tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post8407193768875660482..comments2024-03-28T22:57:07.128-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: WHY ARE THESE ILLUSTRATIONS SO BAD?David Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-36979976392552173822023-08-14T21:47:57.993-04:002023-08-14T21:47:57.993-04:00Anonymous wrote "contemporary art isn't ...Anonymous wrote <b> "contemporary art isn't illustration, and doesn't have to have anything to do with drawing or 'illustration'"</b><br /><br />I'm not sure we can divide pictures into clean categories like that. Todd McFarlane is a comic artist, certainly not a "fine" contemporary artist. The Supreme Court just finished ruling, in one of the most important copyright cases in many years, that Andy Warhol was acting as a commercial illustrator when he created a portrait of Prince for a magazine, later for another magazine, Warhol and Lynn Goldsmith (the photographer whose work he altered) were both engaged in the same commercial enterprise: licensing images of Prince to magazines.<br /><br />I'm impressed by Duchamp, but none of these artists was a Duchamp.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-77572440260867217312023-08-14T16:45:56.374-04:002023-08-14T16:45:56.374-04:00If the title of the NY Times article was seven por...If the title of the NY Times article was seven portraits by contemporary illustrators, then you would have a strong point to your article, however contemporary art isn't illustration, and doesn't have to have anything to do with drawing or 'illustration', or even what we think of as traditional craft skill for that matter. See Duchamp's 'Urinal' for reference. I will agree that contemporary artists don't do themselves any favors when they cross over to illustration haphazardly either. Honestly, if I was the AD on this feature, I would have chosen illustrators to do a much better job. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-3404103385336719402022-01-22T19:38:15.719-05:002022-01-22T19:38:15.719-05:00I think it all comes down to a lack of talented ar...I think it all comes down to a lack of talented artist out there, can't draw just know how to operate a piece of software. Companies pay extremely poorly now and they don't value nor know what good artwork would even look like. Does the world really care anymore about using quality art and would they know it if they saw it, from what I've seen, no. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10790736943514544816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24580942699197636752020-04-11T15:23:07.627-04:002020-04-11T15:23:07.627-04:00hah funny stuff. Glad you aren't afraid to com...hah funny stuff. Glad you aren't afraid to come out and say it. Shame McFarlane's portrait of Stan Lee didn't pan out, especially given their long friendship. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-62334292510096384472019-03-19T23:00:02.901-04:002019-03-19T23:00:02.901-04:00On Aretha Franklin's illustration, I instantly...On Aretha Franklin's illustration, I instantly saw the black shiny rendering of the face as a sort of visual metaphor for the reflection of the grooves on a vinyl disc. That works well considering her career. Doesn't redeem for the drawing though! Seb Béginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00183166422267969774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24977129390928008682019-02-22T03:49:26.757-05:002019-02-22T03:49:26.757-05:00You are dead on correct. I do not know who did the...You are dead on correct. I do not know who did the portrait of Ms. Franklin. I am only looking at the talentless hack rendering. It's a huge honor to have your work published on a NYT cover. But if that honor is rewarded on the basis of race rather than talent..we have hit a new lowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-39297697062268726392019-02-22T03:40:27.692-05:002019-02-22T03:40:27.692-05:00The NYT cover is student work. Junior high school ...The NYT cover is student work. Junior high school level. In musical terms..its a bad rendition of chop sticks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-86152008031497496612019-02-22T03:32:28.356-05:002019-02-22T03:32:28.356-05:00It's hard to be an artist. Brilliant illustra...It's hard to be an artist. Brilliant illustrators such as bernie fuchs do not exist today. The NYT illustrations are bad and sad. The non- artists who did them do not have a clue...so why is the Times using non-artists. Politically correct impulsesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-20076600604786345872019-02-22T03:28:01.969-05:002019-02-22T03:28:01.969-05:00Their work is on an elementary school level. Their work is on an elementary school level. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-59013103060108968562019-01-23T16:42:27.453-05:002019-01-23T16:42:27.453-05:00Thanks for the correction on proof.
