Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock.
I give you Tom Everhart
Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively.
It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting!
Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story?
Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created.
Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.
Wow. I would have walked too.
I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there.
That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.
Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life.
His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent.
wow. really? Just another reason the Modern art game is so messed up. Makes the earlier artists work look even more conservative and successful, doesnt it? Everharts approach doesnt seem pinned on any idea besides hype and cashing in... a sort of eighth (in-bred) cousin to previous ideas and formulas...
Lichtenstein may have actually have been after the same thing, but at least latched onto an idea of substance that intrigued peoples interest and made them reevaluate something they took for granted.
Seeing Snoopy like this doesnt do a thing for me. Do you like them? Or do you see them purely as a short term investment vehicle?
To me the big difference here is you have an artist that is capitalizing on something that was already popular and well known. Lichtenstein, at least, took something that was nothing and turned it into a topic of conversation.
#5178471 - 10/24/1101:03 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
BrontyBronty You know that guy that shows up an hour early for parties? Yah. I'm him.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 03/26/02
Posts: 15463
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: aman619
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Originally Posted By: aman619
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock.
I give you Tom Everhart
Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively.
It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting!
Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story?
Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created.
Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.
Wow. I would have walked too.
I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there.
That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.
Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life.
His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent.
wow. really? Just another reason the Modern art game is so messed up. Makes the earlier artists work look even more conservative and successful, doesnt it? Everharts approach doesnt seem pinned on any idea besides hype and cashing in... a sort of eighth (in-bred) cousin to previous ideas and formulas...
Lichtenstein may have actually have been after the same thing, but at least latched onto an idea of substance that intrigued peoples interest and made them reevaluate something they took for granted.
Seeing Snoopy like this doesnt do a thing for me. Do you like them? Or do you see them purely as a short term investment vehicle?
Curious to hear everyone else's thoughts but personally I like them somewhat in the sense that they are bright and colorful and feature a character I enjoy. But boy I sure wouldn't pay much for one. It might be fun to pay a thousand bucks even two, for a small one to splash up an office or a kids bedroom but 10's of thousands for that? No thanks. To paraphrase aman's earlier statement that's Derivative with a capital D, baby.
#5178474 - 10/24/1101:03 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
BuffyfanBuffyfan "I don't feel like a freaknut..."
"Sometimes you don't."
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 13652
Loc: Watching the Lunatics Run the ...
Originally Posted By: aman619
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Originally Posted By: aman619
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock.
I give you Tom Everhart
Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively.
It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting!
Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story?
Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created.
Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.
Wow. I would have walked too.
I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there.
That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.
Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life.
His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent.
wow. really? Just another reason the Modern art game is so messed up. Makes the earlier artists work look even more conservative and successful, doesnt it? Everharts approach doesnt seem pinned on any idea besides hype and cashing in... a sort of eighth (in-bred) cousin to previous ideas and formulas...
Lichtenstein may have actually have been after the same thing, but at least latched onto an idea of substance that intrigued peoples interest and made them reevaluate something they took for granted.
Seeing Snoopy like this doesnt do a thing for me. Do you like them? Or do you see them purely as a short term investment vehicle?
I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one.
My biggest problem to over-come is seeing something and realizing I could copy it and be just as satisfied with my copy. Mind you, the inspiration started with someone else but most art usually does.
_________________________
WANTED: (preferably pedigreed) Extreme High Grade Vampirella's
http://www.donwalthropphotography.com
“Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. -Robert Langdon”
"“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology"
#5178478 - 10/24/1101:04 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: Buffyfan]
BrontyBronty You know that guy that shows up an hour early for parties? Yah. I'm him.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 03/26/02
Posts: 15463
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one.
#5178483 - 10/24/1101:07 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: Bronty]
BrontyBronty You know that guy that shows up an hour early for parties? Yah. I'm him.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 03/26/02
Posts: 15463
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bronty
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one.
Right on, my thoughts exactly.
I wonder if the people buying these aren't just rich clients buying them as... decoration. You have to have a pretty huge house to hang a painting that large. If you have a house that large maybe you don't mind spending 30k on something with no value as an art object simply to decorate.
#5178513 - 10/24/1101:24 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: pinupcartoonguy]
AtlasFanAtlasFan
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 03/19/03
Posts: 4981
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: pinupcartoonguy
To me the big difference here is you have an artist that is capitalizing on something that was already popular and well known. Lichtenstein, at least, took something that was nothing and turned it into a topic of conversation.
Its always nice to see PT Barnum's mantra ("a sucker is born every minute") put to good use.
#5178575 - 10/24/1101:58 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: Bronty]
BuffyfanBuffyfan "I don't feel like a freaknut..."
"Sometimes you don't."
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 13652
Loc: Watching the Lunatics Run the ...
Originally Posted By: Bronty
Originally Posted By: Bronty
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one.
Right on, my thoughts exactly.
I wonder if the people buying these aren't just rich clients buying them as... decoration. You have to have a pretty huge house to hang a painting that large. If you have a house that large maybe you don't mind spending 30k on something with no value as an art object simply to decorate.
They aren't all huge. Many are only 30x40 with some smaller.
_________________________
WANTED: (preferably pedigreed) Extreme High Grade Vampirella's
http://www.donwalthropphotography.com
“Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. -Robert Langdon”
"“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology"
#5178690 - 10/24/1103:04 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: Buffyfan]
comix4funcomix4fun This is one of the rare times that having no friends works in my favor.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 06/30/02
Posts: 24195
Loc: Under Self-Moderation
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Originally Posted By: Bronty
Originally Posted By: Bronty
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one.
Right on, my thoughts exactly.
I wonder if the people buying these aren't just rich clients buying them as... decoration. You have to have a pretty huge house to hang a painting that large. If you have a house that large maybe you don't mind spending 30k on something with no value as an art object simply to decorate.
They aren't all huge. Many are only 30x40 with some smaller.
Perfect size for airbrushing on the side of my A-Team style conversion van.
