Question:

my photo instructor has visible ink: a nice, tight blackwork spiral on the inside of his left forearm.   and in my art appreciation class we had to go around and say our favorite artist or art media, and one guy said his favorite artist is his tattoo artist (couldn’t see any of his work, he was sitting way up behind me and wearing a hoodie, but i caught a glimpse of what looked like sleeves all the way down to his wrists) while one girl said her favorite media is tattoo flash.  which, you know, is kind of funny considering tattoos can be so much more than flash, but i have a lot more respect for her than i do for the girls who said they love thomas kinkade and anne geddes.  

Response:

> which, you know, is kind of funny > considering tattoos can be so much more than flash, but i have a lot > more respect for her than i do for the girls who said they love thomas > kinkade and anne geddes.

Blimey, did people actually say that? I don’t know how a person can choose, but if I did have to choose it would not be the "painter of light" or the mistress of the unbelieveably twee. — vanity domain: www.mssunlight.co.uk To reply replaces prunes with com

Response:

> > which, you know, is kind of funny considering tattoos can be so much > more than flash, but i have a lot more respect for her than i do for the > girls who said they love thomas kinkade and anne geddes. > Blimey, did people actually say that?

ayuh.  and the girl who picked kinkade?  was LOUD AND PROUD about it.  i wanted to throw something at her head.  i can tell she’s going to be the most annoying person in the class, and not just because she has poor taste in art.  she’s a doozy. > I don’t know how a person can choose, but if I did have to choose it would > not be the "painter of light" or the mistress of the unbelieveably twee.

i chose ed ruscha, because i’m madly in love with him.   i realize that art is subjective and everyone has different taste and blah blah blah egalitarian-cakes, but kinkade and geddes?  that shit is just painful.  

Response:

TQ> blah blah blah egalitarian-cakes, but kinkade and geddes?  that shi TQ> just painful.           speaking of shitty, horrid, soi-disant "art", i want to rape georgia o’keefe with a rusty set of hedge clippers.         yes, i know she’s dead. that doesn’t change my feelings. lish                                      "what is your position here?" 40.1% / 30                                                RANA 125 / 68

Response:

>       speaking of shitty, horrid, soi-disant "art", i want to rape > georgia o’keefe with a rusty set of hedge clippers. >       yes, i know she’s dead. that doesn’t change my feelings.

i’m not a big fan either.  only one person in the class claimed her, and my boss loves her but my boss is pretty cool so i’m willing to let it slide.  i don’t loathe o’keefe, but she bores me and that’s crime enough to put her on my minus list.

Response:

> ayuh.  and the girl who picked kinkade?  was LOUD AND PROUD about it. > i wanted to throw something at her head.  i can tell she’s going to > be the most annoying person in the class, and not just because she > has poor taste in art.  she’s a doozy.

Kinkade’s work is ghastly chocolate-box stuff, but it’s incredibly detailed and painstaking.  Hopefully she’ll be put off by the work involved. There really is too much to choose when it comes to art.  I’m lucky in that the National Gallery is only 15-20 minutes from my home and they have several excellent collections as well as regular travelling exhibitions. I’m looking forward to this: http://www.nmgw.ac.uk/feature.shtml?id=24 — vanity domain: www.mssunlight.co.uk To reply replaces prunes with com

Response:

re Georgia O’Keefe > my boss loves her but my boss is pretty cool so > i’m willing to let it slide.

There’s a solid basis for criticism. > she bores me and that’s crime enough to put her on > my minus list.

This post and your earlier comments re Thomas Kinkade and Anne Geddes mark you a fool on my minus list. I’m sure Norman Rockwell bores you as well. http://www.onlineartmall.com/limited/thomaskinkade/ http://www.annegeddes.com/indexpages.cfm http://www.okeeffemuseum.org/ http://www.nrm.org/ — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response:

> There really is too much to choose when it comes to art.  I’m lucky in that > the National Gallery is only 15-20 minutes from my home and they have > several excellent collections as well as regular travelling exhibitions. > I’m looking forward to this: http://www.nmgw.ac.uk/feature.shtml?id=24

oh, you lucky duck.  i have to drive four hours north or south if i want to hit a great museum.  i’m not familiar with the johns’ work, but it looks like interesting stuff.   i think the next show i hit will be this one: http://moca.org/museum/exhibitiondetail.php?id=350

Response:

>>ayuh.  and the girl who picked kinkade?  was LOUD AND PROUD about it. >i wanted to throw something at her head.   > Kinkade’s work is ghastly chocolate-box stuff, but it’s incredibly detailed > and painstaking.  Hopefully she’ll be put off by the work involved.

