Most Influencial Artist Ever . . . ?
Mary Happy
The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
I say Walt Disney. Does that surprise anyone? Anyone want to
argue the point? I don't have to ask Ross twice, I know.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A merry, happy Yule, y'all.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas C. Waters
Lone...@Shine.com (Mary Happy) writes:
> The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
I think I'd say Michealangelo or another Ren. period artist here
> The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
This is a harder question since it calls to mind a need to define
success....
But I'd probably say Andy Warhol....
He really knew how to get his "art" and have it turn out MAJOR amounts
of $$$$$$$. Please note, I did not say it was good art, I just called
it art.
> Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
>
> I say Walt Disney. Does that surprise anyone?
I think Disney was a great visionary and a tremendous business person
who built quite an empire. But being a creative person and being an
artist are not one in the same for me. I'm not aware of any actual ART
that he himself did. I'm not saying he isn't successful... but I think
his success isn't about his art, but rather about his ability to make
his dream into a reality. That is a skill that more artists need, but
isn't at the basis of making art.
Or... Maybe it is....
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise. Straight
society has been doing the same in reverse forever, and I'm tired of
it.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Andy Pearlman
>The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
>
>I say Walt Disney. Does that surprise anyone? Anyone want to
>argue the point? I don't have to ask Ross twice, I know.
With that say, I think you need to define terms. Walt Disney was a successful
businessman who managed a group of artists(including himself) to produce
animation cels. But then allowing him lets in the Warner Brothers, who were
more successful in their own lifetimes than Disney. Influential to whom?
People in general, other artists?
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
"I think I'm going ... to regret this ... in the morning...."
Connie Kroneman
>
>
>The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
>The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
>
God.
>Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
If you don't get it, it would take too long to explain. BTW, I normally
wouldn't have answered this way, but it is almost Christmas.
>
>I say Walt Disney. Does that surprise anyone? Anyone want to
>argue the point? I don't have to ask Ross twice, I know.
Surprise, yes, because I don't think of Disney as a Fine Artist. Though
he did design those theme parks(with help). No argument here. 10% of my
video collection is Disney. That is equalled only by my collection of
Star Trek stuff. But I think Disney still wins in that comparison.
Happy Holidays - Peace and Health
Connie
Susan Eshelman
>
>The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
>The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
God wins it, hands down.
>Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
The entire world is still celebrating just one of his many creations.
Happy Christmas.
Thomas C. Waters
Susan Eshelman <aa...@islandnet.com> writes:
> >The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
> >The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
>
> God wins it, hands down.
I have nothing against God. By all means, I owe all that I am to God.
But...
I never really thought of God as an artist. The Divine Creator of all
that is??? You bet. An artist?? Nope.
But, since I'm an artist.. does that make me like God??? What do you
think Susan???
(BTW, I don't think so. People can be artists, but only God can be the
Divine Creator. D.C.'s create.. mortal artists merely express., IMHO)
> >Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
>
> The entire world is still celebrating just one of his many creations.
Do artists create, or do artists merely express, articualte, and mirror
what already is?
Susan Eshelman
>I have nothing against God. By all means, I owe all that I am to God.
>But...
>
>I never really thought of God as an artist. The Divine Creator of all
>that is??? You bet. An artist?? Nope.
There's a wonderful story in the Srimad Bhagavatam about Krsna (the
Supreme Personality of God) creating Radha to stand in relationship as
his conjugal lover. Krsna was so enticed by watching the pleasure Radha
experienced when worshipping him, that he later came back in a direct
expansion as Radha, so that he might have the entire experience of being
the worshipper instead of the worshipped. This sounds to me like the act
of a true artist.
>But, since I'm an artist.. does that make me like God??? What do you
>think Susan???
Simultaneously one and different. In other words, Thomas, you will
always be the same as God qualitatively, but never quantitatively.
>(BTW, I don't think so. People can be artists, but only God can be the
>Divine Creator. D.C.'s create.. mortal artists merely express., IMHO)
I agree that only God is the Divine Creator, but I think the pleasure
factor is involved here, as well. Surely some of God's creations were
variations on a theme, done solely for the pleasure of the cretive
experience.
>> >Who do you think fits those descriptions, and what is your reasoning?
>>
>> The entire world is still celebrating just one of his many creations.
>
>Do artists create, or do artists merely express, articualte, and mirror
>what already is?
The Vedas say that all conditioned souls are just perverted reflections
of the Absolute Truth. The conclusion I draw is that only God creates -
the rest of us spend our millions of lifetimes re-tracing the established
patterns. There's nothing new under the sun.
Merry Christmas, and many happy return lifetimes. No, scratch that. May
you find liberation by the New Year.
Susan
Susan Eshelman
James-Jason Lee
The most influential artist ever...?
I would submit that the artist that first laid down the rules of perspective
drawing would have my vote --- unfortunately, the artist is unknown, though
there are several famous early renaissance artists that use it: Brunelleschi
(sp?), Bramante, etc.
Perspectivism belied and in part developed Enlightenment thinking and how our
vision of the world is formulated.
This goes without saying that there are more influential people than artists
in history.
