Sorry...
Posted on 12/28/2020 2:19:08 PM PST by tbw2
A New Book Makes the Case That Fantasy Art Is America’s Least Understood Fine-Art Form—See the Wild Images Here Taschen presents 500 pages of dragons, wizards, and fantasy maidens.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.artnet.com ...
Agreed. Fantasy art is a commercial art form, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
That’s what I see. Now I’m going to go have a look for my Magic Eye books. I for some reason have no problem seeing them.
Seek help for your inadequacy and anger issues.
In the Cold War the CIA was funding and promoting the work of the avant garde modernists and abstrationists.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623
How MoMA and the CIA Conspired to Use Unwitting Artists to Promote American Propaganda During the Cold War
Art’s role in American intelligence history features in the new book ‘ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History’—read an excerpt here.
Jennifer Dasal, September 24, 2020
The secrecy with which the CIA pursued Abstract Expressionism was not only integral to successfully fooling the Soviet Union but also to keeping any associated artists in the dark. In [former CIA operative Donald] Jameson’s words, “[M]ost of [the Abstract Expressionists] were people who had very little respect for the government in particular and certainly none for the CIA.” Multiple artists self-identified as anarchists, particularly Barnett Newman, who was so taken by anarchism that he would later write the foreword to the 1968 reprint of Russian author Peter Kropotkin’s 1899 Memoirs of a Revolutionist, describing the anarcho-communist’s influence upon his life and work. In other words: tell Clyfford Still or Helen Frankenthaler that you wanted to use their paintings to forward a government agenda, and the answer would most likely have been a firm no.
The CIA’s answer to these problems was something known as the long-leash policy. This solution kept CIA operatives at a remove of two or three degrees from the artists and art exhibitions—sometimes even more—so that they could not be linked to any furtive governmental bankrolling. In order to fulfill this need, they elicited the participation of arts foundations, artists groups, and, most crucially, art museums, requesting their assistance in organizing special exhibitions, events, and collections. Such activity was funneled through a new arts agency created by the CIA named the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was developed in 1950 and not revealed as a CIA project until 1966. It would always appear, then, that a museum or arts corporation was presenting and promoting Abstract Expressionism, never the government, no way! And no one was the wiser, not even the artists themselves. Especially not the artists themselves.
The crap we know was promoted for reasons other than art or asthetics.
Is photography fine art?
Exactly: different starting point, different marketplace. Even artists have to feed the family.
There are 2 feature length documentaries about them. I have only seen the first one. The sequel picks up where the first one left off (after they’d started to donate their collection).
Seek help for your inadequacy issues. I just get tired of dinks who feel the need to dismiss things. It’s pointless and stupid. You’re wrong. You know you’re wrong. That mass produced dodge is the ultimate sign of being full of crap. It’s how pathetic losers write off everything modern. Pretending their precious “masters” wouldn’t have mass produced if the technology was available to them. You know they would have. You know full well that every “fine artist” you put above would have been doing book and album covers if such existed at the time. Cause you gotta eat, and selling your art is how you do that.
Cool stuff, sent ghat link to my brogher.
What amazes me is hyper realism...
https://www.boredpanda.com/hyper-realistic-art/
https://mymodernmet.com/hyperrealism-history/
https://mymodernmet.com/ballpoint-pen-drawings-hyper-realistic/
Of course there is debate about individual works that transcend the lines; but generally speaking, it is a stand-alone genre of visual art: photography. It can be used as illustration, as record-keeping, as historic documentary or documentation, and also as fine art in the same sense as other printmaking media like etching, silk screen printing or fine art lithography.
Anyone looking for hard-and-fast walls between one form of expression and another are going to be disappointed. Some artists inhabit two or more marketplaces, just like crossover singers. History and "luck" also play a part in which artists are recognized in which categories.
just because it’s done on a computer doesn’t make it not art or less skillful. It’s a different set of skills. But in the end you either have the vision and the talent to make that vision real, or you don’t. Medium doesn’t matter.
Read it yourself. That’s your entire post on what’s art and what’s illustration. Your entire dismissal of illustration is ad homimen and poisoning the well.
Deal with the facts, all of the “fine artists” would have mass produced if the technology existed at the time. You know it. I know it. It’s a fact. So the minute you use that to say something isn’t art, you’re full of it.
Recognizing the difference between fine art and illustration is not belittlling. There is a lot of work in both genres that is horrible; and a lot that is uplifting, intriguing and/or illuminating—same as poetry. Good poetry is timeless; bad poetry is a waste of space.
But as to the economic value of illustration vs fine art, that is not determined only by taste and subject matter, but also by their respective marketplaces, which operate quite differently from one another.
It’s pretty early in the day to be drinking so heavily.
Oh look another ad hominem. And you won’t address the point.
Face it, there is not an artist in history, good bad or otherwise, going all the way back to the caves of Altamira, that wouldn’t have mass produced if the technology was available, that wouldn’t have done book covers if they were available, that wouldn’t have done album covers if they were available. And dismissing something as “not fine art” because of any of that is simply crap. And the very fact that you won’t even TRY to address it shows YOU KNOW YOU’RE WRONG.
Sorry...
“Modern art is mostly a way to launder money.”
ALWAYS follow the money.
The one on the left was painted in China by a factory of artists.
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.