I must chime in about Kinkade. There is a local Thomas Kinkade art gallery here, owned by my friend’s mother (www.thomkinkade.com). I find some of his intricately detailed outdoor scenes very appealing. I’ve spent extended periods of time in the gallery and have never felt miserable by these long periods of exposure to his work. There are certainly far worse artists out there to hate. I’ve read he’s the only living artist who has sold more paintings than Vincent Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, Gaugin, and Leonardo da Vinci combined. Hunh. I just discovered there are 6 art galleries displaying and selling his work within 50 miles from me. fr0glet

Response:

> >>ayuh.  and the girl who picked kinkade? >>was LOUD AND PROUD about it. i wanted >>to throw something at her head.

Kinkade inspires passion! One woman is loud and proud about his art while another is ready to throw things at skulls in response. Fantastic! There are examples of an energized and engaged audience. > Kinkade’s work is ghastly chocolate-box > stuff, but it’s incredibly detailed > and painstaking.

Speaking of ghastly chocolate-box stuff, Happy Valentine’s Day to RABbits everywhere. And to call something incredibly detailed and painstaking is obviously not an insult. I believe I misread that the first go ’round. > I must chime in about Kinkade.

Chime in? To tinkle apologetically. Be like that one Kinkade fan: LOUD AND PROUD! > There is a local Thomas Kinkade art > gallery here, owned by my friend’s mother > (www.thomkinkade.com). I find some of his > intricately detailed outdoor scenes very > appealing.

And this is the crux. Appeal. What gets you in your gut, feeds your soul or is candy to your eyes. It’s a question of aesthetics and that’s, in my opinion, the only point worth considering with regard to an artist’s true /value/. It’s not a monetary consideration, but rather what pulls at your heart, eyes, mind. > I’ve read he’s the only living artist who > has sold more paintings than Vincent Van > Gogh, Monet, Picasso, Gaugin, and Leonardo > da Vinci combined.

And units shipped has what import? What significance is there in the fact that an artist has sold a million one-dollar sketches or one million-dollar painting? I don’t believe that quantity sold or dollar amount earned should be the benchmark of success for an artist. An artist can be successful without any customers or even an audience. What happens /within the artist/ during art production is often the mark of success. For what it’s worth, I’ve got my little blue ribbons and have sold my own art, but I don’t believe that’s what makes art something to be valued. There’s a lot to be said for construction paper and glue. Yeah, pass the Elmer’s. — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response:

>I’ve read he’s the only living artist who has sold more paintings than >Vincent Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, Gaugin, and Leonardo da Vinci combined.

What an interesting statement, something I never  thought of: I wonder if it’s because those artists didn’t live in a time when art was so accessible and affordable to such a broad section of society.  Maybe it’s attributable to the  mass production of his work and his motivation to make money, perhaps more so than the artists you mentioned; Kinkade actually markets different sizes and qualities of his lithographs to make himself more marketable to more people.   Monet certainly didn’t have the ability to have his works mass manufactured and distributed around the world and he  definitely didn’t have an entire company devoted to " aggressive sales and marketing efforts" (as said on the Kinkade website.)   This is starting to sound like a discussion of  supply and demand curves. ~christyn.

Response:

> >I’ve read he’s the only living artist who has sold more paintings than >Vincent Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, Gaugin, and Leonardo da Vinci combined.   Maybe > it’s attributable to the  mass production of his work and his > motivation to make money,

Ya think? lets see do one painting have 1000 litho printed and sold VS 1 Sistine chapel This a completely meaningless comparison. How many places have you seen the circled man vs. how many time do you see a Kincade anyplace except on a wall I never have.

Response:

Ray writ: > how many time do you see a Kincade anyplace > except on a wall

http://www.mondaymemo.net/040426feature.htm Regardless of your art preferences, Kinkade’s an interesting story. And, yeah, he makes piles of money. — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response:

fg> There are certainly far worse artists out there to hate.         don’t you mean far better artists? if you’re speaking of them on the scale of zero to hateable, wouldn’t "better" actually convey "worse"? lish                                          "i have holes poked in me 40.1% / 30                                                RANA 125 / 68

Response:

> fg> There are certainly far worse artists out there to hate. >    don’t you mean far better artists? if you’re speaking of them on > the scale of zero to hateable, wouldn’t "better" actually convey "worse"?