JJ (jl...@capcollege.bc.ca.)
Charles Eicher
> The most influential artist ever...?
>
> I would submit that the artist that first laid down the rules of perspective
> drawing would have my vote --- unfortunately, the artist is unknown, though
> there are several famous early renaissance artists that use it: Brunelleschi
> (sp?), Bramante, etc.
>
> Perspectivism belied and in part developed Enlightenment thinking and how our
> vision of the world is formulated.
yep, I'll second that.. Although, I'd pick Pozzo as the most influential
artist in history.. As far as I know, Pozzo's book on perspective
techniques, as well as his anamorphic tricks to integrate perspective with
architecture, were the most influential of all the early perspective
books.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Mary Happy
> That is a skill that more artists need, but
>isn't at the basis of making art.
>
>Or... Maybe it is....
And how do you account for the success of Mark Kostabi? Or, for
that matter, how do you account for the success of many fine
sculptors who never laid a hand on the actual sculpture attributed
to them? Stone sculptors were often common stone masons who
merely scaled up the artists model.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A seasonal good-timer.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy
>God wins it, hands down.
You know, I once got involved in a thread, a long time ago in R.A.F.
and was flamed until I was charred and blackened for my views on
the supreme creator of all that is and the failure of artists to replicate
even some of the simplest of HER creations. (No, I wasn't flamed over
gender--it was over believing in a god). Some people thought that
so-called masterpieces like the Mona Lisa were better than god-creations.
It's hard to tell how much of that thread was tongue-in-cheek and how
many really believed the tripe they wrote.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A merry, happy Yule to one and all.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marge Jackson
writes:
>
>
>The most influential artist ever is ____________________.
>The most successful artist ever is ___________________.
>
>
>argue the point? I don't have to ask Ross twice, I know.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mary Happy <A merry, happy Yule, y'all.>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Responding for the first time, so bare with the shaky writing....
Most influential artist...I think the main point is being missed by
many of the responses. Influence. That is the word to ponder.
Perhaps, looking past the Michelangelo's and the instant reponses, we
should think about who really has changed the art scene, or the idea of
art. Who made everyone redefine their opinion of art. Black Mountain
College artists. The White Painting.
Or maybe if we think about Cristo and his idea of art being a process
and involving communities. Those are the influential people that come
to my mind. I think of wonderfully gifted artist, and I credit the
classic men and women, but most of our classics were formalist masters.
The influence that we need to note is the conceptual artists. Without
concept, skill is easily matched.
I might agree on picking Warhol on the most successful jig, but I seem
to look at Warhol as a man who made his ART actually into being
successful. (I don't know if I communicated that thought very
well...). I mean, Warhol made himself successful AS his art. His art
was being successful.
Would appreciate any dialogue.
DJ >
Thomas C. Waters
Lone...@Shine.com (Mary Happy) writes:
> In article <4b749c$e...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, twa...@pitt.edu says...
> > That is a skill that more artists need, but
> >isn't at the basis of making art.
> >
> >Or... Maybe it is....
>
> And how do you account for the success of Mark Kostabi? Or, for
> that matter, how do you account for the success of many fine
> sculptors who never laid a hand on the actual sculpture attributed
> to them? Stone sculptors were often common stone masons who
> merely scaled up the artists model.
Mary, you haven't left enough of the earlier post for me to remember
the exact context in which I made my comments, but IMHO, your post here
brings up an important distinction.
One point, that I'm not going into is the issue of "success" and what
constitutes success, but I think that alone can answer your question
about Kostabi.
I think a mistake made frequently here in these threads is to assume
that the artist is the one who makes the object, as if the object IS
the art. Possibly it is, but equally possible is another perspective:
The art is the essence (wrong word but I'm not yet sure what the right
word is) within the object, ot the characteristics imparted into the
object by the artist.
Even a machine can be set up to make a beautiful object. Does that
make the machine an artist??? Is there no difference between me as a
person and the machine???
No, the art, the ability to make art has something to do with my
ability to create, to express, to thik, combine thoughts and ideas and
constructs...
If, I see art as merely technical skill, I degrade the artist to be
nothing better than a machine.
Mary Happy
>I might agree on picking Warhol on the most successful jig, but I seem
>to look at Warhol as a man who made himself successful AS his art. His art
>was being successful.
Other reasons for my choice of Disney as the greatest and most
influencial of all time: stop and think about Mickey Mouse a moment.
Mickey=Disney=Mickey and I doubt that you could find a remote
corner of this globe where Mickey is not known--indeed, LOVED.
Walt Disney made animation an art form. He then took his
audience from being a passive audience to being active participants
via his DisneyLand and Disney World art forms. And anyone who
doesn't think of DisneyLand as art just hasn't been thinking ART.
For those who never thought of Disney in terms of being a "Fine Artist"
ala Johns, Pollock, et al--remember that these latter are influential
only insofar as people who know ART know who they are. Disney is
known far and wide, to intellectual and idiot alike. Anyone who doesn't
think of Disney as an artist does not know much about him or his
work--his vision--his mastery of entertainment--and his demanding,
wholesome, invigorating aura. I would recommend you read his
biography, now out in 1994 reprint--DISNEY, by Bob Thomas.
