Posted on 12/28/2020 2:19:08 PM PST by tbw2
I think youre getting closer.
Modern art is mostly a way to launder money.
Some of the art reminds me of He-Man.
Always looked forward to a LOTR calendar or a Boris Vallejo calendar too.
Peach
Darling, I went to many Yes concerts before you were out of your parents’ basement. I also have a degree in art history and have seen many of the finest museums in the world. Fantasy art is not fine art, and all your perjorative language towards me won’t make it so.
A Star Wars Tie-Fighter maybe?
>No one talks about two huge scams involved with such "art".
There is another factor involved here as well...
From "EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963" on "Current Communist Goals,"
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
May I also just say that some here have been critical of "illustrators". As somebody who can barely draw a stick figure I have upmost respect for their talents as much as I do for the "fine artists" of the more traditional genres. The Cleveland Museum of Art was once offered the entire body of Norman Rockwell's work and turned it down because he was "just" an illustrator. What a stupid mistake. Most unfortunately for all of us, Rockwell's view of of American culture from just a few generations ago has become "fantasy art" for too many.
The Jean-Michel Basquiat monstrosity from post #5 sold fot $110 million dollars in May 2017, proving that, unless there was an underlying scam involved, the buyer was just as mentally ill as the painter of the work in question.
Condescending loser. It is fine art.
Nope. Just tired of dickheads that think the best way to increase themselves it to drag something else down.
Yes, so are Elvis paintings on black velvet, according to you.
Thanks for the link, RR. Just looked up the video of apparently a 60 Minutes interview. Very touching! Great Americans. They did it all for love.
No. Wrong again. Typical silly gatekeeper BS.
Let's not confuse the means of production with the essence of the content. What separates fine art from illustration? Intention and marketplace. Fine art is one-of-a-kind; illustrations are intended to be reproduced on ordinary and often highly degradable printing paper for a mass market, and they are literally illustrations of a storyline. In the case of fine art prints, they are issued only in limited, numbered editions on highly durable media. Fine art, when new, joins the in-depth originality of the artist with the the subject matter in a way that is recognized by a limited number of people whose tastes and interests are on the front edge of society at key moments in history; often, the historic influence of a given piece of fine art is achieved only after the death of the artist, when a given piece of fine art is recognized to have moved the entire the genre forward.
Fine art exists in a different economic and copyright sphere than illustration, with the rights of the artists, the sponsoring patron or gallery and the exhibit space sharply differentiated by an ancient guild system; whereas the artitst' rights to illustration work vary widely according to the deal they make with the publisher. Courts are less likely to be able to defend the works of illustrators from copying than those of fine arts. A recent case in point is the Pepe frog figure that was co-opted byt the cyber-right wing, even after its use was denounced by its creator.
Very good illustrators do approach their work with a degree of originality, but the theme of the work is tied to a narrative created elsewhere, or implies a narrative aimed at a popular audience. Illustrators' use of materials is clustered around watercolor, tempera, inks or collage on cardboard or other craft media. Often the orginal illustrations have visible corrections such as white paint or airbrushing over a misplaced line or area of color, to make the errors invisible when the piece is photographed for mass reproduction.
Great illustration may move people in various ways, but it is rarely intended to be collected and preserved on the same level as fine art; and the originals are usually found in museums and collections only when the illustrator has achieved wide popularity in affordable venues like books, t-shirts or coffee mugs, such as the works of Peter Max, N.C. Wyeth or Milton Glaser.
I do understand the rabid loyalty people may feel to illustrators, but the emotional appeal of pop culture does not make a work "fine art."
Because I recognize the difference between fine art and illustration does not mean that I condemn illustration. Fine art and illustration have distinctly different aspects. Otherwise, there would not be a separate word or illustrations. See my post 73 just above.
I do agree that Norman Rockwell's work occupied a special niche in American popular culture, and perhaps Cleveland should have collected it for its own sake (it certainly has been collected elsewhere, including on the walls of the East Wing of the White House); but its culturally significant depictions still don't make such frankly commercial work "fine art."
Precisely.
It is the one-of-a-kind nature of fine art that makes it vulnerable to exploitation in this way. The artists rarely see much of the largesse during their lifetime.
A computer illustration doesn’t even exist. It is virtual. Nothing to sell (except a product). You can print them out but even then it comes from a machine and not a block.
And there are thousands of filters that each can make your photo “into” arty art. Random button pushing until you are satisfied.
Don’t belittle people who know how to handle a pencil or ink brush. “Wellll, that’s merely commercial illustration. There’s NOTHING to it.”
Even old storefront signs from hundreds of years ago hang in museums.
Hell of a lot more mental and physical accomplishment to create a drawing from nothing than to come up with a “credible” computer illustration.
https://www6.lunapic.com/editor/
Gosh you started right. But then you went stupid. Just because it’s intended to be reproduced doesn’t make it not fine art. That’s just a function of time. Because the means to reproduce exist now so that avenue is available. If we’d had the ability to mass produce Da Vinci when he was around his art would have been mass produced. Most art is done for hire, most art has ALWAYS been done for hire.
Oh yes and then you go into the favorite literati BS “if the masses like it it can’t be fine art”. Such a bunch of crap. And of course you KNOW IT. Much fine art was appreciated by the masses in its time.
No fine art does NOT exist in a different economic sphere. That’s just plain a lie. As I already said. Art has been done for hire for ages. Dismissing art because the guy got paid is more elitist crap. And also turning a blind eye to history.
Face it, you’re wrong. And you know it. If you ACTUALLY have that art history degree and you ACTUALLY paid attention you KNOW everything you said is a lie. Gatekeepers are such liars.
Warhol mass produced his canvases and objects and still sells for higher than Basquiat (whom Andy promoted).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.