Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[adamstrange]

In my original statement, I said that one should have difficulty defining "fine art" and I meant that because, yes, at a surface level, what you gave is one of or part of one of the common definitions for that term, but if you step back and actually try to create a definition for both terms that make up "fine art" it actually is difficult and potentially of little value.  Let's assume for now we both have an understanding of "art".

You have said that the definition of fine art changed but what is it about the time period that requires a different definition? Why even bother changing it just because of some arbitrary date?  If you have a reason why the date is not arbitrary and there are some underlying important factors that justify a difference then I'm all ears.

In your definition for the 20th century, you focused on compensation/commission as the critical aspect that made art "fine".  Usually the word fine in a context like this would be a measure of quality.  Are you saying that the compensation/commission (or lack thereof) determines quality? Or should we have created a category called "compensated art" to have better alignment between the name and the concept?

 

[delekkerste]

11 hours ago, adamstrange said:

What is fine art?  Who came up with the definition?  How do we know it's right?

Once you have trouble answering those questions, and you should, then you'll have difficulty seeing Lichtenstein's art as anything other than derivative of Heath's and that Heath is worthy of acknowledgement for his contribution. 

Alan, you are missing the entire point of Lichtenstein's art.  It's not about the image, appropriated from sources like comics, but, how the image is presented to the viewer.  On the one hand, we have comic book panels from mostly non-descript genre (e.g., war, romance) titles printed on cheap newsprint and marketed to kids.  Even among OA collectors today, no one really cares about these pages, let alone any single panel - let's not pretend that they are something they are not.  An Irv Novick generic war comic panel page might fetch, what, a couple hundred bucks (plus or minus $100)? 

On the other hand, what makes a Lichtenstein painting based on an Irv Novick comic book panel worth $35 million has nothing to do with the fact that it's based on a singular image from an Irv Novick panel page from a war comic which might otherwise be worth $200 without the Lichtenstein imprimatur.  It's worth that because he made a conscious decision to take something from everyday (a generic comic book panel) and then transform it - via size, color, technique, language, etc. - to create something which packs a wallop to the viewer in a museum or gallery in a way that the image never could in its original form.  That David Barselou website which shows the comic panels side by side with the paintings as some kind of "Gotcha!" is absurd, because the impact of two images laid out a few inches by a few inches on a website may be similar, but, look at a Lichtenstein in a museum and then compare it to the source comic book in your hand and there's no comparison.  

Edited December 2, 2018 by delekkerste

[ESeffinga]

Modern art flipped its switch when Fine Art ceased to be about being a technician, and a literal visual representation and became more of a philosophical practice. 

By using both technique and presentation to communicate with the audience in more subtle psychological ways, rather than simply painting a bowl of oranges being a still-life of oranges.

Impressionists exploring technique to deconstruct more realist tendencies to over-render subjects and by those deconstructions, inject more excitement and liveliness into the subjects and the techniques. 

Abstractionists exploring how color and shapes illicit a mood or feeling, and how that changes from viewer to viewer.

Duchamp and his urinal flipped things on their head by saying the art didn’t even need to be made by the artist, by simply switching the context of a found everyday object and calling it something else and showing it somewhere else (and the urinal wasn’t even Duchamp’s idea, he stole that from what I’ve read). By doing this, it created a new dialogue with art viewers. But it illicited reactions and thought, and that’s art’s most recent function. To provoke, and get people to ponder, dismiss, come back and converse. The simple act of this threads existence shows the “worth” of the Wham piece. People are still arguing about it. Struggling with its existence and meaning.

Warhol coming from the opposite direction and in effect stuck his finger in the eye of the art establishment by pointing out how consumerist it had become.

And from there you have Koons, taking Warhol’s factory concept of almost industrializing art to it’s literal and logical conclusion, with a genuine churning out of visual goods that he believes reflects his consumerist audience (literally) and that that is what they want to see. Themselves in the art, interacting with it.

The technician side of painting has fallen by the wayside because it is teachable. Like how to fix a car, or how to do taxes. But the ideas, the conceptual is where the art market often sees its champions. The Emins, Hursts, Koons of the world art not driven by being able to paint a sunset, or draw a pilot in a plane. They are trying to mine the human psyche and wind people up. Until at some point they aren’t. And it really does become about the money.

