I literally don’t have the precious time to write a long rant on why LMB sucks as an artist. So I’ll just be brief.
It looks like toddler scrawls, the only reason he got famous is because he let Andy Warhol suck his dick, and it appeals to people who can’t discern good art, which is why I bought up Lars Ulrich.
BooBees@fedinsfw.app 1 day ago
Well that’s not the brief history of his I’m familiar with, it’s a very colorful one that is clearly biased, but like I said, art is about preferences, so I’m glad you’re at least having some of those for the actual art. I also dislike Lars, so we have that in common. Otherwise, I’d say I enjoy his art, I’m a professional artist who has earned a living in the fields for 40 years, I’ve taught art, I’ve bought art, and there’s plenty of room for disagreement on his. That’s one of the things that appeals to his fans. It’s supposed to look kinda shitty. That’s one of the things he did on purpose. Not your thing, that’s great, so what do you like? Which artists are great?
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Thanks for the civil response, even though I wasn’t.
I am embellishing the story of JMB (as I perceive it), but, like most artists of that calibre, it’s based on who his connections were rather than the fidelity of his work.
I mean, the kind of art he makes falls into the “jokes on you, I was only acting retarded” meme kind of discussion. Where visual art isn’t so much art for visual impact, rather, the book length essay you have to write out and explain to investors on why it’s such a good idea, and it’s very far out, man.
Whatever explanation he gives for drawing as crudely as he does, be it trying to emulate a caveman, primitivism in general, mental illness, homelessness, distress, whatever, is not being done with a kind of fidelity and vision that causes a further impact. It’s just crude, low fidelity and overall shitty on purpose. I’m not much of a fan of Picasso either, but at least in Guernica, there’s a point: “Holy fuck, the bombing is driving my perception insane”.
Compare and contrast with painters I like, Dali, Escher, and the very least Munch’s scream and Van Gogh. All of them distort reality and perception but in order to further visually emphasise the mood in a consistent and manner that can be within fidelity of a certain vision, instead of just half-assing it to look like shit.
The ones I mentioned before, alongside Da Vinci and many others that I see online or forgot the names of; but just most art in general that has some attempt at both fidelity and impressionism. I don’t care if it’s abstract or distorted, just as long as I can tell there is a certain vision that is being achieved with a certain level of technical capability, instead of just a concept they are half assing.
I’ve talked about this before, but the AI art that’s being made is something far more enjoyable than the same thing being done in museums by lazy assholes that have brought ruin and made a mockery of the field of art. Damien Hurst telling assistants and curators to fill fish tanks with formaldehyde and basketballs is far worse, lazy and damaging than anyone putting a prompt into Stable Diffusion; especially if they are curating LoRAs or making their own training sets. It’s the same level of laziness and expression, but at least there is an aesthetic choice and vision that’s being fulfilled by something.
And if you want to make the counter argument that for some reason Pollock’s paint splashes are more artistic; are they though? He has just as much control as a person writing a prompt; probably less, so fuck him, and his CIA funded money laundering.
Got any underrated recs for Abstract art that actually has a vision and perceivable expression? I always thought of the cover art for Cynic’s Focus was an excellent piece of abstract art that had an actual motive and vision instead of being a blank canvas or random splotches, but then I saw that it was an alien and there that goes.