After reading the biography, perhaps you'll have different insight
into the unprecedented accomplishment of creating a Disney World.
And as the recent success of the latest Disney movie TOY STORY
proves, Walt Disney's legacy is alive and thriving in even the new art
forms.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A DisneyLand Xmas to y'all.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy
>Mary, you haven't left enough of the earlier post for me to remember
>the exact context in which I made my comments
Sorry--I guess because my newsreader leaves the previous pieces
of the thread in place, I assume everyone's does. But you go on to
reiterate my point very well. Concept is all when it comes to ART.
Execution is the jurisdiction of CRAFT.
When speaking of someone like Walt Disney, who was able to
not only envision, but see his vision through to final execution, all the
while having full say about the quality of the execution--that is being an
"A"rtist, with a capital A.
>One point, that I'm not going into is the issue of "success" and what
>constitutes success
Success, in its broadest terms, is all-encompassing. No intelligent
person would take issue with the dictionary definitions of success--
"the attainment of wealth, favor, OR eminence." Note that the dictionary
does not use AND. Each of us has our own notion, I'm sure, of what
defines success for ourselves.
I credit Disney with success, not becuase he succeeded at ALL he
attempted, but because of his foremost eminence. After that, credit him
with forging acclaim and fortune for himself. Disney was, above all else, one-of-
a-kind. There may never again be another who can wear his crown.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A seasonal good-timer.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas C. Waters
Lone...@Shine.com (Mary Happy) writes:
> I credit Disney with success, not becuase he succeeded at ALL he
> attempted, but because of his foremost eminence. After that, credit him
> with forging acclaim and fortune for himself. Disney was, above all else, one-of-
> a-kind. There may never again be another who can wear his crown.
I am not disagreeing that Disney has accomplished much. I'm not
disagreeing that he pushed the understanding and enjoyment of
animation. I'm not disagreeing that he was a visionary, and an
inventor...
But I'm still a little shaky about why he is catagorized as an artist
for all this. Yes, I posted that stuff about concept, and while I
think it does apply to Disney in a way... it doesn't answer the real
question.
Before going on, let's consider another individual(s). The person who
first created a space rocket; one that really flew into the sky. Or
the person who created the space shuttle. Now, IMHO it is one
beautiful event to watch the space shuttle, as beautiful and amazing as
any ballet or other form of art.
But is this person who created a space shuttle an artist?
Mary, you comment on seeing Disneyland as art. I haven't been to
disneyland.. I've been to Epcot center however. I'd say that the theme
parks are truly amazing in their design, and very visually stimulating,
but that alone doesn't make them art.
There is something needed in addition to the concept.. this needs to be
distilled down into something, almost always an object that "holds" or
"frames" the concept for observation. I don't think
Disneyworld/land/et al do that. I think they package the
vision/concept for consumption.
BTW, I say none of this to slam Disney. I agree he has been very
influentual, and a brilliant dreamer he was.
But considering he has affcted folks for.. how many years now?? 50???
or so, I find it difficult to see that as more than artists who have
influenced 1000 years of art and culture. That's a broad
generalization, but my basic point underneath is sound I think.
You mention "Toy Store" as an example of his continued influence.
While the Disney Co, the team that now runs the org may be continuing
in the Disney tradition, I don't see any connection between disney the
man and Toy Store. BTW, did you know the AFA is calling all its
members to boycott Disney because the movie Toy Story encourages drug
use and homosexuality???? The main character is a figure named "Woody"
a clear sexual slur, and his side kick is a character named "Buzz" a
clear drug slang word.
I point this out only to illustrate that differing people have
differeing ideas about influence.
Charles Eicher
Happy) wrote:
> Other reasons for my choice of Disney as the greatest and most
> influencial of all time: stop and think about Mickey Mouse a moment.
> Mickey=Disney=Mickey and I doubt that you could find a remote
> corner of this globe where Mickey is not known--indeed, LOVED.
1. Excuse me, but there is considerable dispute as to whether Walt created
Mickey. There is considerable evidence that his collaborator, in the days
before 'Disney Productions' (Ub Iwerks, I believe) actually created and
drew the Mickey character originally.
2. There is at LEAST one corner of the world where Mickey, and everything
Disney represents, is loathed. More on that later..
> Walt Disney made animation an art form.
Excuse me again, but there were many animators who made animation 'an art
form' long before Disney. For example, you might investigate Hans
Richter's 'Absolute Film' experiments.
> And as the recent success of the latest Disney movie TOY STORY
> proves, Walt Disney's legacy is alive and thriving in even the new art
> forms.
What does Disney have to do with 'Toy Story', other than that they are
distributing the picture? That movie was solely created and produced by
Pixar.