I'm not a...Thanks for the correction on proof.<br /><br />I'm not advocating for a king to be artificially placed on a throne ex nihilo. On that point we agree. I would not consider such people royalty in the first place. Royalty is a title given to a family for having gone enough generations without pissing off enough people to spark a coup -- it evolves out of a soft touch and a respect for the plurality of the people.<br /><br />Which is to say that good kings and queens arise naturally from generations of good governance slowly centralising their dynasty's power in accretions.<br /><br />When autocrats are created from populist programs, they universally look more like Hitler than Queen Elizabeth. <br /> <br />With history's pretenders at royalty, Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, Mao, time has proven that you can't will a good king into existence, but history also shows that intergenerational patience will give you one quite naturally.<br />Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-78722318437717009072019-01-23T12:10:47.004-05:002019-01-23T12:10:47.004-05:00The impossibility of it all makes one long for big...The impossibility of it all makes one long for big sweeping solutions; a great hero on a great white horse riding down from the mountain to right all the wrongs, to free us from our chains, to make the crops grow again, to give us back our lost community, to make us strong, young and innocent once more, free and full of possibility. As it once was, long ago. In our dreams.<br /><br /><b>Hitler, Polpot, Mao, and the rest are the exceptions that prove the rule</b><br /><br />Exceptions "proof" rules, they don't prove rules. To proof means 'to test.' The reason alcohol is 100 "proof" is because its alcohol content has been proven by testing. Enough tests of a rule and it is no longer a rule; it's a siv.<br /><br />Ah, but this time it will be different, absolute power will not corrupt. King Daddy will love me and the boon of his power will be bestowed upon my hearth. And all will be well. (Lord hear our prayer.) <br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30454529724328459972019-01-22T22:31:35.680-05:002019-01-22T22:31:35.680-05:00(Hitler, Polpot, Mao, and the rest are the excepti...(Hitler, Polpot, Mao, and the rest are the exceptions that prove the rule, not the culmination of autocracy.<br /><br />Their rule had the historically peculiar role as having been "socialist", the fascist crowds willfully instantiating their micromanaging rule in the autocrat. Few autocrats before them were so beholden to the masses. Autocracy didn't make Hitler, German socialism did.)Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-33693907428425243542019-01-22T22:23:14.901-05:002019-01-22T22:23:14.901-05:00(Or Republic if you prefer. Whichever euphemism y...(Or Republic if you prefer. Whichever euphemism you choose, the outcome is the same: not toward government working for ALL people, but government working for whichever mass coalition of people can get the most folks to show up to the polls -- a political system which trends towards putting the reigns of government in whichever group of know-it-alls is the most busibodying. Compare this with your average monarch who didn't give a good goddamn what you do as long as he gets his palace and gardens, and it appears to me that we sadly chose the fascism of the crowd over the liberality of the autocrat.)Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-54538562179386276742019-01-22T22:10:20.610-05:002019-01-22T22:10:20.610-05:00"I don't dispute that authoritarian gover..."I don't dispute that authoritarian governments keep popping up through history."<br /><br />Were no governments successful until the French Revolution?<br /><br />Perhaps my argument would be clearer if I used the word autocratic rather than authoritarian? Resting power with a central monarch has historically reduced the amount of micromanagement a public felt. The English people, for example, were much freer under Alfred the Great than the various landlords before him. Similarly, in Japan, Tokugawa and Nobunaga gave birth to a period of economic and artistic freedom by way of their violent unification and subsequent autocratic reigns.<br /><br />History has shown that power shared is power more likely abused. Absolute power, on the contrary, doesn't usually corrupt but rather elevates a monarch beyond middling concerns which would lead them to be moralising control freaks.<br /><br />Our own Democracy, rather than increasing the freedom of its citizens, has trended toward a cultural, intellectual and economic despotism which would have been unthinkable to the subjects of King George.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15668698335590755722019-01-22T10:59:03.688-05:002019-01-22T10:59:03.688-05:00Richard,
Most government is self-government. Alwa...Richard,<br /><br />Most government is self-government. Always has been, always will be. Which is why emergent principles of behavior which become social traditions are so crucial to a society's success. A society that is micromanaged to the extent that every behavior is either forbidden or mandated by armed authorities would be unbearable to the average free soul. The kind of person who would advocate for such a world where every exchange is monitored or controlled, is my natural enemy. I don't easily submit to anything or anybody. I detest control freaks, particularly those who think themselves moral paragons of such unassailable virtue that they feel justified in arrogating power over others unbidden. Such people tend to be egoistic creeps and losers who know nothing but their twisted ideology, the announced piety of which acts as a moral disguise for their truer motives.<br /><br />National Government pe se, does not entail authoritarianism, merely authority in certain matters at certain scales. The word president, as I'm sure you know, comes from "preside" which more or less means to superintend or guard or sit in witness of; quite an inactive governmental idea. Which is the reason such was chosen by our founders for this free society of ours.<br /><br />I don't dispute that authoritarian governments keep popping up through history. If you think they're 'successful' we probably have a different sense of that word. In my opinion, the principle of the matter is that the less successful the moral self-governance of the people, the more likely that an authoritarian government will arise to bring order from above. There are other key factors as well, like geography, natural resources, economics, technology, mediation, and education, that play a part in just what emerges as the prevailing zeitgeist that determines what balance of self-governance and top-down governance will likely emerge. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-12118768604522611532019-01-21T20:45:39.331-05:002019-01-21T20:45:39.331-05:00(Note that I removed your word "meddling"...(Note that I removed your word "meddling", since the authority of strong monarchs has generally been a force opposed to meddling, whether by small time landlords, warlords, greedy tax collectors, or rapey dukes, rather than increasing the total amount of meddling going on, their central authority had the general effect of reducing net fvckery, busibodying, and petit fascism.)Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-7157028907997598062019-01-21T20:34:56.650-05:002019-01-21T20:34:56.650-05:00"For my own part, I'll take what comes fr..."For my own part, I'll take what comes from emergent phenomena [...] I don't trust anybody who isn't terrified of top-down authoritarian meddling in society."<br /><br />How do you square with the fact that top-down authoritarian government (from <br />Hammurabi to Alexander the Great to George III) is the most common and historically successful emergent phenomenon in human political history, not just in the West, but on the planet Earth?Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-90398669709442272972019-01-18T02:53:41.678-05:002019-01-18T02:53:41.678-05:00kev ferrara -
It is unlikely that postmodernism ...kev ferrara - <br /><br />It is unlikely that postmodernism would have become what it did had not both the revolutions of the the 60s/70s and Communism failed so spectacularly, so your point isn't at all irrelevant. I think my issue with it is that the misrepresentation of the theory by the likes of Hicks and Peterson isn't contributing to healthy debate. Whether this misrepresenation is used with good intention as a short hand device or rather a product of misunderstanding or ideology, I don't know for sure. From what I have gathered, the latter is more likely. But, obviously, I might be wrong. The end result is the same though - the creation of a fantastical hydra-like enemy against which people can be easily rallied.<br /><br />But OK, enough for now. Thank you for making me have to rethink internalized ideas.<br /><br />As for Jameson and the "the endless toilet rolls of criticism that academic theorists produce", consider the excerpted paragraph on pastiche in the below link a single sheet. If it triggers interest in further reading, fine. If not, flush it.<br /><br />https://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/jameson/excerpts/postmod.htmlØyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-2090953127133790482019-01-17T19:50:31.649-05:002019-01-17T19:50:31.649-05:00You have to understand that on every level the Tim...You have to understand that on every level the Times is a huge pile of shit run by turds. Once you understand that you will know you are not looking at the New York Times you remember but the New York Times that is... and it is repulsive.vanderleunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296245324443413545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-8076754032158664302019-01-17T18:04:35.611-05:002019-01-17T18:04:35.611-05:00I cannot stress this enough: Marxism and Postmoder...<b>I cannot stress this enough: Marxism and Postmodernism aren't the same. </b><br /><br /><i>Yes, I know.</i> Everybody agrees with you on this in terms of the philosophy as written, including, for what it's worth, Hicks and Peterson. But such does not matter for what is actually happening at the ground level of combative political discourse where the two ideologies are used alternately according to tactical need. Both ideologies are being used as cudgels to undermine the same system and from a suspiciously similar standpoint of power dynamics. Which is why I believe the idea that one is a strange transposition of the other <i>tactically/emotionally speaking</i> (not philosophically) is an insightful point that goes to an even larger point about the common underlying psychologies of all radicals. <br /><br />I will try to ingest some Jameson down the line, but I am super burned out on politics and the endless toilet rolls of criticism that academic theorists produce. I am very much more interested in thoughtful real-world solutions that lie outside politics and governmental coercion.<br /><br />Thanks for the recommendation and the good faith exchange however.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-34002472768597258992019-01-17T17:35:24.212-05:002019-01-17T17:35:24.212-05:00...instead of deleting and reposting. I'll jus......instead of deleting and reposting. I'll just apologize for the editorial residue that is the final line in my above post.Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-14163760893369384392019-01-17T17:31:51.516-05:002019-01-17T17:31:51.516-05:00But if Peterson's (via Hicks) representation i...But if Peterson's (via Hicks) representation is factually inaccurate, what then? I cannot stress this enough: Marxism and Postmodernism aren't the same. The postmodern condition can mean many things, but the idea of history being a teleological movement towards the inevitability of socialist revolution categorically does not fit into any postmodern theory. It is appropriate here to note that the roots of the so-called alt-right can be at least partially traced back to the very postmodern neoreactionary movement of the Dark Enlightenment, which - as its name indicates - is antithetical to the ideas of the Enlightenment in a very real sense.<br /><br />Derrida's counter-argument to Fukuyama wasn't that Marxism would eventually conquer capitalism, it was that its spectre would always haunt and irritate. Because history, like interpretation doesn't end. <br /><br />Now, I don't suppose I'll change your (or anybody else's) mind regarding this matters, but I really think you might like at least some of the ideas in Jameson's book. Precisely because he is "attacking" postmodernism from a Marxist perspective, perhaps. <br /><br />I recommend Jameson's book Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-27225442863572702512019-01-17T16:37:46.054-05:002019-01-17T16:37:46.054-05:00I've never read Frederick Jameson or encounter...I've never read Frederick Jameson or encountered much about him. Sorry. <br /><br />When it comes to ideas, I don't believe in texts, I believe in practice. An idea is how it instantiates, otherwise how is one to know if we are dealing with a sky castle or pure wind, hype, or bull.<br /><br />I am very keen on meaning, particular subtextual. And particularly, among subtextual meanings, those that only pretend to be content-based and part of sense-making discourse, but can be shown to be tactically coercive, with ulterior purpose when analyzed more deeply.<br /><br />I believe both postmodernist and marxist critiques, for the most part, are used mostly tactically, against western, democratic, capitalist liberal society. Because the two ideologies share the same common enemy, rather than their textual rationales butting up against each other because of the inherent contradictions in their systems as they should, those dichotomies are just ignored in practice during the attack. The two critical frames form into a single tag-team wrestling partnership in almost every left-political conversation I seem to get into. And I have seen this for more than twenty years now. This is why I take Hicks' and Peterson's view of the matter seriously. <br /><br />In my view, these ideologies are weapons, not philosophies. Which exactly why the rigor of the systems do not matter and have never mattered.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71804405651421406762019-01-17T15:46:56.931-05:002019-01-17T15:46:56.931-05:00I don't think it means "many things."...<b>I don't think it means "many things." I think in general, it is a critical framework; the defining characteristic of which is a comprehensive attack on western received wisdom across all domains.</b><br /><br />See, you had me at «critical framework», but then you lost me with «attack on western received wisdom across all domains». Frederick Jameson’s book, «Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism», which I referred to earlier in this thread, is a critique of postmodernism from a marxist’s standpoint. It presents powerful arguments toward postmodernism being exactly a product of (western) capitalism. <br /><br /><b>It's claim is that most belief systems, virtues, values, ethics, norms, customs (etc.) will demonstrate, with examination, that they are predicated on unprovable notions often slyly instantiated to benefit the currently ruling class and judeo-christian normative behaviors.</b> <br /><br />Skepticism of meta-narratives is a unifying idea, yes. <br /><br /><b>So therefore, let's get rid of all these presumptions first, and let the societal chips fall where they may.</b><br /><br />No one major postmodern thinker I’m aware of has ever said or intended this. Expanded possibilities of interpretation does not destroy a text.<br /><br /><b>I don't think it need be said how dangerous this injunction to wipe away all unprovable norms is. Only fools and knaves could advocate for such wanton destruction, particularly without the foggiest notion of practical replacements. (Which is where the Marxist-Utopianist fantasies come into it.) But there's enough of a half-kernel of truth that hordes of resentful, otherwise intelligent young people fall into the cult, and spread their antipathy for the west wherever they tweet and talk.