Lowbrow?
GravelPit
better forum?
Any Robt. O. Williams fans out there?
Gravelpit
Noumenon
Uph...
There is nothing to discuss anymore.
People sit here [in this forum] for years and already grinded everything
that was/is in the art world down to smallest pieces...
What you have to offer for discussion ?
> Is there a better forum?
You wish! We couldn't find any better, that is why we all stagnate in here.
If there is something nicer - we all would've moved there long time ago!
Actually, you can check forums at http://wetcanvas.com
it's not usenet (unfortunately) but on-line web forums, but it seems
active...
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Noumenon <ArtE...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3D75ABCB...@concentric.net...
WILLIAM PALMER
"GravelPit" <grave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:55gd9.9481$jG2.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I don't see much in the way of discussion for this type of art. Is there a
> better forum?
> Any Robt. O. Williams fans out there?
Yes, I find the art of Robert Williams well worth pondering. Further, it
seems to me that in our time it is far too limiting to restrict oneself
only to an
appreciation of what has traditionally called "fine art." For instance, I
have
long felt that the best illustration transcends its original purpose and can
easily
be enjoyed by people having little or no interest in the story being
illustrated.
Further, often the artists themselves don't even realize they are producing
art.
Many of the painted pulp-magazine cover illustrations were trashed because
neither the artist nor the publisher saw value in them. Some of the best
pulp illustrators considered pulp-fiction illustration their bread and
butter
job which provided a (rather meager, actually, in most cases) living
so they could work on their "real art," in their spare time. In most
cases, the "real art" never caused a ripple in the art world, but the
pulp paintings are raved about and fetch high prices today. Those
which were not tossed in the rubbish decades back are exhibited in
museums and galleries now or sold at aution by prestigious houses.
In my view, the rather abstract paintings that Richard Powers did
for the covers of Ballentine science-fiction paperbacks back in the
1950's are fine art of museum quality (even though at the time he
was doing Ballentine covers, Powers apparently did not consider
those to be representative of his "real" art). Frankly, I don't know
if the traditional lines between high-brow and low-brow art are
becoming blurry in the art world, or whether it is simply that I
personally have a great feeling for outstanding illustration, as
well as for fine art. Maybe it is a little of both...
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Gravelpit
>
>
>
WILLIAM PALMER
>
> Uph...
> There is nothing to discuss anymore.
> People sit here [in this forum] for years and already grinded everything
> that was/is in the art world down to smallest pieces
You are faddy and limited. And when you do run into something
you haven't heard before (like my comments on Vrubel) you get
all bent out of shape and start making personal attacks to try
and discredit your opponent.
Personally, I DON'T like to waste my time on watered-down
echos of opinions that have already been expressed better and
more than once in the traditional print-world art magazines.
I am far more interested in views that would likely never make
it into a traditional art magazine in the first place, because the
opinions I refer to are too fresh and do not strike the right
chords with the people who edit traditional art magazines.
You are just plain wrong in another respect too. Everything
in the art world has NOT been "ground down" in this forum.
Yes, there are certain recurring themes, such as "Who is the
greatest, Dali or Picasso?" but other great artists (such as a couple
of dozen of the best European Symbolists) have scarcely been
discussed at all.
Let's take a recent example of your being off by a mile in what
you rather pompously assert above. You never encountered
anything like my "Feldstein versus Lichtenstein" post of a
days back. Is it safely in the art world (to stay within your
limits)? Yes, since both Feldstein and Lichtenstein have
successful art careers. But since you ran into something you
have never considered in that post--and perhaps something
that no one in the world had EVER considered--what
did you do? You and others ran from it. I did not
get ONE follow up on that thread.
No, sir, you and yours have not chewed over everything
worth discussing about the art world. Not by a long
shot. You know what you have done? You have
chewed the same cuds over and over regarding a
number of favorite rec.arts.fine points of debate.
That's all. Now put THAT in your artsy-fartsy pipe
and smoke it.
