could animator Chuck Jones be considered a "New Master" ??
Hamachi Carpaccio
and how to translate that into comedy and entertainment is to this day
unrivaled, IMHO.
I was fortunate enough to get an advance copy of the new DVD that
commemorates his work and memorializes his life.
Check it out at ::
My question is, could Chuck Jones be considered to be a “New
Master†??
Could animation be considered a fine art ??
I mean he was amazing, and created such unique characters, and had
such a great style. His work is adored by people of all ages and all
walks of life. He is certainly a legend.
~ Hamachi
Lar
>My question is, could Chuck Jones be considered to be a “New
>Master†??
>
>Could animation be considered a fine art ??
>
Absolutely! In fact, I'm surprised at your question. As far as I'm
concerned animation is a fine art. Yes, most people probably don't
realize that, at least in North America, but it is a wholly unique
discipline, as much or more related to film making as to any of the
'traditional' visual arts. Chuck Jones was not only a great draftsman,
but knew how to time movement for maximum impact (and I mean more than
just Wile E. falling off a cliff :)
I'm a little soapboxing and I apologize if I degenerate into a rant. I
despise the 'fine' art label. It's become something elitist, to
seperate art people do for a living from some kind of societal
perception that to be a great artist you need to starve in a loft
somewhere and be moody and incomprehesible. An industrial artist
designed the chair you're sitting on. A woodworking artist laid out the
desk design your computer sits on. A textile artist conceived the
carpet under your feet. An animation artist made the cartoons our kids
are watching on tv right now. All this art is so pervasive that most
don't see the forest for the trees - including some of those same
artists who are having to crank out dull beige boxes for our computers
or Martha Stewart knock offs for our kitchen wallpaper borders.
However, it's still art (it may be bad art, but I'm sure we've all seen
huge canvases in galleries we wouldn't classify as good either! :)
I'll get off this soapbox now :) Thanks for the heads up about the DVD.
I hadn't heard of it. Later!
Lar
--
**********
It's "The Many Faces of Lar"!
http://www.lartist.com
**********
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lar" <fre...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:3DAFFD30...@sentex.net...
>
> despise the 'fine' art label. It's become something elitist, to
>
--
Yankee reamers machineability table [extract]
Material Rating Material Rating Material Rating
Muntz Metal 120 Naval Brass 90 Navel Lint 400
Lar
>"Lar" <fre...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>news:3DAFFD30...@sentex.net...
>
>>despise the 'fine' art label. It's become something elitist, to
>>
>What are you suggesting is wrong with elites?
>
I just think art should be accessible to all. You stick some kind of
superiority thing on it, and people will resent it and the practitioners
of it. Feel free to disagree :)
There is art for the artists - stuff that pushes boundaries and explores
new ideas and philosophies. That is great stuff. I wasn't capable of
even beginning to appreciate an abstract cubism until my second year of
art. There is stuff going on every day that I probably will never
understand. Fine too. I guess my point is when you start with the
'fine' art vs 'commercial' art, you get unnecessary tensions. It's no
sin to earn your living producing art, be that huge abstract slabs or
public pleasing landscapes.
I had a teacher who said "If it isn't fine, it isn't art" :) but meaning
that if we produced a bad piece, not that we had to be gallery style
artists.
So sorry if you were looking for a flame argument. I love a good
discussion though :)
Artboy from Oz
art whore, really - I still enjoy using the skills given me and I really am delighted when the
client appreciates what's been produced (I nearly said "created", but that's a bit wanky for me).
I don't mix in the "arty farty" circles, as they seem very self-serving and quite inbred
intellectually. A bit of mongrel blood never hurt any breed, and the art world is no different.
I stand in awe of the abilities of the great artists and the better ones around today, but fine art
is just one branch of a very big tree. The talent needed to produce an effective book cover is no
less. Look at Alan Lee, who illustrated "Lord of the Rings". World class.
There, that should get me a nice grilling.
Cheers,
Greg
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> >"Lar" <fre...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> >news:3DAFFD30...@sentex.net...
> >
> >>despise the 'fine' art label. It's become something elitist, to
> >>
> >What are you suggesting is wrong with elites?
> >
> I just think art should be accessible to all. You stick some kind of
> superiority thing on it, and people will resent it and the practitioners
> of it. Feel free to disagree :)
>
there is enough that is publically owned.