</b> <br /><br />Deconstruction isn’t destruction. Also, as indicated earlier, the beginnings of this cultural process of "wiping away" was identified by Nietzsche. It didn't emerge ex nihilo in the 60s and 70s. <br /><br />And, again, how does Marxism enter into this? Marxism is a meta-narrative. <br /><br /><b>For my own part, I'll take what comes from emergent phenomena and the Lindy effect; I'll take long term evolutions over radical chic any day. I don't trust anybody who isn't terrified of top-down authoritarian meddling in society.</b><br /><br />I think both Derrida and Foucalt (at least in regard to the last sentence) would agree with this. <br /><br /><b>Beyond that, I don't really think the postmodern philosophers know anything. For the areas that I think I know well, where I have studied deeply, I think their ignorance is demonstrable. I am more interested in their psychologies than their ideas. Except of course, the problem that "I have been made to care."</b><br /><br />I suspect that the problem, for many, with the postmodern thinkers, is the lack of systems. Their ideas seem intuitively a-philosophical to anyone who's familiar with the history of philosophy (and science). <br /><br /><b>I forgot you're a Zizek fan. </b><br />I find Zizek both amusing and terrifying, but haven't really read enough of him or Lacan to know if I'm a fan. The quote is sometimes attributed to Jameson, by the way. <br /><br /><b>I'm saying there's a dense fog of narratives out there, including the postmodernist-political narratives. Our only way out is to appreciate epistemology deeply, do the science, to know how easily manipulable we all are, to shame the media narrative machines, and think in second and third order effects instead of the promoted reactive emotionalisms.</b><br /><br />I absolutely agree with this, but I also think it is important to engage with contemporary culture and thought as it actually exists, not as it ought to or via misrepresentations. This extends to the realm of art, where postmodern theory has identified (and thereby also amplified) tendencies in Western Culture. Simply brushing off the portraits of the dead that started all this as being "bad" is a refusal to look into the abyss.Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-8724404496914368842019-01-17T13:47:51.371-05:002019-01-17T13:47:51.371-05:00"Complex" here in the sense that it has ...<b>"Complex" here in the sense that it has come to mean many things to many people across many diciplines, making it near impossible to know exactly what thinker or representation you were referring to.</b><br /><br />I don't think it means "many things." I think in general, it is a critical framework; the defining characteristic of which is a comprehensive attack on western received wisdom across all domains. It's claim is that most belief systems, virtues, values, ethics, norms, customs (etc.) will demonstrate, with examination, that they are predicated on unprovable notions often slyly instantiated to benefit the currently ruling class and judeo-christian normative behaviors. So therefore, let's get rid of all these presumptions first, and let the societal chips fall where they may.<br /><br />I don't think it need be said how dangerous this injunction to wipe away all unprovable norms is. Only fools and knaves could advocate for such wanton destruction, particularly without the foggiest notion of practical replacements. (Which is where the Marxist-Utopianist fantasies come into it.) But there's enough of a half-kernel of truth that hordes of resentful, otherwise intelligent young people fall into the cult, and spread their antipathy for the west wherever they tweet and talk.<br /><br />For my own part, I'll take what comes from emergent phenomena and the Lindy effect; I'll take long term evolutions over radical chic any day. I don't trust anybody who isn't terrified of top-down authoritarian meddling in society.<br /><br />Beyond that, I don't really think the postmodern philosophers know anything. For the areas that I think I know well, where I have studied deeply, I think their ignorance is demonstrable. I am more interested in their psychologies than their ideas. Except of course, the problem that "I have been made to care."<br /><br /><b>Personally, I still can't imagine a better system than capitalistic Western liberal democracy, but then - it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. </b><br /><br />I forgot you're a Zizek fan. <br /><br /><b>I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but if you're saying that tribalism is bad, I agree.</b><br /><br />I'm saying there's a dense fog of narratives out there, including the postmodernist-political narratives. Our only way out is to appreciate epistemology deeply, do the science, to know how easily manipulable we all are, to shame the media narrative machines, and think in second and third order effects instead of the promoted reactive emotionalisms.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.com