Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[comix4fun]

Just now, delekkerste said:

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

Yet not as poorly executed. Which is why I had to point out the choices given as a demonstration of how much Renoir sucks weren't a genuine cross-section of his life's work. 

Every artist has a good day, a bad day, a healthy day, a sick day. 

You could point to any artist and find pieces that fail to hit the mark, especially if they are suffering like Renoir did at the end. 

Renoir's best days are some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen, that evoke real emotion and are of real people. They weren't appropriated. They don't need a sales pitch. Their meaning comes from what's felt inside the viewer without any backstory, set up or treatise necessary. 

Looking at this entire body of work, taking the good with the bad, I don't think "disdain" is how he'd really be judged given just how high his highs really are. 

[adamstrange]

Just now, comix4fun said:

Yet not as poorly executed. Which is why I had to point out the choices given as a demonstration of how much Renoir sucks weren't a genuine cross-section of his life's work. 

Every artist has a good day, a bad day, a healthy day, a sick day. 

You could point to any artist and find pieces that fail to hit the mark, especially if they are suffering like Renoir did at the end. 

Renoir's best days are some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen, that evoke real emotion and are of real people. They weren't appropriated. They don't need a sales pitch. Their meaning comes from what's felt inside the viewer without any backstory, set up or treatise necessary. 

Looking at this entire body of work, taking the good with the bad, I don't think "disdain" is how he'd really be judged given just how high his highs really are. 

"La Moulin De La Galette" sold for $78 million we know objectively that his art is super awesome and much better than "Whaam" which only sold for $35million!

[delekkerste]

3 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Renoir's best days are some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen, that evoke real emotion and are of real people. They weren't appropriated. They don't need a sales pitch. Their meaning comes from what's felt inside the viewer without any backstory, set up or treatise necessary. 

Looking at this entire body of work, taking the good with the bad, I don't think "disdain" is how he'd really be judged given just how high his highs really are. 

I liked his art when I was in high school.

[comix4fun]

Just now, delekkerste said:

I liked his art when I was in high school.

So this is ugly? 

 

But this is a masterpiece? 

[delekkerste]

Just now, comix4fun said:

So this is ugly? 

 

 

That's not even typical Renoir - it has a much darker color palette than most of his works, for starters.  Much of his other works - from all eras - are oversaturated with bright hues. This is, however, very typical subject matter for Renoir.  Little girls. Sometimes little boys. Occasionally a semi-curious slice of life, but, at the end of the day, nothing particularly interesting or challenging. Just pure hit of saccharine bliss to activate the pleasure centers of the brains of non-discriminating viewers. Essentially, the kind of art you'd find decorating a chocolate box.  Nothing notable about the line or composition or technique.  Monet is - quite rightly - viewed as the far superior artist because his work made challenging use of light and shadow across a wide variety of subjects - people, buildings, nature, etc.  Renoir is the artistic equivalent of a Hostess Twinkie.

I don't mind some saccharine, chocolate box type artwork - Fragonard and Boucher are guilty pleasures (worth a visit to The Frick Collection just for the Rococo art).  But, Renoir, for the most part...hard pass.  Not only is he the least interesting of the major Impressionist artists, but, there are other non-Impressionist French artists from the 19th century that are more notable and interesting as well to me (e.g., Courbet, Ingres). 

You don't need to know any backstory to appreciate Lichtenstein's works.  Anyone can walk into a museum, see one, and be impressed by how the present themselves - often large, with thick black outlines, bold color, his signature Ben-Day dots, etc. - and appreciate the fun and whimsy, and recognize what he was trying to do. Those who educate themselves on this period of art history and its enduring influence can be impressed further later.  

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

 Essentially, the kind of art you'd find decorating a chocolate box.  Nothing notable about the line or composition or technique. 

Which is less impressive than artwork you'd  find on  copy from a nondescript comic panel? 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by comix4fun

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

... (worth a visit to The Frick Collection just for the Rococo art).

Did the Frick this last summer for the first time; it was fine but I won't go back. MoMA and Met...every time I'm in NYC. Guggenheim and Whitney every other time unless their is a special exhibit of particular interest.

[delekkerste]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Which is less impressive than artwork you'd find on a nondescript comic panel? 

 

Far less impressive than the totality of what Lichtenstein tried and succeeded in doing, yes.  But, no need to get into that again, as I think everybody knows where you and I stand on the matter...worlds apart, hearts broken in two...two...two...  