>
> There is art for the artists - stuff that pushes boundaries and explores
> new ideas and philosophies. That is great stuff. I wasn't capable of
> even beginning to appreciate an abstract cubism until my second year of
> art. There is stuff going on every day that I probably will never
> understand. Fine too. I guess my point is when you start with the
> 'fine' art vs 'commercial' art, you get unnecessary tensions. It's no
> sin to earn your living producing art, be that huge abstract slabs or
> public pleasing landscapes.
>
landscapes) is very popular as wall covering. So-called 'abstract' art [not
real abstract art but non-representational pattern making] has been the
mainstream for ages and there is nothing 'cutting edge' about it - it is
less innovative than Victorian Sunday afternoon watercolours.
>
> I had a teacher who said "If it isn't fine, it isn't art" :) but meaning
> that if we produced a bad piece, not that we had to be gallery style
> artists.
>
> So sorry if you were looking for a flame argument. I love a good
> discussion though :)
>
as a positive good today by the stupid and untalented on the grounds that
equality of outcome can be achieved by making bringing everything down to
the lowest common denominator - it is the antithesis of what is noble,
wholesome and of good report which requires elites for its production.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Artboy from Oz" <greg@NO_ONE_HOME_gregsart.com> wrote in message
news:3db0af73...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Lar, I agree with you 100%. As a guy who will produce any image for any
client - something of an
> art whore, really - I still enjoy using the skills given me and I really
am delighted when the
> client appreciates what's been produced (I nearly said "created", but
that's a bit wanky for me).
>
What is wrong with that? Why should an artist be his only customer?
>
> I don't mix in the "arty farty" circles, as they seem very self-serving
and quite inbred
> intellectually. A bit of mongrel blood never hurt any breed, and the art
world is no different.
>
Very sensible of you. You just have to look at some of the poor creatures
who like to claim that they are important artists to see that they are best
kept away from!
>
> I stand in awe of the abilities of the great artists and the better ones
around today, but fine art
> is just one branch of a very big tree. The talent needed to produce an
effective book cover is no
> less. Look at Alan Lee, who illustrated "Lord of the Rings". World
class.
>
> There, that should get me a nice grilling.
>
Only from the ignorant.
G&L
do with it. I'm his brother, the animator, and he himself is no slouch in
all media.....and the animation in which he is currently dabbling is above
par, too. And whilst students in our respective periods at Sheridan college
we experienced snobbery from the other more "serious" art students. (but
hey, when the animation boom of the nineties hit and there were perceived
$$$$ to make in cartoons, some otherwise "fine" prospectives and their dogs
were jumping on the commercial band wagon.)
It's funny in hindsight but as students we all really only play the artist
in hopes that our skills catch up with our posturing. :-)
As for the original Q I think the poster is somewhat of a clever troll.
Posted in the animation NGs it starts debates on whom was better, Jones or
Clampett, in other arts groups the fine vs commercial debate. It's very
telling that it is cross-posted in fine and illustration....Oh can't we all
just get along?;-)
As for Jones: he was indeed a master although as with other opinions it is
in the eye of the beholder. He was a fine artist who made his living in a
commercial medium. He trained at Chouniard. There were no animation schools
promising fame and fortune in 6 months. He was skilled in oils , water
colors, design, drawings, writing as well he was celluloid. He worked with
other fine artists who made their living in a commercial medium. There was
and is nothing glamorous about the starving artist and if you don't want to
wait until you die to make money then commercial art sure beats heavy
lifting in a factory. He never stopped painting personal subjects, I've seen
a few up close, but of course it will be Bugs and Daffy, our ghettoized
reluctant baby-sitters, of which he will be renowned.
So now where does this put Picasso, Lautrec and Warhol who did some
commercial stuff but made it as great masters?
I see no difference between them and Jones as far as what an artist is.
Me? I'm an unabashedly starving commercial artist.
Gerard
been meaning to update this:
http://www3.telus.net/drard/
G&L
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> I too am mainly interested in discussion. Bland mediocrity is sought after
> as a positive good today by the stupid and untalented on the grounds that
> equality of outcome can be achieved by making bringing everything down to
> the lowest common denominator - it is the antithesis of what is noble,
> wholesome and of good report which requires elites for its production.
And after I read the above very slowly ...several times:
Chuck was the elite of animation.
Gerard
Peter H.M. Brooks
"G&L" <hous...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3DB1A634...@telus.net...
>
> Chuck was the elite of animation.
>
Richard
I definitely don't think he should be compared to portrait painters.