Most artists will tell you money kills art. There are many people who think most of these conceptual artists are in for a cash grab and it’s all a sham. But if you look back, most of these works sold for peanuts or didn’t sell at all when first pit into the world too shocking. The money came long after in the early days, when someone came along and realized it had a different kind of intrinsic value. If you dislike someone for the money angle it should be the aftermarket dealers of this stuff as auction houses hyping it to the sky. Just being one of the first, and then Koons and such capitalizing on where it is today with new work. But guys like Lichtenstein wouldn’t have made top dollar on these sales. It’s later owners of the work reselling when the money rolled in.

Most artists making anything worth a damn are usually Provocateurs first and foremost. Dali, Picasso, Seurat, Monet... they all poked at the establishment again and again. 

What hangs many people up is this thought that an idea can be art rather than a gimmick. And a gimmick can be just a gimmick. Until it is shown to really describe us, and stands as a testament to who we are, or become a touchstone of culture at a time and place in history. That’s why so many artists are remembered and so many more are not.

I’ve said it before, but the Mona Lisa is not the most well known painting in the world because it is the best. It’s not even because it is by Leonardo DaVinci. It is the most well known because it was stolen from a wall where it was displayed along with a lot of other art. It was never singled out before. But a guy stole it and wanted to return it to Italy, and it’s theft and subsequent recovery was at a time when it could be reported by newspapers and radio around the world. It became one of the first art global news stories. And when it was returned, many people had read about this stolen painting and wanted to see it. It became a celebrity. Not because of the work painted on its surface, but because of its circumstance. It became a pop culture icon. 

The core of the fine art world stopped caring about how great of a painter artists were long before Heath drew comics. 

And I’d never underestimate Heath as an illustrator. But most comic artists are merely technicians doing their job. Some break through as genuine storytellers of their own merit. Very few will probably stand the test of time as profound storytellers. And in truth it is American culture to look down on comics as throwaway children’s fare.

If there ever is a hope of any comic art museums being taken seriously, it is in countries that accept that comics CAN be a cultural touchstone that describes portions of the human condition. Most likely in Japan and Europe, where they don’t scoff at the idea, but recognize that pictures and words together is it’s own form of communication. 

In most cases comics are communicating a retread of old idea and narrative archetypes for good fun, but every once in a while a nugget of truth and sincerity slip out and those tend to capture more attention.  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by ESeffinga

[tth2]

8 hours ago, adamstrange said:

You have said that the definition of fine art changed but what is it about the time period that requires a different definition? Why even bother changing it just because of some arbitrary date?  If you have a reason why the date is not arbitrary and there are some underlying important factors that justify a difference then I'm all ears.

 

It is simply that the dynamics of the marketplace for art changed.  In earlier days, artists produced "fine art" for pay, because there was no other way that an artist could make a living.  You could choose to therefore categorize all such art as "commercial art" if you wish, but I think the absurdity of labeling the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or various works of art by the likes of DaVinci, Donatello as "commercial art" is obvious.

I don't know art history well enough, at least in terms of the way artists got compensated, to say when the worlds of fine art and commercial art diverged so that artists had a choice between creating art for art's sake (and potentially starving if they couldn't find a buyer) and creating art for compensation.  Perhaps the 19th century, as I recall stories of the Impressionists and the likes of Van Gogh being starving artists who were painting on their own and then finding a buyer afterwards, as opposed to being commissioned to create a specific work.  But certainly by the 20th century this was the practice.   

9 hours ago, adamstrange said:

Usually the word fine in a context like this would be a measure of quality.  Are you saying that the compensation/commission (or lack thereof) determines quality? Or should we have created a category called "compensated art" to have better alignment between the name and the concept?

 

I have never, and would never, define the term "fine art" based on quality.  How could I, or anyone?  One man's great art is another's trash and vice versa--as illustrated by this thread, where some people (including myself) think Lichtenstein's work is genius while others, even setting aside the issues of credit and alleged IP theft, think it's trash. 

I can't stand Basquiat, and don't understand why people love his work so much, but I would never say it's not fine art.  