>
> What you have to offer for discussion?
Recently, about thirty highly-original ideas you have
refused to get off your high-horse and tackle.
>
>
> > Is there a better forum?
>
> You wish! We couldn't find any better, that is why we all stagnate in
here.
No, you stagnate because you chew the same worn-out cuds over
and over. Even cattle are too wise to do that.
> If there is something nicer - we all would've moved there long time ago!
>
> Actually, you can check forums at http://wetcanvas.com
> it's not usenet (unfortunately) but on-line web forums, but it seems
> active...
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Erik A. Mattila
> Let's take a recent example of your being off by a mile in what
> you rather pompously assert above. You never encountered
> anything like my "Feldstein versus Lichtenstein" post of a
> days back. Is it safely in the art world (to stay within your
> limits)? Yes, since both Feldstein and Lichtenstein have
> successful art careers. But since you ran into something you
> have never considered in that post--and perhaps something
> that no one in the world had EVER considered--what
> did you do? You and others ran from it. I did not
> get ONE follow up on that thread.
>
> No, sir, you and yours have not chewed over everything
> worth discussing about the art world. Not by a long
> shot. You know what you have done? You have
> chewed the same cuds over and over regarding a
> number of favorite rec.arts.fine points of debate.
> That's all. Now put THAT in your artsy-fartsy pipe
> and smoke it.
Looks like you are merely making the claim that "Feldstein versus
Lichtenstein" is worth discussing. The only evidence we have either way
is the fact that no one responded to your post. Hint, hint, my friend.
The problem with the comparison is that it ignores what Pop Art is, to
the core, and settles for superficial appearences, while at the same
time ingnoring what comic art is. The topic is therefore superficial.
Sort of like comparing Vargas with Utamaro.
EAM
WILLIAM PALMER
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3D7BD55...@oco.net...
> WILLIAM PALMER wrote:
>
>
> > Let's take a recent example of your being off by a mile in what
> > you rather pompously assert above. You never encountered
> > anything like my "Feldstein versus Lichtenstein" post of a
> > days back. Is it safely in the art world (to stay within your
> > limits)? Yes, since both Feldstein and Lichtenstein have
> > successful art careers. But since you ran into something you
> > have never considered in that post--and perhaps something
> > that no one in the world had EVER considered--what
> > did you do? You and others ran from it. I did not
> > get ONE follow up on that thread.
> >
> > No, sir, you and yours have not chewed over everything
> > worth discussing about the art world. Not by a long
> > shot. You know what you have done? You have
> > chewed the same cuds over and over regarding a
> > number of favorite rec.arts.fine points of debate.
> > That's all. Now put THAT in your artsy-fartsy pipe
> > and smoke it.
>
>
> Looks like you are merely making the claim that "Feldstein versus
> Lichtenstein" is worth discussing.
Sir, I believe it is, or I would not have posted it in the first
place. (And I DID get some follow-up in a comics group,
though mostly it was in regard to whether Feldstein could
use Lichtenstein techniques on some of Feldstein's old EC
panels without getting permission from copyright-holder
EC.)
>The only evidence we have either way
> is the fact that no one responded to your post. Hint, hint, my friend.
>
> The problem with the comparison is that it ignores what Pop Art is, to
> the core, and settles for superficial appearences, while at the same
> time ingnoring what comic art is.
Vague talk there! Pop Art is what it appears to be. What you
see is what you get. And I say that if you go through Feldstein's
EC comic art panel by panel, you are going to find panels that
many people would find more interesting than a Lichtenstein
"imitation cartoon panel." And I mean no disrespect to Lichtenstein.
After all, among other things, he is showing that a cartoon
panel, if blown up with the proper technique, can look
great on a wall. (I have a nice reproduction of Lichtenstein's
South Sea Girl on a wall I love it.) Anyway, I simply happen
to believe that there are a great many authentic comic book
illustrations which could be reproduced and blown up in size
with impressive results. Nothing superficial about it. Often
it is a case of illustrators becoming true artists in spite of
themselves. Graham Ingels, it is often suggested, was
destroyed because of the backlash over his EC art.