It's too different. It's definitely a case of apples and oranges. He
should be compared with other animators. My favorite animator is Don
Bluth. He's done some fantastic work.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
William Palmer
Your basic question, for me, is well worth considering.
Of course, there are those in rec.arts.fine who seem
to believe that the only people worthy of the term
"artist," are great painters. I don't share that view.
For instance, I certainly believe that Dore, Tenniel,
and Beardsley are worthy of being called artists, and
I go farther than that. I believe that any illustrator
who who has a superb talent and rich imagination can
eventually become an artist. In other words, I am not
saying that "illustrator = artist," but I saying that
the best illustrators can reach the artistic level
and become genuine artists. People in the category
I speak of can be book illustrators (like the great
engraver Alberto Martini, who illustrated Poe, Dante,
and others) commercial artists (don't laugh--ever see
Mucha's commercial art?) pulp fiction magazine-cover
painters, paperback book cover painters (like Richard
Powers), and certainly comic book illustrators.
My own feeling is that Graham Ingels (the EC Comic
Book artist who did such great work in the early
1950's) is a genuine artist in the tradition of
Dore and other illustrators. Why do I think that?
It is hard to articulate, except that it has to do
with Ingel's awesome power to evoke moods of the
darker sort. In fact, while I am not equating
Ingels with Goya, I will go as far as saying
Ingels can inspire emotions of dread and terror
as well--or better--than Goya could.
Let us rephrase the original question. Can a
comic book artist be considered a genuine artist?
I think so, certainly in the case of Graham
Ingels. Does anyone else agree? I might
add the odd twist that Ingels received so
much flack for his art that he renounced it
completely, at least according to lore, and
became an alcoholic wreck. With true artists,
it seems as though the art just emerges. Ingels
was being paid to churn out comic book horror
tales, and for all I know may not have strived
to be an "artist," at all. But something dark
inside him took over, perhaps, and the great
art resulted.
What fascinates me about Graham Ingels is his
talent for mastering mood. Sometimes his work
is a bit too gruesome, and I don't like to look
at it. But the way Ingels uses his talents to
establish the atmosphere he desires to create is
nothing short of astonishing, once you overcome
your bias against comic book illustrators and
give him a chance to cast his powerful spells...
a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> >"Lar" <fre...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> >news:3DAFFD30...@sentex.net...
> >
> >>despise the 'fine' art label. It's become something elitist, to
> >>
> >What are you suggesting is wrong with elites?
> >
> I just think art should be accessible to all. You stick some kind of
> superiority thing on it, and people will resent it and the practitioners
> of it. Feel free to disagree :)
>
> There is art for the artists - stuff that pushes boundaries and explores
> new ideas and philosophies. That is great stuff. I wasn't capable of
> even beginning to appreciate an abstract cubism until my second year of
> art. There is stuff going on every day that I probably will never
> understand. Fine too. I guess my point is when you start with the
> 'fine' art vs 'commercial' art, you get unnecessary tensions. It's no
> sin to earn your living producing art, be that huge abstract slabs or
> public pleasing landscapes.
Good point. When people insinuate that commercial art has to be
bad, I recall the great art that Alphonse Mucha did for Nestle,
along with his superb ads for cookies, soap, etc. Maybe the truth
is that genuine artists will produce art when given the chance,
and that chance could come in things as diverse as commercial
art or comic book illustration. (I don't know if anyone has
brought up the fascinating topic of Lyonel Feininger's work
in newspaper comics either. "Wee Willie Winkie's World,"
(circa 1906) is surreal, sometimes to a strangely disturbing
degree.) a.g.b-p.
Lar
>
>Let us rephrase the original question. Can a
>comic book artist be considered a genuine artist?
>
I'm afraid from where I'm sitting, you've just opened up another
questionably elitist definition. "Genuine" artist .... as opposed to....?
I do agree with your points though. If you've got the talent, it's
going to show through whether you're exploring philosophy via abstract
expressionism or designing advertisements for the tobacco industry. AND
a lot of people who hang up that 'artist' shingle outside their door are
probably muddying more waters for the rest of us trying to educate our
friends, family and clientele as to what being a good artist is all
about. However, does that make then non-genuine (phony?) artists? Or
are they just bad artists? Is there a difference or is it only the
semantics of all these labels flying about that are causing me unease?
I've seen some baaaaaad artists, who to my eye have no hope in all the
universe of getting any better and it breaks my heart because the one
thing I do see is their passion for what they are doing. And all I can
hope for them is they find a new medium where they can express
themselves effectively.
