Art critics suck...

[Captain Big Trousers]

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

Vintage Lenticular Religious Print Wall Clock The Last Supper 3D Effect | eBay

The pinnacle of artistic achievement in the 20th century (according to this critic).

[Figuremod73]

Critics serve no real purpose in art other than to help certain galleries sell above average paintings and modern art (dont get me started on some of these).
Someone somewhere said "Like what you like and let others like what they like".

Kincade was one of the finest of the current crop. A master of light and shadow. I would have loved to have seen some fantasy pieces by him. I admit Im much more a fan of someone like Micheal Whelan or Larry Elmore.

I remember Warhol trying to draw Superman once. It was done with a projector. But THIS is consider a fine art piece.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Earth 2 Chris]

^That is just Curt Swan and Murphy Anderson. Warhol was at times a human Xerox machine...that reproduced badly.

Chris

[Merlyn1976]

I personally like H. R. Giger, M. C. Escher, Frank Frazetta, and Boris Vallejo...and I absolutely dig the hell out of Bob Ross' paintings and the "happy little trees"

[Splitty]

They categorized him with Bob Ross, who they also considered a hack. Ross could paint circles around these bozos without even disturbing his afro.

Nobody but NOBODY better talk smack about my Bob Ross, or they got some smack comin' back to them!

I thought Thomas Kinkade's paintings were beautiful, and they were a big hit with my mom. For me art is simply about invoking an emotion that moves the soul. His painting's always created a sense of wonderment. If he had done some fantasy based ones, I'd be all over that.

I got a big kick out of a recent episode of Psych that name dropped him. I suck at remembering quotes, but it was something along the lines of artist names being dropped and Shaun was like Who? Who? to each one. Gus says "Do you know any other artists besides Thomas Kinkade?!" and Shaun was like "Are there any?"

Some of my favs are Dali, Max Ernst, Rodney Mattews, Boris, Frazetta, you know, the weirder stuff. I've never heard critics views of them, and I have no interests. Critics can suck it.
I'm totally digging Robert Steven Connett right now. Fun times.

[Funkyterrance]

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

I also have an artistic background and agree with 99% of the above statements (I love Pollock and consider some of his pieces just about as close to pure art as is humanly possible).
I would like to make the analogy between artists and musicians in this conversation. Most musicians can create something that carries a tune and you can dance to but it takes a musician who contributes something new to the musical collective to gain real critical acclaim. Originality is key.

[Brazoo]

Dismissing art criticism outright is like me saying 'all sports commentators are useless', because I personally don't get anything from hearing sports commentary. The entertaining thing to me about sports (on the occasions when I find sports entertaining) is when a guy does an incredible physical feat. So why would I care about the guy who's just talking about that, and how much the athlete gets paid, and where his hometown is...

If you're really into something you like hearing people talk about it - it's interesting. If you're not into it you wonder "how do people listen to this crap?"

It's cool if you guys don't like art criticism - but I don't think I'm duped for liking it either. To me we're just into different things.

The point of the art snobs you guys are referring to is that a guy like Kinkade can do extremely skilled work - but he doesn't say anything to them. They're trying to categorize artists from people with technical skills. For example - Kinkade may have incredible technical skills, and another guy can be incredible skills at laying asphalt - so what's the difference between them? That's where the division comes into play - they're not judging by the same criteria because they're trying to specify what art is on a different level. And not ALL art critics do this. We're talking about a specific viewpoint - though it's probably more prevalent in the less interesting and more narrow minded average art critics, for sure.

Personally - I have no steak in this. I'll call a guy who lays asphalt fantastically an artist - if that's what he considers himself. I appreciate skill - but I also appreciate critical thought on art too.

I think there are definitely art critics who are quick to dismiss art just because it's popular in the mainstream - but I think going the other way people are too quick to dismiss the time, creativity and thought that goes into creating art that is more conceptual.

[rche]

paraphrase

writing about art is like dancing about architecture

[Werewolf]

The point of the art snobs you guys are referring to is that a guy like Kinkade can do extremely skilled work - but he doesn't say anything to them.