To more directly address the issue of disney:
I have often wondered what the world would be like if our minds were not
infested from the age of infancy with Disney characters, and other
marketed and prepackaged advertisements. I often fantasize about a world
with no Barneys, Mickeys, Power Rangers, or Ronald McDonalds. I imagine it
would be a world where children would use their own imaginations to create
their OWN rich fantasy life, rather than have it spoon fed to them. And in
my fantasy, best of all, these children might grow up free of the undue
influences of advertising, where greedy corporations seek to sell them
greasy hamburgers and expensive plastic toys, sold with the images of
these prepackaged advertising characters.
In closing, I'll quote a bit from a media manifesto I once read:
"DEATH to the information criminals, who seek to colonize our subconscious
with their prepackaged fantasies, to make us more amenable to advertising
technology.."
Have a Disney-free Christmas, everyone!
Mary Happy
>I am not disagreeing that Disney has accomplished much.
>But I'm still a little shaky about why he is catagorized as an artist
>for all this.
I invite you to read his biography, written objectively I think, by
Bob Thomas. Not only was Disney a visual artist--that's all he
ever wanted to be as a youth--a cartoonist to be sure--but that is
in the art realm, I believe--he was a performing artist par excellance,
as you will learn reading accounts of his performances in the bio.
He was the voice of Mickey Mouse for many years when sound
first was attached to the movie clips. He could act out his ideas
in such dramatic fashion that people he worked with would admit
to having had tears in their eyes at the end of one of his
solo performances.
You have to have grown up in the Disney era, as I did, to really
appreciate the artistic accomplishments of the man. Who can
watch a Disney movie without being moved? It may be Snow White
or it may be Living Desert, or one of his others, but you WILL be
moved somehow. Maybe you don't think of the artistic side of
what he accomplished, because he took art to such a height that
it is difficult to sometimes appreciate the artistic efforts that went
into it because the technology involved tends to overpower the art.
But DisneyLand, Epcot, etc. were conceived and designed by artists,
not by architects and engineers, although the latter played supporting
roles.
Your analogy of a rocket designed to penetrate space is just that,
an analogy. Disney's "rockets" were designed to transport the
IMAGINATION of people who interact with the firmly anchored
replicas. You have to know that Disney started out as a traditional
artist--commercial artist perhaps--but he produced and sold his
drawings and paintings just as any artist does today. It was his
life's work that is going to be remembered long into the future.
He made history--maybe he won't end up being the most
influential artist ever when future generations ponder that question,
but for me, for now, looking at all the accomplishments of all those
who were called "ARTIST" in the past, I have to believe what he
accomplished in his lifetime, and the influences it has had on
contemporary culture, has to be unprecedented, and will remain
so for a long time to come.
By the way, Disney was both an artist and a craftsman. Take a
look at the miniatures he built with his own hands in his hobby
years when he could take time to indulge his own creative juices.
He was a meticulous and demanding person--of himself.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy < And may y'all live happily ever after.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy
>I have often wondered what the world would be like if our minds were not
>infested from the age of infancy with Disney characters . . .
>. . . Have a Disney-free Christmas, everyone!
> Charles Eicher
It seems that Scrooge has taken on a new countenance this
season. I wonder what the stone-age child did about the shaman
and story tellers who "colored" their imaginations with word
pictures and possibly even cartoon-like drawings we now refer
to as "rock art", etc.??
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy < Even Scrooge is a figment of imagination. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas C. Waters
bit by bit with every post.
In article <4bekcv$7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Lone...@Shine.com (Mary Happy) writes:
> In article <4bccc6$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, twa...@pitt.edu says...
> >I am not disagreeing that Disney has accomplished much.
> >But I'm still a little shaky about why he is catagorized as an artist
> >for all this.
>
> I invite you to read his biography, written objectively I think, by
> Bob Thomas. Not only was Disney a visual artist--that's all he
> ever wanted to be as a youth--a cartoonist to be sure--but that is
> in the art realm, I believe--he was a performing artist par excellance,
> as you will learn reading accounts of his performances in the bio.
> He was the voice of Mickey Mouse for many years when sound
> first was attached to the movie clips. He could act out his ideas
> in such dramatic fashion that people he worked with would admit
> to having had tears in their eyes at the end of one of his
> solo performances.
So, he was talented... that alone doesn't make him either the greatest
artist, not the most influential artist ever, which was the original
questions.
> You have to have grown up in the Disney era, as I did, to really
> appreciate the artistic accomplishments of the man.
Well, I'm 38 years old.. I grew up on the world of disney every week,
sunday nights wasn't it.
But the treally laughable part of your comment is this: If one had to
have grown up in the Disney era to appreciate the artistic
accomplishments, then how could he be the most successful and
influencial artist ever???? Seems to me he would only stand a chance
of being one or both those things to a very small portion of the human
race, those who grew up in the Disney Era.
Seems to me you have a very nostalgic love of Disney, which is fine.
As I have said he was an amazing man who accomplished much. But that
alone doesn't make him either the most successful nor mostr influential
artist.
>Who can watch a Disney movie without being moved?
I am always moved to anfger by the violence and abusive way he
manipulates the viewer such as in Bambi... such a traumatic visual for
little kids!!!!
And then there is a movie like Pocahontas which rewrites history. Or
Aladdin, with it's all white cast.... yes.. can anyone not be moved by
a Disney film???
