Ted Knight

Anybody that's spent any time on these boards knows what I'm about to tell you: Greggy's the man. Super fast payment. Awesome to talk with and just an all around great guy with a wicked sense of humor. (thumbs u

You're kind of all over the place, man. Let's stick with the subject at hand: You have grouped Picasso's work with Lichtenstein's and his contemporaries and that indicates a real lack of understanding of either artist as they have virtually nothing to do with one another and both would probably be offended by the association. It seems like you didn't get much out of your studies of art history. You have made assumptions that my view is that abstraction shouldn't have occurred at all. Nothing could be further from the truth but I think in order to have this conversation, you have to actually understand the concept of abstraction so that you can tell the difference between what is successful and what is not. But is it possible that the elite personnel of galleries and museums and their patrons have been misguided for the last half century? Sure. They are, after all, just people with all the frailties that entails. An inability to ask questions and / or challenge conventional wisdom is the greatest obstacle to progress. For several thousand years, people were absolutely, 100% certain that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. Anyone who suggested otherwise was laughed at or worse. I, for one, am glad that there were people to question these things to further the collective understanding of the universe and our place in it. But my guess, is that Pope Urban was just as frustrated and outraged as you are right now when Galileo said "Eppur si muove".

This I absolutely would not agree with. Color and shapes, even if not representational of anything, can be pleasing to the eye in and of themselves. If you come from the Islamic art tradition, where colors and patterns predominate because depictions of people wereas not permitted, the idea that art has to be representational in some way would be completely alien. Someone like Pollock then took it a step further by not being tied to geometric patterns. So now we arrive at the central question that contemporary art has been asking for some time: What is art? It seems simple enough. And most people have a "I know it when I see it" sort of definition for themselves. But the question still remains. I believe there is a clear definition out there that has been around for a very long time and still holds up today. But this is something each person has to find for themselves. I think in order to better understand art one has to begin by asking why people like art to begin with. What does it do for them? It makes absolutely no rational sense that we should be attracted to such things. Every culture of man has generated it in one form or another. So, why do we like art? It's a tough question. Look at my quote above and perhaps you'll see what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the composition and organization of color, line, and form do not have value. I'm saying that it serves a different purpose. The joke is that the general population has a set of expectations that art (by their definition of it) will do for them. And "pure abstraction" is doing something else (and by the way, "pure abstraction" is funny because it's neither pure nor an abstraction). I'm pretty sure this is why the vast majority of the audience is left "feeling cold". I have seen many pleasing assemblies that are satisfying from a stand point of visual performance (I am an architect, after all). But, this is a very different thing than what art does for me. I think the trouble is that we have been lumping so many new things over the last couple of hundred years into what we call art that it has lost it's meaning for many. Phenomenology is perhaps the best example of this. And that has it's roots in Islamic pattern-making as well . And why this gets confusing is because not only are the same basic elements (color, line, and form in the visual arts) being employed in both, but also that we are using the same set of senses to interact with them (primarily, our eyes). But to combine everything that I see with my eyes into the category of art is so broad as to be meaningless (hence, my mathematical analogy before). It's a sort of relativism that makes as much sense as saying "everything is soft". But this is the understanding that I have found for myself. I don't require that others believe the same thing. Only that they consider the possibilities. If you disagree, I'm interested in hearing why. Incidentally, there is representational art in the Islamic tradition, their miniatures are beautiful.