People like Dr. Wertham made Engels feel guilty about
his brilliant work for EC, so much so that he became
ashamed of his own art, and that is a terrible
thing for an immensely talented artist like Ingels.
His work will disturb you, scare the hell out of you,
even make you sick with fear, but I think art needs to
do that sometimes. My own view of Ingels is that he
is a true artist, worthy of the same stature in eerie art
that Lovecraft has in eerie literature. I would love
to have some blown-up reproductions of Ingels' work
on my walls. Not the gruesome depictions, but the
eeriely moody ones, such as the old house in the bayou...
Among other things, Ingels is a master of mood.
Yes, some people in this group would consider
Ingels' art ugly and horrible, but remember, many
people said the same thing of surrealism, and in
fact, surrealism challenged traditional views of
beauty and ugliness.
>The topic is therefore superficial.
I don't think so.
> Sort of like comparing Vargas with Utamaro.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> EAM
>
Erik A. Mattila
WILLIAM PALMER wrote:
>>Looks like you are merely making the claim that "Feldstein versus
>>Lichtenstein" is worth discussing.
>>
>
> Sir, I believe it is, or I would not have posted it in the first
> place. (And I DID get some follow-up in a comics group,
> though mostly it was in regard to whether Feldstein could
> use Lichtenstein techniques on some of Feldstein's old EC
> panels without getting permission from copyright-holder
> EC.)
>
>
>>The only evidence we have either way
>>is the fact that no one responded to your post. Hint, hint, my friend.
Funny, when you truncate my point, it loses something. Look at it this
way: when you use the passive voice - it is worth discussion - the
question "to whom?" always lingers. When no one responds, it suggests
that the subject is not worthy of discussion.
>>
>>The problem with the comparison is that it ignores what Pop Art is, to
>>the core, and settles for superficial appearences, while at the same
>>time ingnoring what comic art is.
>>
>
> Vague talk there! Pop Art is what it appears to be. What you
> see is what you get.
How so (vague)? Your response is the epitome of shallowness. Of course
Pop Art is more than just appearances. The case in point, Lichtenstein
was making paintings of comic book art. He wasn't making comic book
art. In fact, he was even painting representations of graphic
reproduction technology, such as the dots of a percentage screen.
And I say that if you go through Feldstein's
> EC comic art panel by panel, you are going to find panels that
> many people would find more interesting than a Lichtenstein
> "imitation cartoon panel."
What a stupid exercise! Sort of like saying that Joe Schmo, Advertising
Designer, made a better soup can label than Warhol did.
> And I mean no disrespect to Lichtenstein.
I'm sure Roy is laughing in his grave at such bravado!
> After all, among other things, he is showing that a cartoon
> panel, if blown up with the proper technique, can look
> great on a wall. (I have a nice reproduction of Lichtenstein's
> South Sea Girl on a wall I love it.)
I honestly can't imagine a more intellectually shallow account of
Lichtenstein than that, William. Why don't you make the attempt to see
what Lichtenstein was all about, or what Pop Art is all about. I think
it would be a rewarding experience for you.
Anyway, I simply happen
> to believe that there are a great many authentic comic book
> illustrations which could be reproduced and blown up in size
> with impressive results. Nothing superficial about it. Often
> it is a case of illustrators becoming true artists in spite of
> themselves.
But the comic strip is a narrative art form. When you pluck out
graphics from the story, it's just a picture, in fact an anti-narrative.
If you read Varnadoe in "High and Low" from the MOMA show you can see
what I'm talking about.
Graham Ingels, it is often suggested, was
> destroyed because of the backlash over his EC art.
> People like Dr. Wertham made Engels feel guilty about
> his brilliant work for EC, so much so that he became
> ashamed of his own art, and that is a terrible
> thing for an immensely talented artist like Ingels.
