Art critics suck...

[enyawd72]

Thomas Kinkade passed away, and there was an article on MSN about his work, which went on to say how he was considered a hack because his art was dismissed by critics and never hung in galleries or museums.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the guy, but some of his paintings were truly beautiful, and certainly not the work of a hack. I cannot fathom how any critic can have such disdain for an artist like Thomas Kinkade while holding someone like Andy Warhol in such high regard.
Who, exactly "decides" what is good art and what isn't? It's all subjective.
I can't stand anime, but does that mean anime is bad? No, because obviously millions of people love it.
There are several Picasso prints that look like refrigerator door doodles, yet art critics praise them because it's stylish to do so, while dismissing a Steve Ditko or Jack Kirby piece as comic book garbage.
It's insane. The image below illustrates my point. One is considered a masterpiece, the other a joke. Too bad the critics have it backwards.

[Bruce Banner]

All critics (be they art critics, literary critics, movie critics, music critics, et al)... are mostly a cynical, bitter, superficial, unimaginative bunch with a herd mentality who simply couldn't recognize or acknowledge anything that had true artistic merit.

[EMCE Hammer]

Preach on brother Dwayne. My four-yr-old has made things just as charming as the pic on the left, and I proudly display them. Kinkade got a raw deal from the critics, may he RIP.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I agree completely. Having completed a college art program, I can tell you that many established members of "the art community" are card-carrying snobs. One fellow student of mine painted beautiful rural landscapes, usually with a cabin or barn somewhere in the piece. His work was constantly trashed because it was sincere and not ironic. He was told that what he was doing wasn't true art. They categorized him with Bob Ross, who they also considered a hack. Ross could paint circles around these bozos without even disturbing his afro.

Meanwhile some nut who painted himself as a naked Jesus every time got praise after praise. His works were hung all over the art building, much to the disgust of anyone who really didn't want to see that dude naked (which was everyone).

Now, unlike the Picasso doodle above, both were well-executed with a lot of technical skill. But I ask you, which would you rather have hanging in your home; beautifully rendered landscape (somewhat like Kinkade) or naked Jesus dude?

Ironically, I managed to get by with some of my comic subject matter BECAUSE guys like Warhol and Lichtenstein had made them acceptable to the high art crowd. I really have a deep disdain for their comic-inspired art, as they ripped off comic artists who never saw a dime of their millions.

And for the record, I liked Kinkade's stuff. Yes, it was very commercial, and very repetitive. But so was much of Norman Rockwell's output. Both evoked a pleasant mood with their paintings which a lot of people loved. Sounds like a good life and career to me!

Chris

[MIB41]

Art will always be very subjective and a place, I think, critics really serve no relevant place. This artist came into the world and made a name for himself. And for that he is called a hack? What an impossibly stupid thing to say. If only critics could walk the talk from which they display such conviction.

[palitoy]

My daughter draws, A LOT and yesterday she asked if she was an artist. I told her she was and the beauty of being one is nobody can tell you that you aren't one.

I HATED art class in high school because of one horrible teacher who didn't like me or my friends, everything I presented was publicly ravaged. Another friend of mine glued a corgi batmobile on a globe and got praise like he got milk from a bull. She liked him and he knew it.

I had other art profs and teachers who were critical of me later in life but it was always constructive, never as mean spirited. Critics can go to hell.

[Mikey]

"Who, exactly "decides" what is good art and what isn't? It's all subjective."

I always thought the same for food critics ...

I personally love greasy burgers and steak with extra fat

[kingdom warrior]

Picasso was a Genius and it's impossible to dismiss him. a child prodigy, he went through a lot of stages.
If you study his work you can see how damn good he was.....he created styles and art movements. Sure if you look at some of his doodles or quick sketches you're going to say I can do that....but in reality you can't. Picasso played by his own rules and was constantly drawing and playing with ideas.

Comic book, Magazine,and greeting card art was considered,"Throw away art" because they were made for the tabloids and really never used again. You were lucky if you got your work back as most of it was thrown out. The art director told you what to draw, It wasn't something that you came up with or was making any kind of Political statement or bringing up a social issue.

Comic book art from the Golden age for the most part outside of the covers.......the interior work is Bad and I mean really bad. many of the artist were young kids still learning their crafts, sure there were stand outs, but for the most part it was art that was crude and most of that art was thrown away.

Remember comic books were looked down upon. if you were an artist you wanted to work in the syndicates, that was like being a movie star or you wanted to go into advertising which paid better.

Doing comics was like being a B movie actor you only did it for the money.
It was like being a dime store Pulp writer...you did it to hone your craft until you could write the Great American novel.

