[PenultimateManStanding]

You can't fault an artist for wanting to make money, can you? The guy's got kids. Who knows, maybe he's a peakoiler and he's trying to get ready and he needs the money for that! I always thought that The Doors sold out and made some commercial crap in their later days. Inspiration doesn't always come on demand and professional artists can and do find their work's caliber rising and falling. Monet's paintings weren't always at the highest level, and furthermore, those Impressionists were definately working to find a market and make a living.

[SinisterBlueCat]

The Doors maybe did, but NEVER Jim Morrison! I obviously do not mind an artist having a chance to eat...I like to eat. It is just the pushy commerialism of kincades stuff that annoys me.

A few years ago, there was a big to-do about kincade because after spending thousands on reproductions in one of his galleries, some of his customers found out that he was selling some of the same prints through walmart...cheap.

It is the travel painting sets, the nicknacks, the coffee mugs, and all the rest that bugs me. and it is the self proclaimed title "the Painter of Light" that really urks me. It is all bad taste and good business, but definately not art.

It is like Betty Crocker...the man himself could die tomorrow and the selling of kinkades would continue on.

I think in a way, the fact that kinkade is as popular as he is says something about america, don't you?

[EdF]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I always thought that The Doors sold out and made some commercial crap in their later days.

[Eli]

Art can be ugly I love Hieronymus Bosch his work is seriously disturbing and he did paint some ugly scenes.




But art can be at it's best when it is beautiful and well done.

My biggest problem with art is that most artists suck and lack real talent and do things like put the Virgin Mary in urine because they have no real skill at art. They cover up their suckiness with elephant dung.

Thomas Kincade is right up their with that guy that does all those cabbage patch looking people.

I feel the same way about music too the Gratefull Dead sucked not a single one of them could play an instrument well they were just stoners that wrote songs for stoners and they sounded like they were stoned when they played(which they were of course).

[Eli]

Kincade is most definetly art it is just bad art in your opinion ( which I totally agree with).

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'K')incade is most definetly art it is just bad art in your opinion ( which I totally agree with).

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', '
')as for mr. kincade, he is not an artist, he is a production manager. it is not art, merely a product.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', '
')I feel the same way about music too the Gratefull Dead sucked not a single one of them could play an instrument well they were just stoners that wrote songs for stoners and they sounded like they were stoned when they played(which they were of course).

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', '
')Paintings like Kincaid are closer to craft than art...
He isn't challenging the definition of art, challenging his viewers or himself, or evolving. He is cranking out variations on a theme chosen for maximum sales.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', ' ')
A few years ago, there was a big to-do about kincade because after spending thousands on reproductions in one of his galleries, some of his customers found out that he was selling some of the same prints through walmart...cheap.

[cornholio]

I mentioned "pushing the boundaries" of art as a definition for relevant art because I had a painting teacher who was stuck on the idea that true "art" challenges the definition of art, or is at least unsettling to its contemporary viewers (as impressionism once was). This caused him to praise a talentless student's first (joking) coarse lined god-aweful painting as being "neo-primative." This caused the talentless student to spend the rest of the semester painting very similar horrible "neoprimative" paintings, without ever really learning how to paint. The teacher thought that he knew what art should be, and the student was influenced by praise to never explore new areas, or even become proficient in painting. Pushing the boundaries of art for the sake of pushing the boundries is asking for trouble : )

Regarding art and craft, I think it is closer to art when you are trying to express an idea, or are exploring a medium recklessly. When you are merely producing an image or object to produce a familiar predictable outcome using repetitive techniques it is a craft (imho). Monet produced a number of similar paintings, but each was an attempt to capture different light. Andy Warhole produced images using a craft technique, but each expanded on an idea (mass production). Kinkade's paintings remind me more of the paintings made on the TV "learn to paint shows" where with 3 brushstroaks you can create a tree. He doesn't seem to be exploring the medium or offering any thought... just rearranging pretty predictable things.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', 'I') mentioned "pushing the boundaries" of art as a definition for relevant art because I had a painting teacher who was stuck on the idea that true "art" challenges the definition of art, or is at least unsettling to its contemporary viewers (as impressionism once was). This caused him to praise a talentless student's first (joking) coarse lined god-aweful painting as being "neo-primative." This caused the talentless student to spend the rest of the semester painting very similar horrible "neoprimative" paintings, without ever really learning how to paint.