>It may be Snow White
> or it may be Living Desert, or one of his others, but you WILL be
> moved somehow.
Moved to anger, moved to rascist ideas... I dunno.....
And.. is being moved by a movie what makes it art????? I was moved to
laughter by the Airplane movies, but I'd never consider them art.
>Maybe you don't think of the artistic side of what he accomplished, because he took art to such a height that it is difficult to sometimes appreciate the artistic efforts that went
> into it because the technology involved tends to overpower the art.
This is bull shit rhetoric at its best! What great height did he take
the art, and what exactly is "the art" that he took there?
If the technology can overpower the art, can the art really be that
strong to begin with???
While old style animation is time consuming and skill intensive.. it is
technologically VERY simple. I've done some animation. And I fail to
see the art-at-such-a-height in it. Please illuminate me. (pun
intended)
> But DisneyLand, Epcot, etc. were conceived and designed by artists,
> not by architects and engineers, although the latter played supporting
> roles.
Who plays the biggest role.. is always up for grabs. I'd bet the
architects involved are VERY willing to say they took only a supporting
role!!! Yea right!! Nah.. they're probably bitching about the crazy
designs that artists drew that they then needed to make into viable
constructions. And stuff life the majic kingdom palace is based upon a
real castle which is an architextural building. Many factors influence
the creation of anything. To attribute it to one man Disney is silly.
> Your analogy of a rocket designed to penetrate space is just that, an analogy.
You fail to speak to the issue I raise here. Your comment says nothing
to my point at all.
>Disney's "rockets" were designed to transport the IMAGINATION of people who interact with the >firmly anchored replicas.
If the imagination resides within a person's head, how can a rocket be
designed to transport it??? It never leaves the person's head.
>You have to know that Disney started out as a traditional artist--commercial artist >perhaps--but he produced and sold his drawings and paintings just as any artist does today. It >was his life's work that is going to be remembered long into the futu.
I agree!!! He was a visionary and a great man, but that doesn't make
him either the most influential artist, nor the most successful artist
ever.
> He made history--maybe he won't end up being the most influential artist ever when future >generations ponder that question, but for me, for now, looking at all the accomplishments of >all those who were called "ARTIST" in the past, I have to believe
what he accomplished in his >lifetime, and the influences it has had on
contemporary culture, has to be unprecedented, and >will remain so for
a long time to come.
Many people make history. Many people influence contemporary culture.
You are fully entitled to see him as most influential, but you have
done little to justify that aside from it being your personal opinion.
And, that is enough. You are fully permitted your opinion.
> By the way, Disney was both an artist and a craftsman. Take a
> look at the miniatures he built with his own hands in his hobby
> years when he could take time to indulge his own creative juices.
> He was a meticulous and demanding person--of himself.
Yea.. so he was talented, full of vision and imagination, a great
motivator and doer, all that still doesn't make him the most successful
artist nor the most influencial artist ever... which was the original
post.
Mary Happy
>> I invite you to read his biography, written objectively I think, by
>> Bob Thomas.
As I said Twatter, do yourself a favor and read his bio. Then come
back and we can discuss the issues. I have no intention of trying
to reprise it here for you. You have done your damnest to take what
I said and set it to your own music. If you wish to disagree, fine.
But don't take my statements out of context and apply your own
spin to them.
I began this thread not out of some particular fascination with
Disney, but because I ran across the new printing of his bio in
a book store the other day. I had read the bio when it was first
published many years ago (in 1976, to be exact). It was hard
for me to realize that he died 30 years ago. It started me thinking
because Disney remains such a powerful presence today in
our culture--witness recent releases, expansion of the theme
parks abroad, etc.
It is a refelection of your own prejudices that you would read
abhorrent content into what MOST poeple view as wholesome
family entertainment. Anyone with a twisted mind can put
whatever wierd and screwball spin they want on movies, books,
TV shows, and what I write here. That doesn't make it so. It only
exposes you for the oddball wierdo you are. I'll bet you even wore
Mickey Mouse ears, and maybe still do.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy < M-I-C K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas C. Waters
I pose real, rational questions and she counters with personal attacks.
And she thinks I'm the wierd one. Boy...
What he/she (Mary that is, she/he comes and goes under different names,
but the sentiment is always the same) seems to neglect is that there
are differing sides to all things.
You may note, Mary only quotes a little bit of my post, and then goes
on to slam the rest of what I say... because she can't comment on it
unless she paints it in her own way....
I on the other hand continue to quote her and speak to her comments one
by one.
I really don't need to continue this thread at all. This close to the
holiday there are plenty of more important things to do that deal with
your personal attacks Mary. I love a good discussion, too bad you have
to resort to personal attacks and slams that you can't back up.
I also don't need to continue this because it will appear as if I'm
attacking Disney and I'm not. He was a remarkable man, a great
innovator, visionary, and creator!!! He has altered our contemporary
culture, there is no doubt about it. That doesn't make him the most
influential or successful artist in my opinion, but what is my opinion
worth??? No more than anyone else's.