No, I think there’s varying levels of hate. I do believe there are worse (worse = less talented, in this case) famous artists, whose work is more hateable. I thought you understood all the intricate details of hatred! Whoare you, and what have you done with Lish? fr0glet

Response:

>fg> There are certainly far worse artists out there to hate. >    don’t you mean far better artists? if you’re speaking of them on >the scale of zero to hateable, wouldn’t "better" actually convey "worse"?

Hmm, I think a better construction might have "more deserving of hate" in there somewhere. — nj"has plenty of hate to go around"m "Ah! Like a David Mamet movie! Smokin’!"  - Mr. Dean succinctly describes my life.

Response:

>Ya think? >lets see do one painting have 1000 litho printed and sold >VS >1 Sistine chapel >This a completely meaningless comparison. How many places have you seen the >circled man vs. how many time do you see a Kincade anyplace except on a wall

Well, I never said ‘exposure’ = quality. Think of all the really shoddy tattoo work you’ve seen grace the covers of  tattoo magazines and  the people who think their tattoo work is the best thing ever simply because it’s the only quality work they’ve ever been exposed to and they don’t know what is really possible. If Kinkade were limited to the production methods and circulation available in the early 1500s,  his name wouldn’t even be a blip on the art history map. Even as it stands, I doubt in 2510 people will still be buying Kincade calendars, coffee mugs and prints or discussing him in Art History classes. I’m guessing they’ll have as much meaning as a Home Interiors print has today. ~christyn.

Response:

> I doubt in 2510 people will still be buying > Kincade [sic] calendars, coffee mugs and > prints or discussing him in Art History classes.

Still, Kinkade’s got a better shot than you. — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response:

>       don’t you mean far better artists? if you’re speaking of them on > the scale of zero to hateable, wouldn’t "better" actually convey "wor

fg> No, I think there’s varying levels of hate. I do believe there are fg> worse (worse = less talented, in this case) famous artists, whose wor fg> is more hateable. fg> I thought you understood all the intricate details of hatred! Whoare fg> you, and what have you done with Lish?         i do understand. it’s just my hatred doesn’t usually have many levels.         BINARY HATRED         you are currently bit 0. lish                                             "you bleed your ethics 40.1% / 30                                                RANA 125 / 68

Response:

>    BINARY HATRED >    you are currently bit 0.

<3 I’m all touched n’ shit! fr0glet

Response:

> soul or is candy to your eyes. It’s a question of aesthetics and > that’s, in my opinion, the only point worth considering with regard to > an artist’s true /value/. It’s not a monetary consideration, but rather > what pulls at your heart, eyes, mind.

And that, my dear curt, is why you will never, ever be anything more than a second rate, second grade art teacher. .

Response:

> > with regard to an artist’s true /value/. > It’s not a monetary consideration, but > what pulls at your heart, eyes, mind. > And that, my dear curt, is why you will > never, ever be anything more than a > second rate,

I’m not a first rate teacher, but I am working hard. All teachers can improve and I’ve got my eye on that goal. Still, even as a second rater, I’m doing well by my students. > second grade art teacher.

Yeah, second grade as well third, fourth, five, seventh and, possibly next year, eighth. Wait, you meant… http://www.havbruk.no/stockfish/grad2b.html — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > with regard to an artist’s true /value/. > > It’s not a monetary consideration, but > > what pulls at your heart, eyes, mind. > And that, my dear curt, is why you will > never, ever be anything more than a > second rate, > I’m not a first rate teacher, but I am working hard. All teachers can > improve and I’ve got my eye on that goal. Still, even as a second > rater, I’m doing well by my students.

I’m not sure how anyone can manage to be so pathetic as to be a SECOND rate third grade construction paper cutting teacher.  But evidently youve managed to do it.   .

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > with regard to an artist’s true /value/. >> > It’s not a monetary consideration, but >> > what pulls at your heart, eyes, mind. >> And that, my dear curt, is why you will >> never, ever be anything more than a >> second rate, > I’m not a first rate teacher, but I am > working hard. All teachers can improve and > I’ve got my eye on that goal. Still, even > as a second rater, I’m doing well by my > students. > I’m not sure

I’m certain that’s true. > how anyone can manage to be so pathetic as > to be a SECOND rate third grade construction > paper cutting teacher.  But evidently youve managed > to do it.

Rubber, glue, somethingsomething. Enjoying yourself? — Curt http://curtjames.com/

Response: