• 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.

Lichtenstein's "Whaam!"
1 1

280 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I just talked about the tremendous influence that AbEx and Pop Art have had on art of the past half century-plus and compared that to what we might have had without them.  No mention of dollars

You need new glasses.  :baiting:

 

Postproof.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Yeah, but, this wasn't exactly your typical creating and "selling a work" with a few bucks worth of paint and canvas.  It was something he was asked (re: hired) to do as part of a project where the finished work cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create. Even if he had taken the money, I doubt this would have been regarded as the moment when a living artist sold a $100K piece. 

Regardless of whether it sold it was public knowledge and prior to that Picasso was known to be have become very wealthy solely via his artwork.  His example alone was a motivator for many artist to achieve a similar level of fame and fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Yes.  We see what great art goes for nowadays and think that, well, surely, prices were easily in the 6-figures already by the 1960s.  What people forget is how stable prices were for decades/centuries while much of the world was on the gold standard and then Bretton Woods.  You didn't really get that tremendous inflation until the very late '60s and 1970s, and, even then, things were starting from a low base and money was tight; even by 1980, one of Lichtenstein's most famous comic paintings only sold for $210,000.  Prices really started ramping up in the second half of the '80s, and then, following the great art market crash, again from 1996-onwards.

Others may not be I'm aware post 1950s art was "cheap" in the 60s and 70s.  Picasso and Dali are the only well known living artists that I can think of that whose artworks and career earnings would have been a motivator for others in the 1960s.  Now, of course, the money is so big for those at the top of the heap that any vows art for art's sake fall on my deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

And don't get me started on Renoir.  Count me in the Renoir Sucks at Painting camp. 

He went off the deep end later in life.  As did Monet.  Both were losing their eyesight...

Quote

Much of his work is just overly saccharine chocolate box art.

Sure and much of Warhol's/Lichtenstein's art is just copying the art of their betters. :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Count me in the Renoir Sucks at Painting camp.  Much of his work is just overly saccharine chocolate box art.

Impressive.  I see the words coming from your computer, but your wife's fingers didn't move once! :baiting:

While I don't think he sucks, I have to admit that Renoir is my least favorite Impressionist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tth2 said:

While I don't think he sucks, I have to admit that Renoir is my least favorite Impressionist.

The more you study Renoir's body of work, the more you realize that there's no need to hold back your feelings of disdain. :foryou: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

The more you study Renoir's body of work, the more you realize that there's no need to hold back your feelings of disdain. :foryou: 

If only he'd had a Heath to steal, umm swipe, umm repurpose detritus from and breath new LIFE INTO!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, adamstrange said:

Others may not be I'm aware post 1950s art was "cheap" in the 60s and 70s.  Picasso and Dali are the only well known living artists that I can think of that whose artworks and career earnings would have been a motivator for others in the 1960s.  Now, of course, the money is so big for those at the top of the heap that any vows art for art's sake fall on my deaf ears.

Both Pollock and DeKooning were doing well financially, if not alcoholically, in their later years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Don't anybody defend Renoir without actually looking at what you're defending... :sick:  

1516018516_Renoir1.thumb.PNG.57afba573862a60e3274de657bc64ce0.PNG1727142216_Renoir2.thumb.PNG.a19f06a32d41b911337972f3b4b7213f.PNG1524581111_Renoir3.thumb.PNG.6fdc6c72fcba11ff4683e8de89261839.PNG1923633853_Renoir4.thumb.PNG.8ec73ca5300409d23a84a073943918df.PNG

 

That proves it. He should have just copied and pasted. He'd have been far more well regarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Don't anybody defend Renoir without actually looking at what you're defending... :sick:  

1516018516_Renoir1.thumb.PNG.57afba573862a60e3274de657bc64ce0.PNG1727142216_Renoir2.thumb.PNG.a19f06a32d41b911337972f3b4b7213f.PNG1524581111_Renoir3.thumb.PNG.6fdc6c72fcba11ff4683e8de89261839.PNG1923633853_Renoir4.thumb.PNG.8ec73ca5300409d23a84a073943918df.PNG

Huh. I've always found Renoir lackluster, in the sense that when in the Impressionist section of the museum I move past to the "better" (more exciting -to me) stuff rather quickly, but as a result I never really stopped and looked either. Sheesh, those examples are, kindly, painful. In a high school art show, this would be the student re-directed toward a trade or something more solid for their next four year education investment ;)

Thanks for pointing this out Gene; next time I'll save even more time by avoiding the entire wall of 'em straightway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you study and have studied art history Gene, so I know you know that from 1894 to the end of his life in 1919 Renoir suffered from severe Arthritis in his hands and shoulders. 

It was so bad that he had to have the paint brush bandaged to his hands in later years. 

Those paintings you posters (L-R, T-B) are:

Lydia Sieligman 1917, Jean Renoir Reading (Jean was born in 1894, thus this had to be at least 1904, perhaps later)

I can't find the bottom left image in his catalog, but the bottom right is Nude on Grass 1915

I am sure he had better days and worse days as the illness took from him his gifts, but be kept on working, and kept on creating, only to have sites dedicated to tearing him down by using the very worst of those days as proof. 

It seems unfair to him to take images created in his last years of life, with a debilitating illness that directly impacted his ability to paint, with his whole body of work....like this piece..from 1880 before the illness struck.

 

Also Renoir:

1454173963_renoir1880.jpg.d637eb85fd9b2f6aeeda2e81a9d3eb60.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I know you study and have studied art history Gene

Yes I have...which is why I know there is plenty of overly saccharine, over-saturated Renoir from the 1870s and 1880s as well. :fear: 

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
1 1