Mary, I feel sorry for you. You have such a single sighted halcyon
viewof life and culture!!! That is a shame. You miss so much that
way. For all the greatness of Disney, it elevates him even more when
you are able to see the flaws as well as his good points, which you
Mary can't seem to do. But that isn't my problem.
In article <4bf2m6$h...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Lone...@Shine.com (Mary Happy) writes:
> In article <4beneq$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, twa...@pitt.edu says...
>
> >> I invite you to read his biography, written objectively I think, by
> >> Bob Thomas.
>
> As I said Twatter, do yourself a favor and read his bio. Then come
> back and we can discuss the issues.
The issues can be discussed without me reading a bio. The issues are
the issues. If one needs to read one specific book to be able to
discuss them, then there is no way Disney is so great. Now, if you are
saying that you only want to discuss this with someone who shares your
perspective.. that's fine. Just say so.
I haven't time to read his bio. I'm in the middle of Paul Tillich's
Historty of Christian Thought, and I want to finish soon. As for you
assertion that his bio is objective... nothing you have said has ben
objective, so why should your crtitique of one book be worthy???
>I have no intention of trying to reprise it here for you.
I never asked you to. I did however hope you could put in your own
words, a discussion supporting your positions. I guess that was too
much to ask.
>You have done your damnest to take what I said and set it to your own music. If you wish to >disagree, fine. But don't take my statements out of context and apply your own spin to >them.
Well, considering that I take your posts line for line, like this one..
I don't think I'm taking things out of context. I am however pointiong
out that there are viewpoints that differ from your own. Youre comment
about everyone being moved by a Disney film is a good point. You see
that "moved" as a positive thing. I merely pointed out how not
everyone would agree. Such as how the pocahantas movie rewrote history
portraying the actual situation in a "safe" moral way as opposed to the
reality of the real story. The Lion King (one of my favorite movies)
is pretty vacant on non-white characters. Aladdin too is pretty white.
These aren't my ideas alone. Many people hold them. Not everyone
sees the Disney empire as the beautiful wonderful world you do.
> I began this thread not out of some particular fascination with
> Disney, but because I ran across the new printing of his bio in
> a book store the other day. I had read the bio when it was first
> published many years ago (in 1976, to be exact). It was hard
> for me to realize that he died 30 years ago. It started me thinking
> because Disney remains such a powerful presence today in
> our culture--witness recent releases, expansion of the theme
> parks abroad, etc.
Oh I agree entirely that Disney remains a powerful presence. And a
good presense for the most part. I personally have been elated that
the Disney Co. has extended benifits to domestic partners of same sex
relationships!!!! They deserve three gold stars IMHO. But they also
recently pulled out of several theme part projects because local
residents didn't want their communities affected in the negative ways
that come with a big theme park. Eurodisney has been less than
stellar. As with all large corporations, there are ups and downs, wins
and losses.
> It is a refelection of your own prejudices that you would read abhorrent content into what >MOST poeple view as wholesome family entertainment.
Actually the fact that you only want to hear what Most people believe,
is a sign of your predudice not mine. That there are multiple
viewpoints is a sign of my openmindedness.
There was a time when MOST people believe slavery was acceptable. But
that didn't make thatr viewpoint accurate. It just says that people
hold opinions and often there is a majority opinion and a minority
opinion, as well as many other opinions in between.
Wholesome (your word) is an interesting one. Consider the recent
Disney film "Priest". This film dealt realistically and corageously
with the issue of a gay preist as he struggles to deal with his
personal feelings in relation to his spiritual obligation. Now, IMHO,
this was a tremendously important film. But there are PLENTY of folks
ranging from the Catholic church to the radical fundementalists that
see noithing whjolesome about that film. Likewise the film "Toy Store"
which you mentioned as an exammple of Disney's continuing affect on our
culture has been ruthlessly attacked by the AFA (American Family Assoc)
an ultra right wing group. In theri press release they cal the movie
degrading and perverse. Those aren't my words, those are the AFA's
words. They accuse the film of promoting homosexuality because the
main character's name is woody, a sex slang term. Now, I think that is
silly. But that's what the AFA has to say.
>Anyone with a twisted mind can put whatever wierd and screwball spin they want on movies, >books,TV shows, and what I write here. That doesn't make it so.
Are you calling the American Family Association twisted????
>It only exposes you for the oddball wierdo you are. I'll bet you even wore Mickey Mouse ears, and maybe still do.
I certianly did wear them as a little kid!! The Mickey Mouse clubwas
daily fare in my home when I was little. And I'm proud of it. Please
look at my posts. I have said repeatedly that I think Disney was a
great man. I have just called you to task, asking you to support your
comments about why he is the most influential artist ever....
Something you can't seem to do.
What really however surprises me a little is your attacking me as an
"oddball wierdo". How McCarthy of you!!!! Frankly, IMHO, most if not
many many artists are oddball, different than the majority of people.
That's not a bad thing, but a good thing!!! I'm happy(but only my
friends call me Mary :-)) that I'm not white bread-like. That I am
unique and see things from a differing perspective!!! I wouldn't want
it any other way. To be radical, different, not quite the same as
everyone else; not a conformist puts me in some pretty good company of
Artists throughout the centuries. I wouldn't doubt that there were
folks who called Disney a wierdo too.