[vodou]

11 hours ago, adamstrange said:

So you used the word "art" so your definition is circular.  What is then meant by "art" in your definition of "fine art?"

Is there a different definition for what fine art is with respect to work produced in the 19th Century?  What about the 21st Century?  What is it about the period that requires a different definition?

 

Rabbit hole of semantics. It's all art.

Some are okay with appropriation (or whatever word one prefers) and some art not. This is a subject of contention everywhere, not just in the art world.

Comic book collectors tend to be extremely sensitive to appropriation, while art collectors tend to bias the other direction tending to be insensitive.

The real question for each is are you:

1. A comic book collector dabbling in art, or
2. An art collector with an interest in (or worse...obsession with) the sequential art form?

And finally, do you side with the majority or the minority of the group you align with?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

56 minutes ago, vodou said:

Rabbit hole of semantics. It's all art.

Some are okay with appropriation (or whatever word one prefers) and some art not. This is a subject of contention everywhere, not just in the art world.

Comic book collectors tend to be extremely sensitive to appropriation, while art collectors tend to bias the other direction tending to be insensitive.

The real question for each is are you:

1. A comic book collector dabbling in art, or
2. An art collector with an interest in (or worse...obsession with) the sequential art form?

And finally, do you side with the majority or the minority of the group you align with?

Sequential art? I guess I’ve been sheltered. I’ve never heard that but I love it

[vodou]

5 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

...

Most artists making anything worth a damn are usually Provocateurs first and foremost. Dali, Picasso, Seurat, Monet... they all poked at the establishment again and again.

...

And Banksy.

3 hours ago, tth2 said:

... 

I have never, and would never, define the term "fine art" based on quality.  How could I, or anyone?

...

Perhaps someone, not me I don't care enough, should research the etymology of the term and what "fine" meant as a word in common use in the era it was applied. Just a guess, but it may well have attached at a earlier time when dealers or auction houses were identifying the pictures they were offering as "fine", meaning "nice", "come on in and see some of our fine [nice] offerings", which is something of advertising puffery much the way you'll see certain chocolates advertised as Fine Swiss very different meaning that would be than as a statement excluding all other types of art as un-Fine.

[1950's war comics]

3 minutes ago, vodou said:

certain chocolates advertised as Fine Swiss

wow does that look like some good candy  

[vodou]

5 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

wow does that look like some good candy  

Likely overpriced though, as the smart and educated consumer would expect for the same object offered for vastly different prices based on contextual and locational tomfoolery. I'm sure "fine" and un-"fine" taste (utilitarian value) approximately...the same.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-01/fake-news-fake-shoes-how-payless-pranked-so-called-influencers

Anybody see the parallels between this story and Pop Artists selling appropriated production images in "curated" gallery and later auction settings? Or decades earlier Duchamp's R. Mutt toilet the granddaddy of "it's art because it's hanging in a room one generally expects to see art" pranks?

[aokartman]

LINK TO WIKI DEFINITION   of "fine art"

and from dictionary.com...

1. a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.

So, the distinction, (one source dates it to the 18th century and the distinction does not apply the same across all cultures), is from commercial, or applied art, or crafts.  David

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by aokartman
clarify

[vodou]

15 minutes ago, aokartman said:

LINK TO WIKI DEFINITION   of "fine art"

and from dictionary.com...

1. a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.

So, the distinction, (one source dates it to the 18th century and the distinction does not apply the same across all cultures), is from commercial, or applied art, or crafts.  David

 

It's a start but I think only that, deeper original primary source research would, I expect, yield deeper and higher quality results.

[comix4fun]

5 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

 

The technician side of painting has fallen by the wayside because it is teachable. Like how to fix a car, or how to do taxes. But the ideas, the conceptual is where the art market often sees its champions. The Emins, Hursts, Koons of the world art not driven by being able to paint a sunset, or draw a pilot in a plane. They are trying to mine the human psyche and wind people up. Until at some point they aren’t. And it really does become about the money.

Most artists will tell you money kills art. There are many people who think most of these conceptual artists are in for a cash grab and it’s all a sham. But if you look back, most of these works sold for peanuts or didn’t sell at all when first pit into the world too shocking. The money came long after in the early days, when someone came along and realized it had a different kind of intrinsic value. If you dislike someone for the money angle it should be the aftermarket dealers of this stuff as auction houses hyping it to the sky. Just being one of the first, and then Koons and such capitalizing on where it is today with new work. But guys like Lichtenstein wouldn’t have made top dollar on these sales. It’s later owners of the work reselling when the money rolled in.

