What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why is painting no longer as popular an art as it once was? (2 Viewers)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
I've taken my kids to the local museums around here (The Getty, Los Angeles Museum of Art, etc.) They're as crowded as ever. Paintings are as popular as ever. Art and art history are still very popular majors at college (for whatever they're worth!)

And yet, I notice that the last painter/artists that were household names and world famous were Picasso, Jackson Pollack, maybe Andy Warhol. I'm sure there are well known artists within the art world in the last 50 years, but most of the rest of us who are not in that world all the time have never heard of them.

Why is that? I'm sure there are as many geniuses that like to draw and paint as ever before. But as a society, we seem to have moved on from making superstars out of these people and their work. Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess it because those famous artists made it more attractive to people to seek an art career and the market got more saturated but is now shrinking during the digital age. Its inconvenient to paint with oils on canvass when you can achieve the same effects in art applications.

The great painters of the past were famous bevause there were so few who could do what they did.

 
No idea, other than it's very difficult to make a great painting.

A scan of this list of the top 100 painters in history came up with three painters who are still alive:

Jasper Johns (born 1930) - The last living legend of the early Pop Art, although he has never considered himself a "pop artist". His most famous works are the series of "Flags" and "Targets".

Gerhard Richter (born 1932) - One of the most important artists of recent decades, Richter is known either for his fierce and colorful abstractions or his serene landscapes and scenes with candles.

David Hockney (born 1937) - David Hockney is one of the living myths of the Pop Art. Born in Great Britain, he moved to California, where he immediately felt identified with the light, the culture and the urban landscape of the 'Golden State'

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I've taken my kids to the local museums around here (The Getty, Los Angeles Museum of Art, etc.) They're as crowded as ever. Paintings are as popular as ever. Art and art history are still very popular majors at college (for whatever they're worth!)

And yet, I notice that the last painter/artists that were household names and world famous were Picasso, Jackson Pollack, maybe Andy Warhol. I'm sure there are well known artists within the art world in the last 50 years, but most of the rest of us who are not in that world all the time have never heard of them.

Why is that? I'm sure there are as many geniuses that like to draw and paint as ever before. But as a society, we seem to have moved on from making superstars out of these people and their work. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Banksy

 
cstu said:
No idea, other than it's very difficult to make a great painting.

A scan of this list of the top 100 painters in history came up with two painters who are still alive:

Jasper Johns (born 1930) - The last living legend of the early Pop Art, although he has never considered himself a "pop artist". His most famous works are the series of "Flags" and "Targets".

Gerhard Richter (born 1932) - One of the most important artists of recent decades, Richter is known either for his fierce and colorful abstractions or his serene landscapes and scenes with candles.

David Hockney (born 1937) - David Hockney is one of the living myths of the Pop Art. Born in Great Britain, he moved to California, where he immediately felt identified with the light, the culture and the urban landscape of the 'Golden State'
Click to expand...
heard of Johns and Hockney, but only in passing. And anyhow they're from an earlier generation.
 
Other art forms are more interesting to the masses now. In the art world, there are lots of "famous" living painters. They just dont penetrate the awareness of the masses because of cultural changes and preferences.

 
Mandatory schooling in a soul-sucking curriculum during 100% of every person's formative years. Makes for much better cubicle dwellers and yes men. Makes for ####### lousy artists.

 
1. Photography

2. People are content to not understand modern art, and would rather mock non-represetational forms.

 
I don't know what you're talking about.

One of my female ex-students is now in art school and recently painted a pic of her own naked rear with a sideboob angle and her two middle fingers waving a salute. She's selling HD autographed prints of it too, according to her FB page. Also it's actually pretty well done.

Painting is alive and well.

 
Jeff Vader said:
I don't know what you're talking about.

One of my female ex-students is now in art school and recently painted a pic of her own naked rear with a sideboob angle and her two middle fingers waving a salute. She's selling HD autographed prints of it too, according to her FB page. Also it's actually pretty well done.