Andy Pearlman
>In article <4b7rlj$g...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, aa...@islandnet.com says...
>
>>God wins it, hands down.
>
>You know, I once got involved in a thread, a long time ago in R.A.F.
>and was flamed until I was charred and blackened for my views on
>the supreme creator of all that is and the failure of artists to replicate
>even some of the simplest of HER creations. (No, I wasn't flamed over
>gender--it was over believing in a god). Some people thought that
>so-called masterpieces like the Mona Lisa were better than god-creations.
Hmm.. Well, that means you're one of two people. Or your definition of a
long time ago means you're still a youngster in internet/RAF terms - I was
one of the vote rallyers to get this group established.
I believe you got flamed because of the last statement, not the belief in god -
If you think a mountain or a sunset is more impressive than particular
artworks, there is no need to bring god into the equation. It assumes that
your argument is so feeble that people who don't share your god beliefs won't
be agreeing with you. I view a mountain as more interesting than some
artworks, even if I think it is a creation of tectonic plate movement.
And this is as the person who defended the other person who got flamed for
saying simply she viewed her art in Christian terms.
Mary Happy
>I believe you got flamed because of the last statement, not the belief in god -
I think there were people coming down on all sides of the issue at the
time. Some simply resented references to God since they were
atheistic. The debate took off in various digressions as they often
do in this forum, some remarks having nothing to do with art.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy < Still believing in Santa Claus--and waiting.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Haber
him being an artist, and I enjoyed the provocation of his being called
the most influential ever, but I don't buy it. I have to take the
question in its usual sense of influencing other artists, not just in
reaching the broadest public, and there Disney accomplished
surprisingly little -- almost nothing outside of animated cartoons,
for one thing. Even within cartoons, the thread here should take a
look at one sometime! Most are cheap and clumsy enough to disregard
Disney's innovation and return to a mouth, say, moving against a
static form.
The other answers were pretty pitiful too. The one who said Velasquez
(certainly a very great painter) seemed to think the question was
asking for his favorite artist. The answer of God reminds me, no
doubt usefully, that there are creators other than in the visual arts
(human too, I'd add) , but that's neither here nor there.
It's a hard question because art is evolutionary -- and also because
its discoveries both can constantly be remade (think of van Eyck
working independently of Giotto and Masaccio) and yet can never be
copied exactly. I vote for da Vinci because one forgets that he
started rather before Raphael, Michelangelo, and Titian, all of whom
picked up the High Renaissance from him and whose style colored so
much later. Caravaggio comes closest to a one-man historic break;
Rembrandt's influence may have the longest "staying power"; Picasso
may have the most varied influence; I could name any number of other
good candidates.
--
John in NY
74504,11...@compuserve.com
amusing graphic here
Ima Dillo
> I have to take the
>question in its usual sense of influencing other artists, not just in
>reaching the broadest public, and there Disney accomplished
>surprisingly little -- almost nothing outside of animated cartoons,
>for one thing.
Your point about comparing influences on other artists versus
general public is well taken, and begs definition of what is meant
by "most successful and most influencial." I think it entirely appropriate
to attach those labels to Disney. You have to broaden your view of
what makes an artist if you wish to get on the level we are discussing
here. We are NOT talking about Fine Art per se. We are talking about
an artist of Leonardo's dimensions. In fact, I would not be surprised if
Disney weren't the reincarnation of Da Vinci. They were both dreamers
and seers and whereas Leonardo is not known to have ever actually
constructed working contraptions that he drew, Disney on the other
hand, given modern industrial technology, was able to see his ideas
become reality in the field of entertainment. Disney was as much a
performing artist, a producer and director, as he was a craftsman.
You are sadly misinformed though when you say Disney accomplished
little besides animated cartoons. He produced block-buster movies
like Mary Poppins, Song of the South, and others too numerous for
me to recall. Anyone who knows anything about animation would never
deny Disney his due when looking at the history of animation and the
incomparable accomplishments of Disney in that field. His feature-length
animations like Snow White, Cinderella, etc. were revolutionary in their time.
Then there were the numerous award-winning documentaries. Followed by
award winning television productions. I have no idea
how many Academy Awards Disney and his companies won over the
years, but they must now number a hundred or so. You have to understand
the the extent of Disney's involvement in every single production that went
public during his lifetime.
Disneyland was another Disney dream seen through to fruition in all its
wondrous manifestations in the form of mini-worlds within the larger theme,
as was Disney World and Epcot, although Disney died before the latter two
were completed.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sticks and stones may break YOUR bones
But getting run over is MY worry.
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Eicher
Dillo) wrote:
> Your point about comparing influences on other artists versus
> general public is well taken, and begs definition of what is meant
> by "most successful and most influencial." I think it entirely appropriate
> to attach those labels to Disney.
yeah, yeah, we've heard this all before, repetition ad nauseum.
I used to work in Hollywood, and I can't count the number of times I heard
something like this:
"Film is the ultimate art form, because it can incorporate all the other
art forms, music, painting, literature, dance, etc.."