>Ingels
>was being paid to churn out comic book horror
>tales, and for all I know may not have strived
>to be an "artist," at all. But something dark
>inside him took over, perhaps, and the great
>art resulted.
>
Hmm. Striving. Yes, I strive to better myself. I don't think I
struggle though. I'm having too much fun to consider it a struggle.
It's professional play. My art brings me such tremendous joy I can't
stop doing it. Am I striving to be an 'artist' or am I striving to
create 'art'? Is there a difference there?
I'm just blabbing out loud now :)
Is being paid (or not) to create art - for an advertisement, a school
assignment, a gallery show - the same thing as being an artist? Or are
you just going through the moves and if you fake it well enough, no one
else will notice? :)
Later :)
Jessica Campbell
> William Palmer wrote:
>
> >
> >Let us rephrase the original question. Can a
> >comic book artist be considered a genuine artist?
> >
> I'm afraid from where I'm sitting, you've just opened up another
> questionably elitist definition. "Genuine" artist .... as opposed to....?
>
> I do agree with your points though. If you've got the talent, it's
> going to show through whether you're exploring philosophy via abstract
> expressionism or designing advertisements for the tobacco industry. AND
> a lot of people who hang up that 'artist' shingle outside their door are
> probably muddying more waters for the rest of us trying to educate our
> friends, family and clientele as to what being a good artist is all
> about. However, does that make then non-genuine (phony?) artists? Or
> are they just bad artists? Is there a difference or is it only the
> semantics of all these labels flying about that are causing me unease?
> I've seen some baaaaaad artists, who to my eye have no hope in all the
> universe of getting any better and it breaks my heart because the one
> thing I do see is their passion for what they are doing. And all I can
> hope for them is they find a new medium where they can express
> themselves effectively.
If the artist has passion for their work, how does that matter less
than your judgement that their work is "baaaaaad"?
nenslo
That would be Graham INGALLS he's talking about if anyone would like
to look it up. Ingalls had a real light clean style in his earlier
work, such as Classics Illustrated and western comics, but once he
started using lots of heavy black areas he became possessed by demons.
The difference between artist and non artist is like the difference
between legal and illegal. Somebody somewhere decides it and other
people believe it. The essential nature of the object is not changed
by descriptions.
Lar
>The difference between artist and non artist is like the difference
>between legal and illegal. Somebody somewhere decides it and other
>people believe it. The essential nature of the object is not changed
>by descriptions.
>
Oooo!! Nicely said! I like that definition. I guess the discussions
and arguments stem from all of us wanting to play judge then ;)
Ah, artists. We are a funny lot. I think we simultaneously do not play
well with others, but benefit noticeably from brainstorming and
constructive critiques. We need the objective and often subjective
inputs from our peers and audiences but don't want to admit it all the
time either.
Later!
Lar
Lar
>If the artist has passion for their work, how does that matter less
>than your judgement that their work is "baaaaaad"?
>
My judgement doesn't matter and shouldn't matter to them. And I'd like
to think I'm not being judgemental. Art is too much fun to ever
restrict someone from it. However, when someone is breaking their skull
against a wall because they cannot succeed they way they wish due to
lack of training, lack of talent or lack of marketing it can be very
frustrating to just stand by and watch.
The specific example I have in mind is an online cartoonist with a
tremendous output. However, his work is undeniably weak. His writing
is amateurish and mostly self-insertion (he's always the hero)
derivatives of whatever comic book or video game strikes his fancy. He
has a minimal grasp of human or animal anatomy, no grasp of technical
perspective and is incapable of drawing a tree (could be a muffin?
could be a giant broccoli? oh wait.. it's a space station...) Despite
his output, his skills have not improved and judging by his reaction to
people writing in his guestbook he can't take criticism on any level. I
ache on this guy's behalf. I understand his dream but he's clearly got
other problems besides just not being a great drawer. I don't think he
should give up his online comics. They are clearly a source of great
pleasure for him. I do think he needs to move on to a new career goal
though because unless he wins a lottery to self-publish his work,
there's no way he'll ever see it in print on the local comic shop shelf.
Does my opinion matter? No. Not really. It's his life and he's happy,
I assume. I'm just another artist (or at least a guy who likes to call
himself one) mouthing off on the Internet :) I'm not gonna try to burst
his bubble.
Later!
Lar
P.S.: If you wish to know who I'm talking about, email me privately. I
don't want to seem like I'm making fun of someone or making things up
either. As I said, it's his life and his dream. That's important to
respect. I'm just one opinion.