 

I wanna say, I loved that entire post. Really great stuff, top to bottom. These two paragraphs struck me particularly though.

Let me preface this by saying, I have no problem with conceptual art. None at all. I believe true art can and should speak to each person individually and mean someone to anyone who looks and and feels what's going on in the piece and perhaps in the mind of the artist. However, I prefer to come to that meaning internally. That's what artwork is supposed to do, evoke some personal emotional reaction and meaning to the viewer. When someone has to "explain" the meaning to you, or "sell" you on how important a piece is, they've lost me. That's when it ceases to be "art" and becomes "marketing". When markets for artists grow organically without the dog and pony show it is simply more authentic. 

You're right about the disdain in the modern art market for the technical artist. Although I am not sure if it is all teachable from that standpoint, I can agree that "conceptual" art concerns allow for something that didn't exist as much for the technical: The rise of the Huckster. When it's not about skill or talent or hard work and it's about something that's entirely NOT on the piece in front of you and is ENTIRELY on the interpretation of the meaning of the piece you allow the infusion of the mentalist-style salespeople imputing their own spin, marketing campaign and, ultimately, psychological pressure ("this exhibit is almost totally sold out", "don't miss out on this dynamic newcomer", etc.) of which wealthy, highly educated people, usually with matching egos (and a competitive nature) are most susceptible to someone making them feel like they should "get" the meaning behind the piece that they are selling, even if that meaning was invented, and they would never admit that all they see is a girl crying, or a broken windmill, or some other inanimate object that isn't really a symbol for the downfall of the western civilization (or at least it wasn't until the marketing meeting before the gallery opening). That's especially true when their contemporaries, peers and friends are already buying into the pitch.

When I hear someone selling me on a the deep existential meaning beneath a photoshop filtered pic of a rusted Honda Civic spare tire rim, I am just waiting for them to tell me that they'll throw in the undercoating for free.

There's the undercurrent of the conceptual art market and specifically the pop art market that isn't discussed as much. The "pimp and pump" of artists yet to be "discovered" or "the next XXXX". There are many tales of pieces, at the dawn of the pop art movement, 3 pieces being sold at $X dollars collector A and 3 pieces being sold to collector B fo $X dollars before a gallery opening, those pieces are hung in the gallery, the prices are listed at 10 times $X or 50 times $X or 100 times $X. But "you can't buy these, they've already all sold out!" Collector A "buys" Collector B's pieces and vice versa. Now the pieces they really bought for $X carry a "public gallery sale price" of 10,50,100 times the actual price. Gaming the sales comps, creating a market in the process, pimping the deeply hidden meaning behind pieces that wouldn't be looked at twice otherwise, and pandering and patronizing to a demographic incredibly susceptible to that type of manipulation and you've created $$$$ where there would only be $ without the "help". The market for these pieces, built upon on this foundation, has created its own reality and it is one that's been too heavily invested (both in dollars and ego) by too many people to ever question its origins at this point. The artifice has become the establishment. 

While it's true the technicians and old masters didn't see the big payout during their lifetimes, that's not so much true of the pop art pantheon. Warhol and Lichtenstein especially saw enormous fame, price escalation, and increased prestige while they were still in the midst of creating that they would probably not have seen in a more "organic" market that didn't have the help of people willing to point out how IMPORTANT such and such work is and give the full sales pitch of societal and sociological meaning. Sure, it wasn't $50 million a piece, but 6 figures in the 60's, while you're still creating work in the same artistic period, was absolutely top dollar for the time and, I think, the reason for the explosion of additional artists, and galleries, mining the same vein looking for the same mother load. Then there's the marketing, IP protection, and reproduction of works that lead to massive income for the pop art icons of the time. 

 

Warhol was worth a reported $228 million when he died...and that was 1987...that's AT LEAST more than a half-billion (adjusted for inflation, not his art market) today. A marked difference from the old masters and technicians, too many of whom died penniless. 