I've heard it so many times, and in exactly the same wording, so
frequently, that I can quote it from memory. It must be the preface to the
textbook for Filmmaking 101 at USC film school.
What utter rubbish.
Take this discussion over to rec.arts.film, nobody here buys into ol' Walt
as the worlds greatest artist (well, except maybe Mani deli, he'd go for
this argument).
Ima Dillo
>Take this discussion over to rec.arts.film, nobody here buys into ol' Walt
>as the worlds greatest artist (well, except maybe Mani deli, he'd go for
>this argument).
I had hoped to generate more discussion, not have to
mount the battlements of Disney Land. True to form, however, people
prefer to attack rather than engage in constructive rebuttal.
One last plaudit for Disney, and I'll get off this thread. Disney funded
Cal Arts, and Cal Arts as it exists today owes its facility and its
design to Disney. Some may argue that his motives were selfish in
that he may have expected Cal Arts to provide the future generations
of talent for his exploitation, but regardless, he is the sole reason for
its existence today.
John Haber
influence, just repeating the comment that Disney's stuff is
artistically valid. I find that comment more reasonable than does
Charles, but it doesn't take us anywhere. You just say that he did a
lot. Well, great. Disney influenced Disney and his studio. You
know, I influenced myself too.
Reread the limitations of his influence that I articulated; they
extend even to animators!
Andy Pearlman
>In article <4bp2fu$h...@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>, 74504...@compuserve.com says...
>>reaching the broadest public, and there Disney accomplished
>>surprisingly little -- almost nothing outside of animated cartoons,
>>for one thing.
>
>general public is well taken, and begs definition of what is meant
>by "most successful and most influencial." I think it entirely appropriate
>what makes an artist if you wish to get on the level we are discussing
>here. We are NOT talking about Fine Art per se. We are talking about
>an artist of Leonardo's dimensions. In fact, I would not be surprised if
>Disney weren't the reincarnation of Da Vinci. They were both dreamers
>and seers and whereas Leonardo is not known to have ever actually
>constructed working contraptions that he drew, Disney on the other
>hand, given modern industrial technology, was able to see his ideas
>become reality in the field of entertainment. Disney was as much a
>performing artist, a producer and director, as he was a craftsman.
Say what? Da Vinci came up with ideas that were far beyond his day. Disney
happened to be one of several people utilizing a common technology. Impressive
results, yes, but there is a huge difference in seeing how to use something
better and seeing something which can't exist for several hundred years due to
lack of technology - and describing what it must be like. It is the reason
he was able to field teams of animators - people who if they had been born
5-10 years earlier and with better business sense might have accomplished the
same thing. No one was thinking up practical designs for helicopters and
submarines in Da Vinci's day except him.
>You are sadly misinformed though when you say Disney accomplished
>little besides animated cartoons. He produced block-buster movies
>like Mary Poppins, Song of the South, and others too numerous for
>me to recall. Anyone who knows anything about animation would never
>deny Disney his due when looking at the history of animation and the
>incomparable accomplishments of Disney in that field. His feature-length
>animations like Snow White, Cinderella, etc. were revolutionary in their time.
Disney is a very good animator, who like many artists have many art related
talents, who was a savvy businessman at the right time. What he accomplished
technically is lauditory, but as an artist he runs into quite a few
competitors who have had far more influence in his own fields:
Cecil De Mille, John Huston, and Fellini had enormous influence over several
generations of filmakers. The Warner Bros have had a more lasting influence
on the field of animation than Disney. As an artist, Disney generally took
an extremely conservative bent. He eviserated the original stories in favor of
a diluted version(or didn't you know Pinocchio went around slashing people
with knives or Cinderella's evil sisters were blinded and cut off their own
heels and toes respectively to try to fit into the glass slippers). Disney
took the easy route out with the happy ending, again and again. A great
artist, perhaps. The most influential/successful ever? I don't think so.
BSBN Publishing
There is no such thing as "most __(anything)__." Any creative person only
influences those who are on the same wavelength and have some understanding
of what the creator was up to. That persons work means nothing to everyone
else. Disney influence is probably due to the relation to childhood
memories. I didn't really appreciate the old animation until I was maybe a
teen and became more aware of art in general, and appreciated the
"painterly" quality of the pre-Hanna-Barbara cartoons.
As far as Disney goes, his influence is the result of marketing that
followed his footsteps, not just his talent, per say. I think I'm probably
referring to the period after the advent of TV too, since marketing related
to movies was much more limited when movies and radio were the main
vehicles.
Something like that.
Gogi, the non-sequitorialist.
-------
ProLine: bs...@pro-algonquin.mn.org
Mark Perry
: In article <4bhdf0$m...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com says...
: >I believe you got flamed because of the last statement, not the belief in god -
: I think there were people coming down on all sides of the issue at the
: time. Some simply resented references to God since they were
: atheistic. The debate took off in various digressions as they often
: do in this forum, some remarks having nothing to do with art.
: --
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Mary Happy < Still believing in Santa Claus--and waiting.>
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
plenty to be said about Walt Disney though.......