tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8210377.post2133310273353364957..comments2013-06-02T22:07:38.124+01:00Comments on Bad Librarianship Now!: Dave Gibbons still defending comics from Roy Licht...Mark Kardwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17791352096505994671noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8210377.post-9856010459436657132013-05-31T22:59:42.424+01:002013-05-31T22:59:42.424+01:00You really need to examine the label itself, -art-...You really need to examine the label itself, -art- what is it exactly? Well the definition for that is easy despite the eclectic connotations that have arisen round the word its: Anything material fabricated by a human or humans. So: plastic spoons, cars, intravenous drips, Allen bolts, Saturn 5 rockets, aspirin, milk cartons, jewellery made from precious gems, swords, gunpowder, magnesium allow wheel rims -- these are examples of art. Obviously collectively we place more or less value on particular examples of art depending on a number of factors. The obvious one being, how much effort does it take to make it, a plastic spoon doesn&#39;t take much effort in the industrialised world but if you had one in 1473 you&#39;d be a rich man. There&#39;s the clue to another of the factors we use to place value on art, its uniqueness, ie how close it to being unique? Art as a whole not unique, not in the least, it&#39;s prodigious, but when it comes to those examples we value not for their utility but their aesthetic appeal we tend to select certain items from the truly staggering array available for special attention. The criteria we use for this selection is at the heart of the Lichtenstein case.<br /><br />So how do we make this selection, why was Sarah Moon such a ubiquitous sight on living room walls in the 1970&#39;s but so rare now? Why do the Frazetta&#39;s coffee stained Bristol board sketches sell for enormous sums while the efforts of a struggling but equally brilliant student remain unsold? Why is Lichtenstein deemed serious art, worthy of edification but the material he plagiarised worthless to those who deem such? Again the answer is simple we don&#39;t make these selections based on any intrinsic artistic worth because there isn&#39;t one, the value we place on art has more to do with the its associations and Lichtenstein epitomises the relation between status and art.<br /><br />You can&#39;t sell a comic to an art critic, he/she is not equipped to appreciate it but you can get the art patrons they serve to part with enormous sums for intrinsically worthless material if they perceive it to be unique. Lichtenstein was equipped to perform such a task and it&#39;s that, that makes his work valuable. The comic artists were not, there is no avenue in to the -high art- market for these people because, they, for the most part, are too focused, they don&#39;t have the temperament to pander to esoteric considerations.DeadSpiderEyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07687178085803686186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8210377.post-73894047882335575222013-02-26T19:42:48.577Z2013-02-26T19:42:48.577ZTo be fair, based on what Sooke said, taking the p...To be fair, based on what Sooke said, taking the power and dynamism out of the drawings was <i>how</i> Lichtenstein transformed them. He deliberately took something with meaning, however cheesy or shallow, and transformed it into something with no meaning. Don&#39;t ask me why.Paddy Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14390553355397751745noreply@blogger.com