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is. In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you). You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation In other words, pretty pictures is where its at. The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality. I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing. While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more. This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it. A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery. Valid points. But on the other hand, I don't think it's a coincidence that art became more and more abstract following the advent of photography. I agree. The advent of photography created a sort of identity crisis for the art profession as it no longer had the monopoly on visual representation. And yet, very powerful representational art was created after the widespread use of photographs. I believe this is due to the fact that the camera isn't capable of being selective. It captures all, equally by the nature of the apparatus. There are ways around this but generally speaking, this is where representational drawing and painting are still stronger than the camera lens. The other factor, one that I believe had more of an impact on the world of art (including comic and illustration art) than any other is the opening of Japan and the cultural exchange that followed. The exposure of Japanese prints radically impacted all segments of the American and European art world (possibly Chinese, also although I am unaware of those). I think one could make a very strong case that the modern concept of abstraction originated there. And, of course, this coincides with the advent of photography. The concept of abstraction is both powerful and fraught with mishaps. Abstraction to transcend the literal in an effort to grasp the essential can be incredibly compelling. But "pure abstraction" that has no basis in reality is really a nasty joke on the viewer. It isn't art. It may be something else, something new that has an, as yet, undefined purpose. But it isn't really art. I sometimes wonder if much of contemporary art is an example of people reproducing something without understanding the reason it was created in the first place, too insecure to acknowledge that they didn't fully understand it. And now we've gone through 5 or 6 generations of this pretense to arrive at a state of total confusion. If this is so, it's both sad and comical, but hopeful because opportunity for progress abounds.

all kidding aside, I understand what you mean. The trouble I have is that if representationalism is given no value whatsoever then all you are left with is conceptualism and the measure of a work of art becomes how clever the idea is. In and of itself I can understand that but the problem is that taken to the extreme you end up with vivisected sharks and human excrement on display because at the end of the day a picture may tell 1000 words when trying to express simple ideas (that pollock spoof terry posted being a great example), but it is also a singularly poor and imprecise way to convey a complex idea (try doing a thorough analysis of macbeth or a detailed description of how a jet engine works on a 24 by 36 canvas with no written element, I dare you). You end up with a bunch of people trying to express little witticisms through their canvas and/or dead animals and the whole process ends up being a collective participation in mental masturbation In other words, pretty pictures is where its at. The thing is if you were to hang out in China or Vietnam for a day, you'd realize how overrated pretty pictures and technical skill are, without some sort of concept or other originality. I can take you to backstreet "factories" where literally dozens of skilled artists earning $5 a day crank out paintings that either directly copy or are derivative of successful artists, since intellectual property rights don't get much respect out here and everyone just piles in to try to cash in on a good thing. While I'm not a fan of modern artists whose only intention seems to be to shock, I can certainly understand why the modern art world moved away from skillful renditions to something more. This is a very common misconception about "modern art" vs. "traditional art". That prior to the 20th century, art was about skillful rendition and that bigger ideas only came into the equation with contemporary art. In fact, this is very far from the case. Skillful rendition has been the very starting point for more significant work since the 16th century. Unfortunately, the context and thought behind work prior to 1900 is lost on the modern man and the simple fact is that we think very differently than people did back then. One could argue very successfully, that we actually think much less than educated people did 300 years ago. The average commoner understood more about visual imagery and storytelling than the majority of scholars today simply because that was the basis of communication and learning. Today we rely much more on words (spoken or written) and moving pictures and our brains have developed differently because of it. A good example of this is how symbolism and meaning in traditional Chinese scroll painting is often lost on people today. And yet, the work that I've seen is rich with ideas and complex in it's delivery. But yes, it is astonishing how cheap talent is in Southeast Asia. Wasn't it Giordano that went to the Philippines to find talent in the likes of Ernie Chan (Chua) because of this?