 

[adamstrange]

4 hours ago, tth2 said:

I have never, and would never, define the term "fine art" based on quality.  How could I, or anyone?

You've said that "fine art" for 20th Century and beyond is determined by how it is compensated and that "fine" is not an indication of quality.  So of what value is the term "fine"?  Isn't it misleading?

I disagree that no one defines "fine art" to indicate a measure of quality.  It was created in the hope that it would elevate art of a certain category to be viewed as higher quality and to make that art more desirable and valuable.  In other words, like ad copy is designed to sell toothpaste, it was designed to sell art by artists who whose works weren't selling for as much as they would like.

[vodou]

21 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Warhol was worth a reported $228 million when he died...and that was 1987...that's AT LEAST more than a half-billion (adjusted for inflation, not his art market) today. A marked difference from the old masters and technicians, too many of whom died penniless.

IIRC Picasso was the first artist to be "effing rich" in his own lifetime. If correct, that draws a pretty hard line in the sand between 20th century and later and "everything else that came before". That Warhol (and Lichtenstein) fall after the line means, to me, nothing as many other artists did too that were not Pop Artists. Times just changed, possibly forever, and many artists had a chance at that brass ring where previously they didn't.

Also, lesser known by those that only see Warhol through a singular dismissive pov is the fact that he was already very successful as an illustrator before Pop Art. He was already rich.

http://www.campaignbrief.com/2017/05/andy-adman-why-andy-warhol-was.html

I can't find the reference I really want that lists his exact income during the 1950s and early (PrePop) 60s but my recollection is that it was several hundred thousand per year then. I could be wrong, that may be the adjusted to 198x number, maybe somebody can track that down, but the point is Pop didn't make Andy, Andy was already doing very fine and got bored being a freelance advertising illustrator. Considering how his ego worked, he probably wanted more adulation that advertising offered, the kind being a gallery wonder could.

[adamstrange]

12 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Alan, you are missing the entire point of Lichtenstein's art.  It's not about the image, appropriated from sources like comics, but, how the image is presented to the viewer.  On the one hand, we have comic book panels from mostly non-descript genre (e.g., war, romance) titles printed on cheap newsprint and marketed to kids.  Even among OA collectors today, no one really cares about these pages, let alone any single panel - let's not pretend that they are something they are not.  An Irv Novick generic war comic panel page might fetch, what, a couple hundred bucks (plus or minus $100)? 

On the other hand, what makes a Lichtenstein painting based on an Irv Novick comic book panel worth $35 million has nothing to do with the fact that it's based on a singular image from an Irv Novick panel page from a war comic which might otherwise be worth $200 without the Lichtenstein imprimatur.  It's worth that because he made a conscious decision to take something from everyday (a generic comic book panel) and then transform it - via size, color, technique, language, etc. - to create something which packs a wallop to the viewer in a museum or gallery in a way that the image never could in its original form.  That David Barselou website which shows the comic panels side by side with the paintings as some kind of "Gotcha!" is absurd, because the impact of two images laid out a few inches by a few inches on a website may be similar, but, look at a Lichtenstein in a museum and then compare it to the source comic book in your hand and there's no comparison.  

I'm not missing the point.  I've seen Lichtenstein's work in museums as I've had an interest in the arts of all types starting in elementary school and never stopping since then.

My comment was intended to emphasize the debt that Lichtenstein owed to Heath (it's due to other artists as well but I'm using Heath as a stand in).  Lichtenstein's work is derivative and it's success is partly due to the image that Heath created.  Lichtenstein's work is also innovative, as hopefully people can see in the video I provided at the start of the thread.  I thought it was interesting to see "Whaam" up close and that others in the forum might find it interesting as well.  I was NOT expecting it devolve into this argument we previously had.

Where you and I disagree is in the degree to which Lichtenstein is an innovator.  I think "not much" and you think "a lot".  We have different opinions and that's cool.  You seem to want to defend your opinion based on the value of the art -- since the comics panel page is only worth a couple hundred it is artistically less than Lichtenstein.  But I don't define art as lesser or greater based on value so, to me, that's a useless argument.  You will probably bring up well "Whaam" is in a museum so it's better but then we'll have the discussion as to how art ends up in a museum...