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'T')he effort to master the craft of painting was obsolete, and not considered worthy of a real artist, who was rather supposed to have an immediacy, an uncorrupted purity, a sublime transcendance that couldn't be bothered with such mundane matters like how to paint...Decline Of The West.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', ' ')I think before impressionism painters and artists understood themselves as craftsmen... With impressionism the idea was planted that art could be more.

Breakthrough, progress, careers and fame were made during the process of expanding the definition of art. The concept of artist as rebel and innovator, above reproach or judgement was formed.

[PenultimateManStanding]

A drinking buddy of Utrillo's was another undiscovered genius, Modigliani. His doting Italian mama sent him enough money in Paris to keep a roof over his head and he would draw people's portraits in bars for the money to stay drunk on brandy and stoned on hashish and follow his own vision when nobody was buying his sculptures or paintings. His body gave out on him right around the time he became famous and died knowing that his ship was finally coming in. Oh, the irony!

[threadbear]

From the Tate Gallery.

In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of Artist's Shit. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's Shit", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961 Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.' (Letter reprinted in Battino and Palazzoli p.144.)

It is not known exactly how many cans of Artist's Shit were sold within Manzoni's lifetime, but a receipt dated 23 August 1962 certifies that Manzoni sold one to Alberto Lùcia for 30 grams of 18-carat gold (reproduced in Battino and Palazzoli p.154). Manzoni's decision to value his excrement on a par with the price of gold made clear reference to the tradition of the artist as alchemist already forged by Marcel Duchamp and Yves Klein among others. As the artist and critic Jon Thompson has written:

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork ... bview=text


That's weird enough. What makes the relationship of the artist, no matter how insane and the artistic establishment so insular and warped is that the weird priesthood of art critics lend credence to this guy's work by critiquing it at all. It's absurd. The fine arts have been taken over by complete imbeciles.


"Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The Merda d'artista, the artist's shit, dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, ad infinitum.' (Piero Manzoni, 1998, p.4"5)

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')It's absurd. The fine arts have been taken over by complete imbeciles.


"Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The Merda d'artista, the artist's shit, dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, ad infinitum.' (Piero Manzoni, 1998, p.4"5)

[threadbear]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

. The diversified oeuvre of this Chicago-based artist (b. 1965) can be classified into three areas: some works revolve around the properties of various unlikely materials (e.g., soap, pubic hair, spaghetti);

The most immediately material-oriented work Friedman's recent New York solo (his fourth) consisted of a wad of bubble gum stretched some 20 feet from the ceiling to the floor, a reach that in the middle drew the gum into a nearly invisible thread. Like an earlier project in which he molded 1,500 pieces of chewed bubble gum into a pink, grapefruit-sized sphere that stuck, seemingly on its own, to the wall [see A.i.A. Sept. '92], this could be viewed as little more than an amusing stunt. However, by allowing the physical properties--chewiness, stickiness, elasticity--of such a demotic material to determine the sculpture's realization (as Richard Serra did, for example, with molten lead), Friedman produces a witty Pop-conceptualist parody of Minimalism, process art and modernist reflexivity.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_18274574

[PenultimateManStanding]

BTW, threadbear, the intellectual climate in 1961 was still heavily influenced by your favorite: Sigmund Freud. And in that manner of thought, money is the symbolic equivalent of shit. People's attitude to money is influenced by their subconscious infantile attitudes to shit: the pleasure of obstinately refusing to be 'potty trained' and playing with the stuff as a control over the environment of parents. So here we have the ironic play with the nexus Shit=Art=Money. Doubly ironic because the 'value' of the Art was reinforced by the wry payment of gold for Manzoni's 'work' making the purchaser part of the 'Art'. Triply ironic because those old tins are still probably worth a lot of money in the market as Art-Historical Pieces (of shit).

[Eli]

There was another artist that got a lot of the same criticism that Kincade is getting now.

That artists being Norman Rockwell, I like Norman Rockwell paintings however. Kincades paintings are just too sugary sweet to take and large doses they can lead to diabetes.

If Kincade became a heroin addict and lost every dime he had and had to live on the street for awhile he might paint something profound. So there is always hope.

( Pen that joke about the Grateful Dead had me ROTF ) Seriously I had always hated them and then I watched a behind the music about the band on VH1 and one of the members said "none of us could really play an instrument " and they had early concert recordings and they just sucked so bad it was unbelievable.