Wow, so no credit for his contributions to technique (e.g., the use of enlarged Ben-Day dots), the development of the Pop Art movement, or all the work he did in his career outside of the brief period (1961-1965) he worked on the cartoon-themed pieces for which he's come under such heavy criticism here? His Rouen Cathedrals (a number of which are currently on exhibition at LACMA), anyone? FWIW, I appreciate your willingness to be the lone voice of defense for contemporary art. I don't think that anyone here is falling back on enlightenment painting, impressionism or symbolism as the last great movements in art because of it's figurative and symbolic content. I think that what you are hearing is the very thing I referred to in my post: that most contemporary art fails in it's fundamental purpose- to communicate a complex, meaningful idea to it's audience. As I've said, there are exceptions, but avant-gardeism is really built on a hyper-subjective view of art, one that emphasizes differences over similarities in the experience of being human. For me, this is the antithesis of great art. It doesn't inspire, empathize, commiserate, or celebrate. And often, it denegrates, demeans, or otherwise devalues aspects of our society. A little bit of criticism is quite useful and goes a long way. But we're talking about an entire period of fine art that has been dedicated to only criticism. It is far easier to spit in every one's face than to take part in a real act of creation. And that is the cop out the vast majority of artists take today. Again, there are exceptions (always there are exceptions). But this is what turns most people away from contemporary art. Or at least, this is what I hear and read from the general public. Technique, or process, matters little compared to content. I do appreciate craft and innovation as much as anyone, but I'm not looking to assess who had the best method of stroking a canvas or applying color. I'm looking for the end product. The image and the story it tells are so much more important to me.

Plenty of old masterpieces were painted by the artist for themselves. The Mona Lisa isn't known to be a commission and it was in his possession until he died. Who exactly did Van Gogh paint for? Only a couple were sold in his lifetime. Rembrandt didn't do self-portraits because he was such a popular pin-up model. Regardless, I view this modern/academic argument that it is somehow "lesser" art if there is a commission as a rather silly distinction. Critics and agents have often played a strong role in influencing the direction of many of the modern artists who are more "purely" motivated than their predecessor. Furthermore, if it is a universal rule, then practically no architecture could ever be art as it is almost all commissioned and often very closely supervised by the client and modified by the engineer/builder. Yeah, lots of inaccuracies and failures of logic in this thread. Particularly about the history of art. And, yes, of course, you are correct about the ridiculousness of considering art that is sponsored or patronized prior to inception as being less legitimate somehow. Although, I can see how someone with a heavily romanticized ideal of art might feel that way. Ultimately, art is a form of communication, one that exceeds the capacity of words to convey something we all share about the human condition. I have spent countless hours in every major museum in the world looking at works of art and I have finally come to this: either something speaks to you or it doesn't. But when assessing the lyrical qualities of art, I find it worthless if it requires an essay to understand the intention or supposed cleverness of the artist. If it doesn't function (speak) on it's own, it has failed. That's the only measure that matters to me when it comes to art: whether or not it is successful. This isn't to say that deeper and more profound meaning can't be gained by better understanding context (just ask Sister Wendy) but that content should function on it's own terms. Cleverness is a poor substitute for inspired creativity but, unfortunately, all to often in today's world, it passes for the real thing. Hence, I've always viewed Lichtenstein as one of the worst kinds of artist in the 20th century. He obfuscates and reduces to the ridiculous to make a one-line point that is dubious in it's meaning. And then pretends that he gets something that everyone else has been mystified about, thereby exacerbating the current emperor's new clothes environment that pervades the modern era. My sense is that since the advent of the avant-garde, virtually all fine art has been the mathematical equivalent of multiplying both sides of an equation by 0. There are exceptions, but this is the general environment. If you doubt this, simply listen to the language that people use to describe how they appreciate something. It's as vague and obtuse as the art itself. But then what do I know? I'm a big fan of comic book and illustration art. It doesn't get much more pedestrian than that!

Gentleman, this is very impressive to see you both posting a complete run at the same time. Looking forward to the rest! (thumbs u

I was thinking the same thing. This is, by far, my favorite cover of Weird Tales. Love it.

What a wonderful copy of an awesome cover.

Greg's a dream to deal with. Super fast payment and all around

Nice book, man!! (thumbs u

Classic. (thumbs u

Good lord, that's a lot of 6.0! Can't help but love that book. Nice stuff, Mr. Parker. (thumbs u

This was fun. I never would have guessed number 3. Thanks for putting this together. (thumbs u