[comix4fun]

Just now, delekkerste said:

Far less impressive than the totality of what Lichtenstein tried and succeeded in doing, yes.  But, no need to get into that again, as I think everybody knows where you and I stand on the matter...worlds apart, hearts broken in two...two...two...  

Well, you spoke only to the image itself, not the back story, not the meaning, not the emotion evoked by the figures and colors and composition. There's no "totality" in the rip on Renoir, just what the eyes see and how it fails to meet a bar of technical skill. It was the image quality of Renoir you posted here in support of your stance on him. 

So it was not what Renoir tried to say or tried to do, just how it looked in its surface. So we should take all pieces on that level, right? Just what we see, how well it's executed, what technical skills are brought to the table. Nothing else. 

I was making the comparison and the critique an even one. 

[ESeffinga]

I do recall one of Piero Manzoni's poop can's leaking at a museum in Denmark.
Also recall an article about them being filled with plaster, and not poop.

Not sure who checked...

[delekkerste]

15 minutes ago, vodou said:

Did the Frick this last summer for the first time; it was fine but I won't go back. MoMA and Met...every time I'm in NYC. Guggenheim and Whitney every other time unless their is a special exhibit of particular interest.

It's worth going to see at least once.  Me and my wife have been several times - occasionally they'll get an interesting temporary exhibition, like when they had Vermeer's Girl With the Pearl Earring and Fabritius' The Goldfinch on loan from The Mauritshuis a while back (was actually at the Mauritshuis back in 2004-ish when they did the fabulous, first-ever Fabritius exhibition), but, the permanent collection is so interesting that, to me, it's worth seeing more than once.  I love the Fragonard room, the 3 Vermeers and the other 17th century Dutch masterpieces in particular. 

[comix4fun]

16 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I do recall one of Piero Manzoni's poop can's leaking at a museum in Denmark.
Also recall an article about them being filled with plaster, and not poop.

Not sure who checked...

Fake Poop News!!!!

[adamstrange]

43 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I do recall one of Piero Manzoni's poop can's leaking at a museum in Denmark.
Also recall an article about them being filled with plaster, and not poop.

Not sure who checked...

Two or three have exploded. There was more than plaster inside...

[adamstrange]

I will gracefully bow out of this thread.  Luckily we have not fulfilled Godwin's Law but I think we exhausted the positive aspects of this discussion which I enjoyed more than my last dental checkup.

Everyone else is free to carry on.

[vodou]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

It's worth going to see at least once.  Me and my wife have been several times - occasionally they'll get an interesting temporary exhibition, like when they had Vermeer's Girl With the Pearl Earring and Fabritius' The Goldfinch on loan from The Mauritshuis a while back (was actually at the Mauritshuis back in 2004-ish when they did the fabulous, first-ever Fabritius exhibition), but, the permanent collection is so interesting that, to me, it's worth seeing more than once.  I love the Fragonard room, the 3 Vermeers and the other 17th century Dutch masterpieces in particular. 

It's just me, I'm really worn out on religious pictures. Some places have more than others, those are the places I visit less. Unless you are a specialist, so many Old Master (and expanded schools of) all start looking the same, breaking down into several broad periods...the only exceptions would be Bosch and a few others that prefer showing up torture and mayhem rather than illuminated Christ and/or Mary. I am not a specialist and am less and less likely every day to want to become one, which had been an ambition about twenty years ago. Goya black paintings...yummy

If you have to look at religious art in your home, Baphomet & Friends are so much more fun!

[Twanj]

8 hours ago, delekkerste said:

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

Renoir vs Liefeld, who's better?

[PhilipB2k17]

 

[PhilipB2k17]

17 hours ago, Twanj said:

Renoir vs Liefeld, who's better?

Come to think if it, you rarely see Renoir paint feet. 

[PhilipB2k17]

23 hours ago, delekkerste said:

It's worth going to see at least once.  Me and my wife have been several times - occasionally they'll get an interesting temporary exhibition, like when they had Vermeer's Girl With the Pearl Earring and Fabritius' The Goldfinch on loan from The Mauritshuis a while back (was actually at the Mauritshuis back in 2004-ish when they did the fabulous, first-ever Fabritius exhibition), but, the permanent collection is so interesting that, to me, it's worth seeing more than once.  I love the Fragonard room, the 3 Vermeers and the other 17th century Dutch masterpieces in particular. 

I made sure to visit the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh museum when I was in Amsterdam. Amazing collections.

[chrisco37]

Have to do some night work in DC this evening.  Got into the city early and had some time to kill.  Decided to “pop” into the NGA and take a few pics for the thread.