[Nexus]

6 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

In most cases comics are communicating a retread of old idea and narrative archetypes for good fun, but every once in a while a nugget of truth and sincerity slip out and those tend to capture more attention. 

Yes. To tie into another ongoing thread, should explain PEANUTS to those who don't get it. And, for my money, CALVIN AND HOBBES.

[adamstrange]

1 hour ago, aokartman said:

LINK TO WIKI DEFINITION   of "fine art"

and from dictionary.com...

1. a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.

So, the distinction, (one source dates it to the 18th century and the distinction does not apply the same across all cultures), is from commercial, or applied art, or crafts.  David

 

So if an artist created a work primarily to show off his skills or to gain fame and notoriety then it wouldn't be "fine art" even if he wasn't paid.  And if an artist was commissioned/paid to create the work the artist had always dreamed of creating than that would be "fine art" since the aesthetic purpose was the prime purpose. 

Your distinction of separating commercial or applied arts and crafts is not consistent with the definition you provided.  Commerce is a fact that can be considered as evidence when attempting to determine prime motivation but it is not, by itself, conclusive.

[aokartman]

4 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

So if an artist created a work primarily to show off his skills or to gain fame and notoriety then it wouldn't be "fine art" even if he wasn't paid.  And if an artist was commissioned/paid to create the work the artist had always dreamed of creating than that would be "fine art" since the aesthetic purpose was the prime purpose. 

Your distinction of separating commercial or applied arts and crafts is not consistent with the definition you provided.  Commerce is a fact that can be considered as evidence when attempting to determine prime motivation but it is not, by itself, conclusive.

I'm glad you responded.  I was trying to give any newbie a quick overview (not my definitions) of the history of the terminology.  You have actually done a deep dive, and I agree, it is not simple.  And, you have pointed out a clear point about artist's intent, which is a big factor.  Thanks, David

[delekkerste]

52 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

While it's true the technicians and old masters didn't see the big payout during their lifetimes, that's not so much true of the pop art pantheon. Warhol and Lichtenstein especially saw enormous fame, price escalation, and increased prestige while they were still in the midst of creating that they would probably not have seen in a more "organic" market that didn't have the help of people willing to point out how IMPORTANT such and such work is and give the full sales pitch of societal and sociological meaning. Sure, it wasn't $50 million a piece, but 6 figures in the 60's, while you're still creating work in the same artistic period, was absolutely top dollar for the time and, I think, the reason for the explosion of additional artists, and galleries, mining the same vein looking for the same mother load. Then there's the marketing, IP protection, and reproduction of works that lead to massive income for the pop art icons of the time. 

Chris, Lichtenstein's comic panel paintings sold for low 4-figures when they came out (at Castelli), and ended in the mid-4 figures when he finished the series.  No living artist fetched 6-figures on either the primary or secondary market until the early 1970s (I could be wrong, but, I think it was Jasper Johns, and it might not have been until the infamous Scull sale in 1973).  That sale at Sotheby's is widely noted as the tipping point for the acceleration in prices of both Abstract Expressionist and Pop Art, and marks the point when current artists started to really earn outsized money for their work.  And, this, of course, would have been 7 or 8 years after Lichtenstein's last comic painting. 

"When someone has to "explain" the meaning to you, or "sell" you on how important a piece is, they've lost me. That's when it ceases to be "art" and becomes "marketing". When markets for artists grow organically without the dog and pony show it is simply more authentic."

 No one has to explain the meaning of a Lichtenstein or explain how important his work is at this stage of art history.  If there was criticism of his work at the time it came out, well, Rolling Stone magazine absolutedly savaged Led Zeppelin's debut album too.  Neither of these criticisms has aged very well.  

[adamstrange]

14 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I'm glad you responded.  I was trying to give any newbie a quick overview (not my definitions) of the history of the terminology.  You have actually done a deep dive, and I agree, it is not simple.  And, you have pointed out a clear point about artist's intent, which is a big factor.  Thanks, David

Good definitions can sometimes be really, really hard to create in order that people can understand what sort of thing is expected to be included in the definition vs. the kind of thing to be excluded from it.  I've been creating definitions as part of the day job for longer than I care to admit so I probably have more sensitivity than most to this topic.