• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Defending and critiquing art should there be rules??
0

Started by Michaeld,

44 posts in this topic

Michaeld

Michaeld

Posted
Posted

A couple of years ago I was at the Guggenheim in Venice Italy with a friend. In one of the rooms they had several Jackson Pollock pieces which in IMHO is the most over rated garbage the "fine art world" has ever had to offer. It is at best aesthetically pleasing but nothing more. My friend had taken art appreciation classes in college and told me that one of the first things you are taught is how to defend art regardless of your opinion of the piece. So with that I attacked Pollock's work and he defended. It was fun.

On a few occasions I have liked and sometimes purchased pieces that a fellow OA collector and friend has felt compelled to question my taste. He is not subtle about it. He just tells me it's awful or uses a poop emoji. I don't get insulted. I think it's fun.

So let's have some fun. This piece is going to be auctioned off soon. It is a piece that I really like and my OA friend gave me emoji poop for it. Most likely I won't bid on it because it just doesn't fit with my collection but there is something about it I find compelling. The reason I'm choosing this piece for us to critique is because I don't think anyone will have any feelings of nostalgia to get in the way and we won't feel afraid to insult any collector or artist in the comic art world. So go at it! Do you love it or hate it? Why?   

RADF5A412017119_103921.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ThothAmon said:

I think it's great.  A realist's take on Miller's blocky Dark Knight.  Love the wood backdrop and simplicity of the utility belt.

The utility belt is very simple, yes. Maybe that's why he's had to put the Baterang down his pants hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
Posted
Just now, SquareChaos said:

I'm sure it is intended to be a cup, but this is more amusing.

Cup? Punch bowl more like. Looks like Thanos in fancy dress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FSF

FSF

Posted
Posted

I couldn't agree with you more regarding Pollock.  I can't understand how his "paintings" yield some of the highest prices ever paid, or even one dollar for that matter.  How does hurling the contents of a can of paint onto canvas, without much control of how hit will display on the canvas, constitute art?  It literally seems to me that anyone could basically do that.  Now I may very well be trivializing it some but employing as much objectivity as I possible can, I really think it is just lazy.  Now I get that abstract art is what it is but unlike Picasso, who does it so well with some of his best works, Pollock's material and its popularity is entirely unfathomable to me no matter how hard I try to understand the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted

First of all, I really like it.  Whether as a parody of Miller's work or just a middle-aged Batguy, it brings a smile. Go one step farther, and you can see the quality of the detailing combined with the way the artist created a mood for an image which is absurd for the mood. It's a lot of fun.

So with art appreciation, I think the first question is whether it resonates with the viewer. If the answer is yes, it's good. If the answer is no, it can still be good but it might not be to the viewer's taste.

Regarding your comment about Pollack, you are introducing that second level of consideration: the audience. I'm a big fan of Piet Mondrian, and in his own way, you might consider his work to be junk as well. But there, you have to consider the audience. Mondrian's work is deliberately cool: it forces the viewer to focus on the elements he brings to the fore: the balance between lines and shapes, color and shade. So too, but in a different way, with Pollack. There, you are looking for the balance between abstract splashes of color and shape, and the patterns which seem to form from randomness. That's why Pollack is brilliant, and imitators are not--he knew where the balance was. But again, it's the audience.

With comic book art, I think you have to similarly look at it in the context of: (1) do you like it; and (2) will someone like it who knows what they are looking at. Moreover, it should be viewed in the context of what it is: something designed to illustrate a story. Artists who showboat are doing a disservice to their readers. They show off their technical skills to the detriment of the package. 

When looking at comic art, I like to see whether the art is designed to "move" the story. So, I am particularly appreciative of creative panel work, particularly if the artist is stuck with a lot of text. For commissions, I'm more lenient--do I feel what the artist is conveying? If so, it's good. The more I want to see it again, the better it is. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, FSF said:

I couldn't agree with you more regarding Pollock.  I can't understand how his "paintings" yield some of the highest prices ever paid, or even one dollar for that matter.  How does hurling the contents of a can of paint onto canvas, without much control of how hit will display on the canvas, constitute art?  It literally seems to me that anyone could basically do that.  Now I may very well be trivializing it some but employing as much objectivity as I possible can, I really think it is just lazy.  Now I get that abstract art is what it is but unlike Picasso, who does it so well with some of his best works, Pollock's material and its popularity is entirely unfathomable to me no matter how hard I try to understand the situation.

Yes, yes, that's all very well but what about fat Batman and his punch bowl packet @FSF ? :baiting: :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted

I like the piece as well, as others have said, it is comedic, but it also has a grim undertone to it that is suitable for the Dark Knight. This piece falls into one of those vague 'I'd buy it if it wasn't too much and if I wasn't currently after anything else.' This is the pack of gum in the checkout aisle of OA to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carlo M

Carlo M

Posted
Posted

I am a Marvel guy and not much of an expert on painted art, yet I will give it a go. This piece puzzles me.  It is certainly well done.  I like the realistic touches and the overall mood, stressed by the colour palette.  But without the context (ie the nod to DKR) I would find the character difficult to sympathize with (difficult to tell villain or foe, but maybe that is the point)

Carlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing