It’s called informed opinion, unlike the drivel that you post. Read the first sentence in the second paragraph, genius. Do you really think I would make something like that up about one of the most beloved commercial artists of our time? I owned three books that contained all of his SEP covers and liked him as much as anybody.
One of the hallmarks of postmodernism is the destruction of the lines between fine art, pop art, and commercial art. The trend in modern art in general is one of moving away from didactic statements about what is “real” art, and discrediting the entire concept of artistic gatekeepers. The watershed movement of the Impressionist movement - which was the beginning of modern art - was the 1863 Salon des Refuses, literally, the “exhibition of rejects,” which featured paintings that had been refused a showing at the Paris Salon - at the time, the single most important art show in Europe. Postmodernism fully realized this democratization of art, with artists like Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Roy Lichtenstein presenting pop and commercial artifacts as works of art entirely on equal footing as those of the great masters. Postmodernism, more than any other artistic movement, is anti-elitist, populist, with the broadest definition imaginable about what constitutes “art.”
Ironically, the vast majority of art snobbery these days comes from people like yourself: people with little-to-no formal education or background in art theory, and usually a very limited exposure to what’s being done in the art world. While there remain no shortage of professional art critics who are eager to blast something for being bad art, the critics who will declare that something is not art at all are few and far between.
In short, Qin, on this subject, as on so many others, you have no idea at all what you’re talking about.
Wife: “What are you laughing at?”
Me: “The kids are in the room. I’ll tell you later.”
I’ve only rarely watched NASCAR, but I listen to a great deal of country music. Both of these American cultural delights are known and enjoyed worldwide, even by people capable of spelling.
Hmm… so a director who makes commercial movies can’t be an artist, and a songwriter who writes commercial songs (for a musical, for instance) can’t be an artist, and an artist who accepts commissions to paint portraits can’t be an artist?
Have I got all that right?
Yeah, an “illustrator”.
Look at Schwerner’s eyes and face, then call him an illustator.
Or this one, snob. An illustrator, yeah, right.
Didn’t mean his ‘political work’? Okay, how about this lighting and letters that float?
Snob.
Huh. And here I thought it was obvious from the line in the critique that said “the only dance moment” was barely concealed disdain and sarcasm about the dancing ass dildos (band name!). But what do I know? Apparently I’m a snobby, uncultured heathen. Work out that dichotomy, faux Manhattanites!
[Reads KarlGauss’s post]
Oh, you poor bastard.
Subsequently, no one ever dildoed Pablo Picasso’s asshole.
Not in New York.
I’m no snob and yes, the links you provided are illustrations. IMO, they have no soul.
That one is extremely powerful, and I don’t think an Internet JPG file can do it justice. I had the privilege of seeing it (and many other of Rockwell’s original works) at an exhibition in Chicago in 2000.
The work is enormous–probably about six feet by four. The figures are thus nearly life-size. Standing only a few feet away, you are dragged into it. The vulnerability of the girl who is doing nothing more innocuous than going to school, but has to be surrounded by tall, faceless, (and white, as their hands tell us) US Marshals, is powerful indeed.
Being able to attend that exhibition, and to see Rockwell’s works close up, was a treat. I had always thought of Rockwell as a commercial artist, but having been able to see his technique on the originals, I’m prepared to call him a fine artist. True, the majority of his works were done for commercial purposes, but that should not negatively color his talent, and what he was capable of.
Discounting all the other nonsense he posted, Qin was right about this.
Hm. I don’t have a soul and it doesn’t hinder me.
What paintings would you say do have soul?
Or got called a Rockwell.
Norman Rockwell was a hugely talented artist. He gets a lot of shit because so much of his work that was comissioned by the Saturday Evening Post was so saccharine, pabulum and ridiculously middle-of-the-road Americana that it’s pretty easy to ignore his equally ridiculously good technical skill. When he did later work for Look Magazine and was more free to explore deeper and darker sides of the American psyche like Ruby Bridges’ first day of school or the Mississippi civil rights workers murders he showed he was capable of not just technical skill but emotional depth. He’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but he’s undeniably a skilled artist.
You have something against illustrators Karl?
Snob.
Enter the pedanterie. I said soul not ‘a soul’. One of the Webster’s definitions for soul is:
“the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment”
Dictionary online:
“the inspirer or moving spirit of some action”
“the embodiment of some quality: He was the very soul of tact.”
I have seen NR’s illustrations and paintings in person. They are very impressive. He was a brilliant illustrator. I am awed by his technical ability. But in the above examples he is nothing more than a glorified editorial cartoonist, soul-wise.
Here are some I consider moving:
How fucking precious.
I hate modern art…