> His work will disturb you, scare the hell out of you,
> even make you sick with fear, but I think art needs to
> do that sometimes. My own view of Ingels is that he
> is a true artist, worthy of the same stature in eerie art
> that Lovecraft has in eerie literature. I would love
> to have some blown-up reproductions of Ingels' work
> on my walls. Not the gruesome depictions, but the
> eeriely moody ones, such as the old house in the bayou...
> Among other things, Ingels is a master of mood.
> Yes, some people in this group would consider
> Ingels' art ugly and horrible, but remember, many
> people said the same thing of surrealism, and in
> fact, surrealism challenged traditional views of
> beauty and ugliness.
I was raised on pre-comic code EC's, great stuff. But you don't want to
rip the art out of context, as I said above. If you sacrifice the
narrative form, comics lose too much. But that is yet another example
of superficiality.
>
>>The topic is therefore superficial.
>>
>
> I don't think so.
Of course it is, since you are reducing both Pop Art and Comic Art down
to "what it looks like." That's silly, on both counts. If you study
Art History, for example, your first seminar should instruct you about
the weakness of the "like begets like" inference. If you reduce
everything down to surface appearance, you will imagine all sorts of
connections, historical and aesthetic, where none actually exist.
It's like George Kubler, in his theory piece "The Shape of Time." He
proposes that there are grand themes in art history, and uses landscape
painting as an example. But by his idea, you would have to infer a
relationship between Roman mural painting and Diebenkorn's "Ocean Park"
paintings, both manifestations of landscape painting. The relationship
simply doesn't exist, either historically or aesthetically.
EAM
Thomas Ziorjen
You are entirely correct Erik. Nail on head.
regards,
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://www.user.dccnet.com/thomas_ziorjen
Noumenon
> You are just plain wrong in another respect too. Everything
> in the art world has NOT been "ground down" in this forum.
Not everything should be discussed.
90% of all that people try to discuss is quite PLAIN and OBVIOUS.
If you happen to belong to those who want to discuss
every good-for-nothing dauber and every piece of something resembling
art -
Just go ahead and do it!
Probably you have an eternity in reserve to prate useless verbiage about
everything.
You will find yourself in minority in this.
After all, most people prefer to MAKE ART instead of talking about it -
for ever...
-------
> Let's take a recent example of your being off by a mile in what
> you rather pompously assert above. You never encountered
> anything like my "Feldstein versus Lichtenstein" post of a
> days back. Is it safely in the art world (to stay within your
> limits)?
You can save your morbid ardour for other occassions.
Most of people [interested in art] will leave comics out of it.
I am not an exception, alas.
I do not consider something to be an "art" if it's not.
Besides, similar discussions [of whether illustration is ART or NOT]
happen all the time,
but it does not lie within the scope of my interests.
[Even though I made illustrations for few sci-fi books. Years ago...]
----------
>>> What you have to offer for discussion?
> Recently, about thirty highly-original ideas you have
> refused to get off your high-horse and tackle.
I doubt that any of these "ideas" are worth anything as they are, and
certainly not worth my time for sure. And yours?
---------
> No, you stagnate because you chew the same worn-out cuds over
> and over. Even cattle are too wise to do that.
Naturally, I can not say for the whole forum.
I am too small for that.
But I certainly do not stagnate because I don't like to waste time and
I never "chew" things I am NOT interested in...
Thus, for example, I DO NOT DISCUSS:
sacral and religious art, abstract expressionism, abstracionism in
general, impressionism, post-impressionism, expressionism, futurism,
suprematism, primitivism, existentialism, Bauhaus, Cubism, Fauvism, Blue
Horseman, digital art, 3D art, animation, comics, pop-art, photography,
collage, op-art, commercial illustration, movies, handicraft and
decorative works, indeustrial design, fashion design, interior design,
small forms and architectural applications.
At least - I have less puddles of stagnation to lay in than others,
don't I?