Just because Kinkade's (which I'm personally not even a fan of) work doesn't move them or isn't to their personal tastes doesn't mean it doesn't move others or isn't any good. As they say, art is subjective and an opinion on it is just that, an opinion. Not worth more than anyone elses. When "professional critics" lavish praise on something they personally like and then use their status or clout to try to delegitimize and completely dismiss someone not to their tastes, like Kinkade, they are just a bully. Those are the kinds that raise my ire. Otherwise, I don't care what they have to say one way or the other.

Again, I'm not even a fan of Kinkade. But I still can appreciate his obvious talent and more importantly his ability to emotionally connect with others through his art.

[Brazoo]

paraphrase

writing about art is like dancing about architecture

Why do you feel that way? Art writers cover history, thoughts, philosophy, techniques, personal connections and interpretations - why is it different than writing about music, or sports, or movies, or politics or architecture or anything else that gets written about?

Just because Kinkade's (which I'm personally not even a fan of) work doesn't move them or isn't to their personal tastes doesn't mean it doesn't move others or isn't any good. As they say, art is subjective and an opinion on it is just that, an opinion. Not worth more than anyone elses. When "professional critics" lavish praise on something they personally like and then use their status or clout to try to delegitimize and completely dismiss someone not to their tastes, like Kinkade, they are just a bully. Those are the kinds that raise my ire. Otherwise, I don't care what they have to say one way or the other.

Again, I'm not even a fan of Kinkade. But I still can appreciate his obvious talent and more importantly his ability to emotionally connect with others through his art.

Yeah, and I get that, but some of what's going on here is comparing apples to oranges - Kinkade didn't compare himself to contemporary artists - so why would contemporary art critics celebrate him? I've never heard any critic - even nasty ones - say Kinkade wasn't technically skilled as a painter. By Kinkade's own admission he was trying to elicit simple emotions and simple ideas.

As for bullying - I don't think Kinkade was in a position to be bullied by anyone. He was kind of a bully himself in some respects, actually. "Painter of light" use to be a term used for J. M. W. Turner - Kinkade basically stole that term and trademarked it so it could only be used to describe himself. That's a pretty messed up. It's like if a current baseball player trademarked "The Great Bambino" so nobody could call Babe Ruth that anymore.

He's one of the most financially successful painters of all time - from what I know about him that was more important to him than being respected in the art world anyway. He painted for popular acceptance, not critical appreciation - so I don't think he was unhappy with his place in art history.

This dismissal thing goes both ways though. Kinkade fans probably don't like Mark Rothko - and that's cool with me - but contemporary art isn't always going for the same thing as classical art - who says we can't all just like different things?

[rche]

Why do you feel that way?

people feel they must dance even tho they don't know why. most discussions involving artistic matters of the heart seem to follow a similar rule.

[Brazoo]

people feel they must dance even tho they don't know why. most discussions involving artistic matters of the heart seem to follow a similar rule.

For you art is limited to your emotional response only? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's true. I'd bet that you appreciate what's being communicated through art on an intellectual level as well.

For me, learning about an artist and their life, knowing about their place in history, influences, innovations and techniques adds to my appreciation of art - especially if I start off by having a purely emotional connection to the piece just based on it's esthetics.

[clemso]

I used to own that OA page from SS18. I didn't think it was a joke. Wish i still had it.

[Funkyterrance]

For you art is limited to your emotional response only? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's true. I'd bet that you appreciate what's being communicated through art on an intellectual level as well.

For me, learning about an artist and their life, knowing about their place in history, influences, innovations and techniques adds to my appreciation of art - especially if I start off by having a purely emotional connection to the piece just based on it's esthetics.

Agreed. One could say that this site is about a bunch of middle aged people playing with dolls but that would be a pretty ignorant statement.
My point is that this is a subject that is very easy to oversimplify but the oversimplification is unwarranted.

[garagesale]

You sum it up so well here!

Art is always an opinion.

Andy Warhol did what so many of our Mego customizers do: borrow and reinterpret.

Anyone going to Mego Meet should make a quick stop over in Pittsburgh to check out the Warhol Museum!

JamesD

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.