Sometimes I wonder if we need to redefine what “bad” art is.
If Leroy Neiman had done that Ingres drawing, he’d have used neon pencil for the lines in the lapels and sleeves, and left out the composition, modeling, lighting, facial characteristics, etc.
But he’d have really made it vital with the neon pencils!
No. We cannot risk violating the Geneva Conventions.
And now I’ve got to get the idea of illustrating it in the style of LeRoy Neiman out of my head before bad things happen.
Drag name!
Neiman’s style was too blinding to suit every subject, but he had serious talent. He could insert well-posed figures into a setting with a few quick strokes (or dribbles) of paint.
Slithy Tove: I much prefer the E. deKooning JFK, but the Neiman seems to date from 2009, when Leroy was in his late 80s. Go back 30 years and I’m sure he could do a lot better.
If I had somebody to de-bitch me, I’d be a mime.
Really? I see a lot of difference, if you hadn’t told me the Neiman was Kennedy, I would have said it was anybody.
I see it as his version of frame 313 of the Zapruder film.
My dear, you are positively en fuego in this thread.
Folks may not like Rothko - but that is more based on “modern art isn’t really art” or “my kid could do that” types of feelings. I strongly disagree re: Rothko but get that YMMV.
With Nieman, he had a “look” - and there’s a not so fine line between branding a look and having / exploring a style. Monet had a style and explored many different scenes and objects using that style. Neiman had a look and “Neimanized” anything he painted.
Neiman’s style captured the energy of sports action well. His work won’t be influential like the very “serious” artists, but he was good at what he did, and I don’t begrudge him his riches. His original paintings probably deserved in the low 5 figures.
Besides, I agree with Steve Martin’s view of art - “I believe entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you’re an idiot.”
What Leroy Neiman did wasn’t really deep, but it would have been wrong for him to do anything but what he did. Unlike Kinkade, who I think approached work cynically, intentionally producing “art lite” (and make sure it doesn’t clash with the sofa!).
I’m reminded of something Norman Rockwell said: I’m constantly meeting people who say “I don’t know much about art, but I love your work.” As if that’s a compliment! Occasionally, it would be nice to have someone say, " I know a LOT about art, and I love your work."
I was WONDERING when someone would make a Top Secret! joke!
I’m sort of relieved I’m not famous enough to have Eve write my obituary. That may have been “de-bitched”, but plenty of snark sure survived. His paintings sold for three figures, not counting the decimal point? I sniggered, but then I’m a big fan snark, and not of Neiman.
See also: ROCKY III.
That is SO CUTE I think I might puke!
(later, after puking) If one should care to join me in puking, there is Ingres’s Napoleon Entroned. Not sickeningly kitschy like that baby’s face, but magnificently kitschy.
I always like Neiman’s Cannes Beauty Contest. I remembered it accurately for showing how beef was cheap in 1961 France, but I also remember more cellulite than it actually shows.
The only way I’m going to be famous is if Eve DOES write my obituary. 
My life is eminently snark-worthy. 
ETA: When I read he had died I had a moment of stupidity and said, “I didn’t know he was still alive.”
When I read he had died I said, “Didn’t he die two weeks ago?” I need to get into that Celebrity Deathpool except I needed to predict back in December and he wasn’t worth shit for points.
A great appraisal of his work in an artistic and cultural context - in the NYTimes; not sure if it can be read without a subscription:
LeRoy Neiman and the Serious Art World - The New York Times.