Our generation was raised on comic books and since the 60's attitudes have changed to some degree and we see it more as art.

Kinkade was a fine painter you could stare at his paintings and dream of living in those towns homes or it would give you a warm christmas feeling....but to the "Real"art world it doesn't say anything. That's what most of those critics look for. what does it have to say about our world or this moment.

Rockwell, was at one time looked down upon, because he was a commercial artist who created paintings that his art director have him do to meet the deadline of "The Saturady Evening Post" it wasn't till years later that he was accepted as a real artist because times had changed and his art told stories that people remember seeing and have fond memories as kids......

Personally I dislike,Warhol,lichtenstein,Pollock,Basquiat ,Haring

[Mikey]

My fav artist is the guy whos paintings look like Pink Floyd album covers ... Like the one with the melted clock (I forgot his name)

[Brazoo]

Most people evaluate art based on these three things:

1. the esthetics - Does it look good? Did it take skill to make?

2. the concept - What does the piece say? How does the execution of the piece add to the meaning?

3. the monetary value - the higher a pieces financial value, the more people appreciate it.

I think wether we like it or not, everyone uses all three of these things to evaluate art to varying degrees.

The general population puts more emphasis on 1 and 3, and modern art critics generally put more emphasis on 2.

That doesn't mean there aren't art critics who don't appreciate Jack Kirby - there are.

To complicate things further, there's this bias of commerce vs. creativity. Sometimes we romanticize the starving artist and call the successful artist a 'sell-out'. For example, I really doubt that many art critics consider that Picasso sketch that was posted to be a masterpiece - so I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good example. In fact, that looks to me like it would be a later Picasso piece, and in that period serious art critics weren't as interested in Picasso because he was making a killing off little doodles like that - and some stopped taking him as seriously. (Remember the Jon Lovitz SNL bit? "I'm Picasso!!!" That's kinda real.)

Most of Andy Warhol's work was about questioning all these facets of art appreciation and most of his work was made to question the "authoritative" art world while satirizing it AND questioning how art is appreciated by the general population. That's why I think he's fantastic and I think his work is exciting and fun. The funniest part was that he was accepted by both worlds - the art snobs AND the folks who just want to decorate their bedroom. It's totally fascinating to me.

I think the snob art crowd goes too far, but I also think the fans of popular culture art goes the other way too. There's ways to appreciate both.

I think Megos are art - AND I think Marcel Duchamp is an incredible artist too. Maybe try to look deeper than the esthetics and you might get some new appreciation for things you didn't think you'd like? I honestly don't think it's an important thing to try - like, there's nothing wrong with you if you don't, but you might have fun.

[WannabeMego]

... Like the one with the melted clock (I forgot his name)

Salvador Dali

[Captain Big Trousers]

Picasso was a Genius and it's impossible to dismiss him. a child prodigy, he went through a lot of stages.
If you study his work you can see how damn good he was.....he created styles and art movements. Sure if you look at some of his doodles or quick sketches you're going to say I can do that....but in reality you can't.

Picasso developed "Cubism" because he couldn't draw hands.

Look up his early work - crap at hands.

As for critics, the world's full of 'em. Opinions are like... well, you know.

[cactus725]

Don't know if it's art....but I know what I like..

[Tothiro]

Picasso developed "Cubism" because he couldn't draw hands.

Look up his early work - crap at hands.

As for critics, the world's full of 'em. Opinions are like... well, you know.

So in other words, Picasso is to hands as Rob Liefeld is to feet?

I don't really begrudge the guy making a buck, but nothing he put out interested me. I do admit though to finding a little bit to be excited about in his mall shops, where they sold some of the painting reproductions with actual fiber optic set-ups... That was so over the top post-punk I had to give him a bit of absurdity credit.

As far as art goes you can be technically skilled and leave me cold (MC Escher), and you can have some structural or technique issues and I'll still really like some of it (Maxfield Parish). People love Guy Harvey. They're really adequately painted fish... I don't get it, but let 'em enjoy.

I do think Warhol completely ripped off Lichtenstein in a lot of ways though, conceptually, artistically, etc. And I never really got Rodin - everything he ever sculpted I look at like a Sculpey rough.

[Werewolf]

Picasso developed "Cubism" because he couldn't draw hands.

Look up his early work - crap at hands.

Lol, yeah, his hands were not the greatest. Seriously, though, his early work was less...umm...abstract. But he never got anywhere close to a level of realism, in my opinion. Even in his earliest work his proportions and anatomy always looked off, to me.