Painting is alive and well.
Click to expand...
Were the two fingers inserted somewhere?

 
As a meandering, not well thought out reply, my perception is that as economy and efficiency become more and more focused and valued society places less value on arts, etc. Much of the value of arts comes after economy, it's a luxury (in many people's minds, not mine).

Liberal arts degrees have no value nowadays, though I think they should. Specialization is the norm/requisite. Maybe not related but just thinking out loud.

 
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.
Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.
Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.
Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.
Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.
Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.
Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.
Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.
Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.
Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.


Rinse and Repeat.
Rinse and Repeat.
Rinse and Repeat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis said:
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.

Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.

Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.

Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.

Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.

Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.

Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.

Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.

Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.

Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. I don't think I've made any argument in this thread, or written anything controversial. I asked a question to which I didn't know the answer. I thought it would bring about an interesting discussion. It's really not controversial at all to state that there aren't any "superstar" household name painters anymore.

 
Fennis said:
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.

Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.

Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.

Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.

Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.

Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.

Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.

Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.

Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.

Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...
Sometimes step 2 is everyone ignoring Tim, step 3 someone bumps the thread and opens up a tangential discussion, step 4 Tim returns and inserts himself into the conversation and the steps continue from there as you describe.

 
and yet I can't help myself... The formula works

Peter Max

Banksy

Thomas Kinkade

Jasper Johns

Jeff Koons

 
timschochet said:
Fennis said:
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.

Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.

Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.

Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.

Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.

Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.

Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.

Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.

Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.

Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. I don't think I've made any argument in this thread, or written anything controversial. I asked a question to which I didn't know the answer. I thought it would bring about an interesting discussion. It's really not controversial at all to state that there aren't any "superstar" household name painters anymore.
Click to expand...
You didn't just ask a question. Just asking a question would be: Is painting a dead art form? You said: Why is painting a dead art form? That's not asking a question; that's begging the question.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis said:
and yet I can't help myself... The formula works

Peter Max

Banksy

Thomas Kinkade

Jasper Johns

Jeff Koons
Click to expand...
But my point is that none of those people have the fame of legends. Do you suppose that in 100 years, people will be talking about Banksy the way they talk about Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, etc? I doubt it. That era has ended. I was just curious why.

It's almost the same for classical music. I say almost because composers like John Williams can still write music that everybody is familiar with- in that sense he will be remembered like Gershwin (who also wrote for movies), Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc. But even so, the day of great melodies being written for symphony orchestras seems to be past.

 
Christo said:
timschochet said:
Fennis said:
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.

Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.

Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.

Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.

Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.

Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.

Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.

Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.

Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.

Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. I don't think I've made any argument in this thread, or written anything controversial. I asked a question to which I didn't know the answer. I thought it would bring about an interesting discussion. It's really not controversial at all to state that there aren't any "superstar" household name painters anymore.
Click to expand...
You didn't just ask a question. Just asking a question would be: Is painting a dead art form? You said: Why is painting a dead art form? That's not asking a question; that's begging the question.
Click to expand...
It wasn't meant to be an argument though. I wasn't expecting controversy on that point. I'm surprised there is any.

 
timschochet said:
Christo said:
timschochet said:
Fennis said:
<sigh>

Tim threads have become so formulaic. This is the most formulaic of the three types of threads he starts.

Step 1. Tim posts something controversial, outrageous or just dumb.

Step 2. Tim haters flock and say how stupid Tim is.

Step 3. Other people come in and point how he is actually wrong by giving examples.

Step 4. Tim defends his statements by making some large generality.

Step 5. Someone accuses Tim of being too broad in his statements.

Step 6. Tim points them to his signature.

Step 7. More people come in and give examples of how he is wrong.

Step 8. Tim changes his mind and takes the opposite position of Step 1.

Step 9. Tim haters flock back in and point how of often he changes his mind and how ridiculous it is and he is ruining the FFA.

Step 10. Tim defenders flock in and say how admirable it is that Tim can change his mind when given evidence and he makes the FFA better.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.

Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. I don't think I've made any argument in this thread, or written anything controversial. I asked a question to which I didn't know the answer. I thought it would bring about an interesting discussion. It's really not controversial at all to state that there aren't any "superstar" household name painters anymore.
Click to expand...
You didn't just ask a question. Just asking a question would be: Is painting a dead art form? You said: Why is painting a dead art form? That's not asking a question; that's begging the question.
Click to expand...
It wasn't meant to be an argument though. I wasn't expecting controversy on that point. I'm surprised there is any.
Click to expand...
If you don't mean to make an argument don't make one.

 
timschochet said:
Fennis said:
and yet I can't help myself... The formula works

Peter Max

Banksy

Thomas Kinkade

Jasper Johns

Jeff Koons
Click to expand...
But my point is that none of those people have the fame of legends. Do you suppose that in 100 years, people will be talking about Banksy the way they talk about Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, etc? I doubt it. That era has ended. I was just curious why.

It's almost the same for classical music. I say almost because composers like John Williams can still write music that everybody is familiar with- in that sense he will be remembered like Gershwin (who also wrote for movies), Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc. But even so, the day of great melodies being written for symphony orchestras seems to be past.
Click to expand...
HTH do you know?

 
And when's the last time you went to the symphony? For a guy that doesn't mean to make an argument you make a lot of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fine. I changed the title. I honestly wasn't trying to make any point here. If you believe that painting (or classical music, for that matter) is NOT a dead art form, please feel free to chime in.

By "by dead art form" I mean that no superstar, household-name artists are likely to emerge in the future, the way they were prolific in the past.

 
Christo said:
And when's the last time you went to the symphony? For a guy that doesn't mean to make an argument you make a lot of them.
Click to expand...
Less than a month ago, to hear Ravel's Bolero (one of my favorites.) But to hear music written in the last 50 years? Don't think I've ever been.

 
Apple Jack said:
timschochet said:
Apple Jack said:
You have an odd way of saying you don't follow art or classical music.
Click to expand...
I don't. At least, nothing contemporary. But that's my entire point. I don't need to follow it at all to know who a Picasso or a Chopin is.
Click to expand...
Where and when did you learn about Picasso and Chopin?
Click to expand...
Good question. I honestly can't remember. I don't know where I learned about the Beatles either. Osmosis?

Look, you seem to be responding as if I had written, "There are no great artists anymore! Picasso was the last one!" That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote. I am quite sure there are many outstanding, brilliant artists working out there, who if they were painting 100 years ago, would be household names and legends. But they're obviously not today.

 
timschochet said:
Apple Jack said:
timschochet said:
Apple Jack said:
You have an odd way of saying you don't follow art or classical music.
Click to expand...
I don't. At least, nothing contemporary. But that's my entire point. I don't need to follow it at all to know who a Picasso or a Chopin is.
Click to expand...
Where and when did you learn about Picasso and Chopin?
Click to expand...
Good question. I honestly can't remember. I don't know where I learned about the Beatles either. Osmosis?

Look, you seem to be responding as if I had written, "There are no great artists anymore! Picasso was the last one!" That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote. I am quite sure there are many outstanding, brilliant artists working out there, who if they were painting 100 years ago, would be household names and legends. But they're obviously not today.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't your question. It's not even your revised question.

 
So your question has nothing to do with art or "art form", but with how many people you perceive to be aware and moved by it?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NorvilleBarnes
Unofficial Hunter Biden Art Thread: No politics
Replies
0
Views
266
NorvilleBarnes
NorvilleBarnes
woodstock
This Article Is Righteous And Prescient About So Many Things, Oh, and Nü-Metal And Twilight Are The True Outsider Art, The Only Rebel Poets
Replies
8
Views
1K
GStrot
G
Joe Bryant
Nobel Prize Chemist / Stanford Biophysicist - Hopeful Words?
Replies
27
Views
1K
chet
chet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top