruffy, grubby works depicting toothless, hairy
peasants or slutty backstreet harlots, or gruesome, sweaty battles
amusing, as the class who -buy- such works would rather eat their own face
than actually -live amongst- such dirty, low-brow, distasteful creatures &
events.
Connie
Constance L. Crouch
SedatedApe (sedat...@aol.com) wrote:
::1. Do you consider comics to be art? If not, why?
:I can't make up my mind. On one hand they are there to sell newspapers.
:If it's if the dominiant theme is to commerce, can you say it's art. If
:so, is Joe Camel art? There's a fuzzy line where comics seem to land on.
Are you familiar with the Mucha posters? The ones done to announce Sarah
Bernhart's appearances, e.g., were considered "commercial" when they were
made. So were Touluse LeTrec's posters advertising the "lower classes" of
the French nightlife. Or consider the posters done for purely propaganda
purposes on all sides of WWII.... Today they've all been canonized as
art, though usually "lowbrow" art, by the snobby set.
So, maybe someday they'll all have to shove over & make room for J.
Camel. (Don't hold your breath for that to occur 'til the last PC
anti-smoker is dead, though.... There's far too much politics in art.
But that's just the way it is.)
Connie
Constance L. Crouch
LVJeff (ale...@ucla.edu) wrote:
:Kevin McShane wrote:
This is a notion strictly of modern times. Art has almost -always- had
commercial conmnections. Those who turn their nose up at art done "for
money" must also be ignorant of some of the greatest artists (accepted by
virtually E-all- critics as "great," that is), such as Michelangelo or
Vermeer, painted or sculpted for nasty ol' Mammon.
(Oh, the =SHAME= of it all! For mere "feelthy luuukre," the devine Mona
Lisa was painted?! David was sculpted?!?! The horror! Ah, me, I shall
SURELY swooooon!)
Damned straight.
People need to get over the snobbish idea that money is evil, or that it
necessarily corrupts the artist. This is the sort of shellack which has
most people snowed into believing "artistes" ought never to live down here
in the mud with the rest of us mere mortals, but subsist on rainbow wine.
Bushwah. Leave it to THAT sort, & you'll soon be believing an artist
could use his own poop as air freshener.
Snort! |-D Get real!
What it does is pay the artist's rent, & put his or her kids though
college. (And if she/he's GOOD enough, the kid's DENTIST'S kids through
college, too...) But if it has that special genius...it also delights the
world.
The two things are =not= mutually exclusive!
:The comics industry is still too commercial for their products to be
:seriously considered as "art," but with decent, dignified cartoonists who
:really love their work, that idea may one day be changed.
Chop off all but the first 3 words in that last paragraph to find why
there are so many cruddy comics out there muddying the field & giving
-good- comics a bad name. They are mostly cowards. They like to make
money, so they think in order to do that, they must buy only what they
KNOW will sell, for the most part. And to be honest, they have good
reason. Experimental comics =are= a gamble.
The brave ones who bypass the Garfield clones & the Peanusts clones & the
other drek out there to chance a Dilbert or a Non Sequiter are to be
praised, given their weight in chocolate, & touted throughout the land!
Kvetching about the bad comics doesn't help. BUYING the GOOD ones tells
the people who publish them to do more of the same! So if you want
original comics, -buy- the original, & THEN tell the papers to take the
dull junk off to make room for the good stuff that would surely explode
onto the comics page!
Perhaps the problem is that people who -run- the comics industry are
humorless business types. Bean counters. They may not be able to =tell=
what's funny! No intuitive sense of humor... Maybe if a great comic
artist gets wealthy enough to start a company...? 8->
::4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
:: works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen
:: as "lowbrow?"
:Lichtenstein is considered "highbrow"? Don't some people call it
:"pop art"? I don't know that much about Lichtenstein personally, but
:didn't he have a lot of detractors?
Still does. As does every "great" artist. While I may not find his art
great, the fact that there IS controversy should be a signal that
something unusual, fresh, possibly (dare I say it?) art...is going on.
Anyuway, he's certainly carved out his niche in the art history books.
:Hmm, I feel like I should take a course in art history. Oh well, I know
:what I love, & I love the comics, & I, for one, could never look at it as
:purely lowbrow commercial kid-fare.
Ultimately, that's really the best course. So -what- if someone else
doesn't like what you like? Blow them off! It's a big world, lots of
room for ALL sorts of tastes. Art is whatever someone -says- art is, some
have said. Anyway, why do you like anything? Is it for yourself, or to
impress someone else? Buy/read/laugh at/adore whatever you please.
One should be secure enough in ones self to say to some condescending
critic, "Ok, so you think my taste is excreble. Fine. But I'm enjoying
it anyway. Do -you- enjoy that trendy, overpriced piece you have hanging
in your living room which you bought to impress your boss/clients? If
not, whose life is more satisfactory here, yours? Or mine?"
Read a book called "Mona Lisa's Mustasche." It'll go a long way toward
ridding yourself of the selfconsciousness you might feel when some
jumped-up, self-important critic snots down her/his nose at your "lack of
taste."
Just remember: The emperor is stark, raving nude.
Connie
Greg Diamond
In article <62rr88$8v1$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Constance L. Crouch <so...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>This is a notion strictly of modern times. Art has almost -always- had
>commercial conmnections. Those who turn their nose up at art done "for
>money" must also be ignorant of some of the greatest artists (accepted by
>virtually E-all- critics as "great," that is), such as Michelangelo or
>Vermeer, painted or sculpted for nasty ol' Mammon. (Oh, the =SHAME= of
>it all! For mere "feelthy luuukre," the devine Mona Lisa was painted?!
>David was sculpted?!?! The horror! Ah, me, I shall SURELY swooooon!)
This argument is that there is no distinction to be made between someone
trying to make their first million (or much less) and someone wanting to
add yet another million on an already sprawling pile, as well as glossing
over the differences between modern market and old-style patronage
systems. If Constance can appreciate these differences, she can take
apart her own argument.
>People need to get over the snobbish idea that money is evil, or that it
>necessarily corrupts the artist. This is the sort of shellack which has
>most people snowed into believing "artistes" ought never to live down here
>in the mud with the rest of us mere mortals, but subsist on rainbow wine.
I don't think that anyone has every said that money is evil, not even the
(misquoted) Bible. The quote (and the truth) is that "the love of money"
-- especially when not balanced against anything else -- is evil. Few
people don't want to see their favorite artists become well off, even very
much so. But after a while, avaricious money grubbing by rich artists is
as disgusting as the same by anyone else.
>Snort! |-D Get real!
Hard to argue with that.
>::4. How come the paintings of Roy Lichtenstein are seen as "highbrow"
>:: works of art, while the comics from which they were taken are seen
>:: as "lowbrow?"
>:Lichtenstein is considered "highbrow"? Don't some people call it
>:"pop art"? I don't know that much about Lichtenstein personally, but
>:didn't he have a lot of detractors?
>Still does. As does every "great" artist. While I may not find his art
>great, the fact that there IS controversy should be a signal that
>something unusual, fresh, possibly (dare I say it?) art...is going on.
>Anyuway, he's certainly carved out his niche in the art history books.
I think the problem that people have with the likes of Lichtenstein is
that they suspect some contempt for the viewer on the part of the artist
(something clearly evident with Andy Warhol, and discussed at length in
the cover story of the current "Spy Magazine," oddly enough, although some
of what they consider worthless art I nevertheless find worthwhile.
Lichtenstein certainly is considered "high art" (Pop Art clobbered
Abstract Expression during the 60s, and Warhol is probably the most
influential artist of the half decade, sad to say); the evidence for this
is in the canon formation process seen at work in art books. I don't like
either Mondrian or Lichtenstein, but I understand why Mondrian belongs in
the books, at least. Lichtenstein was (among his best known works) a
one-joke conceptual artist, and I wouldn't resent it except that his
success is such that he is edging out Magritte, Bracque, and others who
(however controvesial their work may have been at the time) have not only
historical and conceptual merit, but aesthetic merit as well.
Controversy itself is neither good nor bad, it depends what the
controversy is about. "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" brings forth a
controversy about artistic style, subject, and ways of seeing -- that's
worthwhile. Lichtenstein brings forth controversy about whether this guy
thinks he can get paid for just about anything. Not so good, unless
there's something else behind it as well (as, I'd claim, is true of
Jackson Pollack, Robert Rauschenberg, and others of his period.)
--
<><><> There is evil: ever around, fundamental,
Greg<> System of government quite incidental;
<>/\<> So why go bananas chasing Nirvanas and failing?
<>\/<> -- Eva, "Waltz for Eva and Che," *Evita*
Greg Diamond
In article <62rsie$8v1$4...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>strange symbiotic marriage between the moneyed classes & the bohemian,
>attic-dwelling lot who snuffle along in smelly, drug-sodden lifestyles &
>even smellier clothing.
>I always find the contrast of the clean, stark rooms of galleries &
>museums adorned with scruffy, grubby works depicting toothless, hairy
>peasants or slutty backstreet harlots, or gruesome, sweaty battles
Was their much of the "toothless, hairy peasants or slutty backstreet
harlots" in post-Rennaisance art before the mid-19th century or so? I
thought that the thematic changes in high art came much later, and was
much more controversial that this post would lead one to suspect.