Lowbrow?

I don't see much in the way of discussion for this type of art. Is there a better forum? Any Robt. O. Williams fans out there?

Uph... There is nothing to discuss anymore. People sit here [in this forum] for years and already grinded everything that was/is in the art world down to smallest pieces...

What you have to offer for discussion ?

You wish! We couldn't find any better, that is why we all stagnate in here. If there is something nicer - we all would've moved there long time ago!

Actually, you can check forums at http://wetcanvas.com it's not usenet (unfortunately) but on-line web forums, but it seems active...

Weaving the Conundrum -=NOUMENON |=-

good one! - unfortunately it has the ring of truth

keith

Yes, I find the art of Robert Williams well worth pondering. Further, it seems to me that in our time it is far too limiting to restrict oneself only to an appreciation of what has traditionally called 'fine art.' For instance, I have long felt that the best illustration transcends its original purpose and can easily be enjoyed by people having little or no interest in the story being illustrated.

Further, often the artists themselves don't even realize they are producing art. Many of the painted pulp-magazine cover illustrations were trashed because neither the artist nor the publisher saw value in them. Some of the best pulp illustrators considered pulp-fiction illustration their bread and butter job which provided a (rather meager, actually, in most cases) living so they could work on their 'real art,' in their spare time. In most cases, the 'real art' never caused a ripple in the art world, but the pulp paintings are raved about and fetch high prices today. Those which were not tossed in the rubbish decades back are exhibited in museums and galleries now or sold at aution by prestigious houses.

In my view, the rather abstract paintings that Richard Powers did for the covers of Ballentine science-fiction paperbacks back in the 1950's are fine art of museum quality (even though at the time he was doing Ballentine covers, Powers apparently did not consider those to be representative of his 'real' art). Frankly, I don't know if the traditional lines between high-brow and low-brow art are becoming blurry in the art world, or whether it is simply that I personally have a great feeling for outstanding illustration, as well as for fine art. Maybe it is a little of both...

alt.genius.bill-palmer

You are faddy and limited. And when you do run into something you haven't heard before (like my comments on Vrubel) you get all bent out of shape and start making personal attacks to try and discredit your opponent.

Personally, I DON'T like to waste my time on watered-down echos of opinions that have already been expressed better and more than once in the traditional print-world art magazines. I am far more interested in views that would likely never make it into a traditional art magazine in the first place, because the opinions I refer to are too fresh and do not strike the right chords with the people who edit traditional art magazines.

You are just plain wrong in another respect too. Everything in the art world has NOT been 'ground down' in this forum. Yes, there are certain recurring themes, such as 'Who is the greatest, Dali or Picasso?' but other great artists (such as a couple of dozen of the best European Symbolists) have scarcely been discussed at all.

Let's take a recent example of your being off by a mile in what you rather pompously assert above. You never encountered anything like my 'Feldstein versus Lichtenstein' post of a days back. Is it safely in the art world (to stay within your limits)? Yes, since both Feldstein and Lichtenstein have successful art careers. But since you ran into something you have never considered in that post

Looks like you are merely making the claim that 'Feldstein versus Lichtenstein' is worth discussing. The only evidence we have either way is the fact that no one responded to your post. Hint, hint, my friend.

The problem with the comparison is that it ignores what Pop Art is, to the core, and settles for superficial appearences, while at the same time ingnoring what comic art is. The topic is therefore superficial. Sort of like comparing Vargas with Utamaro.

Sir, I believe it is, or I would not have posted it in the first place. (And I DID get some follow-up in a comics group, though mostly it was in regard to whether Feldstein could use Lichtenstein techniques on some of Feldstein's old EC panels without getting permission from copyright-holder EC.)

Vague talk there! Pop Art is what it appears to be. What you see is what you get. And I say that if you go through Feldstein's EC comic art panel by panel, you are going to find panels that many people would find more interesting than a Lichtenstein 'imitation cartoon panel.' And I mean no disrespect to Lichtenstein. After all, among other things, he is showing that a cartoon panel, if blown up with the proper technique, can look great on a wall. (I have a nice reproduction of Lichtenstein's South Sea Girl on a wall I love it.) Anyway, I simply happen to believe that there are a great many authentic comic book illustrations which could be reproduced and blown up in size with impressive results. Nothing superficial about it. Often it is a case of illustrators becoming true artists in spite of themselves. Graham Ingels, it is often suggested, was destroyed because of the backlash over his EC art. People like Dr. Wertham made Engels feel guilty about his brilliant work for EC, so much so that he became ashamed of his own art, and that is a terrible thing for an immensely talented artist like Ingels. His work will disturb you, scare the hell out of you, even make you sick with fear, but I think art needs to do that sometimes. My own view of Ingels is that he is a true artist, worthy of the same stature in eerie art that Lovecraft has in eerie literature. I would love to have some blown-up reproductions of Ingels' work on my walls. Not the gruesome depictions, but the eeriely moody ones, such as the old house in the bayou... Among other things, Ingels is a master of mood. Yes, some people in this group would consider Ingels' art ugly and horrible, but remember, many people said the same thing of surrealism, and in fact, surrealism challenged traditional views of beauty and ugliness.

I don't think so.

alt.genius.bill-palmer (temporary office: rec.arts.prose)

Funny, when you truncate my point, it loses something. Look at it this way: when you use the passive voice - it is worth discussion - the question 'to whom?' always lingers. When no one responds, it suggests that the subject is not worthy of discussion.

How so (vague)? Your response is the epitome of shallowness. Of course Pop Art is more than just appearances. The case in point, Lichtenstein was making paintings of comic book art. He wasn't making comic book art. In fact, he was even painting representations of graphic reproduction technology, such as the dots of a percentage screen.

And I say that if you go through Feldstein's

What a stupid exercise! Sort of like saying that Joe Schmo, Advertising Designer, made a better soup can label than Warhol did.

I'm sure Roy is laughing in his grave at such bravado!

I honestly can't imagine a more intellectually shallow account of Lichtenstein than that, William. Why don't you make the attempt to see what Lichtenstein was all about, or what Pop Art is all about. I think it would be a rewarding experience for you.

Anyway, I simply happen

But the comic strip is a narrative art form. When you pluck out graphics from the story, it's just a picture, in fact an anti-narrative. If you read Varnadoe in 'High and Low' from the MOMA show you can see what I'm talking about.

Graham Ingels, it is often suggested, was

I was raised on pre-comic code EC's, great stuff. But you don't want to rip the art out of context, as I said above. If you sacrifice the narrative form, comics lose too much. But that is yet another example of superficiality.

Of course it is, since you are reducing both Pop Art and Comic Art down to 'what it looks like.' That's silly, on both counts. If you study Art History, for example, your first seminar should instruct you about the weakness of the 'like begets like' inference. If you reduce everything down to surface appearance, you will imagine all sorts of connections, historical and aesthetic, where none actually exist.

It's like George Kubler, in his theory piece 'The Shape of Time.' He proposes that there are grand themes in art history, and uses landscape painting as an example. But by his idea, you would have to infer a relationship between Roman mural painting and Diebenkorn's 'Ocean Park' paintings, both manifestations of landscape painting. The relationship simply doesn't exist, either historically or aesthetically.

You are entirely correct Erik. Nail on head.

regards, Thomas

online portfolio: