Damien Hirst for the win of overrated art. As I admit he can provoke a lot of negative emotions (in my subjective point of view) in such a strong way, I can't understand why would anyone (except for a snob) would buy any of his works or why he should deserve as much attention as he has. I simply can't understand it.
However, I disagree on Van Gogh, His paintings are awesome, simply put. However, I could not care less about his life. IMHO.
Van Gogh was a very influential painter, that is why he's famous. You can be a good painter and never become famous because plainly no one likes your works. That happened to Van Gogh. So the only reason I dislike Van Gogh is people use him as an example of the average painter's salary.
Ai Weiwei I feel is an overrated artist. I like a few of his pieces, I respect him, I think he can say whatever he likes on Twitter, but people only know him outside of people who frequent art circles because he got fucking arrested. I have met so many people who asked me about him and I have to ask back can they name one piece of art work he did or describe his body of work without using the word 'controversial' because they just read that in a newspaper article.
I agree with that. And again, I like a few of his works, I'm planning to see some this summer in Toronto when one of his shows come around, but sometimes you just meet people who know utterly nothing about him other than he got arrested and champion him despite not knowing anything about his body of work.
I'm sure, That sort of thing is not a problem that is confined to artists though. We got a similar thing going on here in Sweden with an artist named Lars Wilks. His artistic merits are questionable but he has become very controversial and a bit of a symbol for various groups with a far greater meaning than his actual art.
you're basically just scribbling down whatever random opinion floats to the top of your head and acting like it's some sort of wise assessment of the art world. it's not - it's a bunch of trite nonsense that means nothing to anyone else besides you, just like everyone else's opinion.
you don't need to share this kind of stuff. nobody actually cares. the people replying to your thread are just repeating the same thing you did - they're not actually interested in your opinion, and you're not interested in theirs. give it up, dude.
I'm not a jerk "at everyone", you illiterate little sit-in-a-room-and-eat-cheetos person.
I'm disgusted by stupidity and ignorance and the egotism that drives both. why are you defending idiocy? do you want to be friends with people who think the rest of the world needs to hear their personal take on dead people?
or do you want to have an actual conversation for once in your life - the kind where you experience something new, rather than screaming at people on the internet? you and I have never spoken before, and yet here you are, WHINING that someone may have the audacity to think differently than you
Since when asking the opinion of other is stupid? I don't even care about the OP too, I'm just tired of seeing you everwhere hating on almost everyone. Yes I whine, just like you do. Now what you will do, insult me I bet?
@TETCHIST Well, I CARE Just that you don't care about people's opinion it doesn't mean that we all don't It's a forum to discuss stuff And hey, I guess no one really cares about ur silly aggressive replies
@TurkEvulture .. I totally agree with you! I was just watchin a movie about van goph the other day, I really like his work but still, there are other artists that have way better work that deserve way more popularity than him!
deviantART is a very different place now than it was a few years back. It's rare we see someone get millions of views for stunning pieces anymore, it' gone the route where we now see people who draw fandoms/ponies/pairings that get the attention. I'm not whining, and I'm not saying fan art is bad (hell, we all do it!), but I think these people shouldn't be overpraised for their half-assed fanart.
Totally! I am pretty sick of all these fanarts of random animes and those damned ponies.. I sometimes make fanart for somebody else because it's a request but I usually come up with completely original pieces, like I always have.. I feel like I am one of those lonely artists who are not obsessed with animes and popculture.
The popular artists I can't stand are the ones who draw the same thing OVER AND OVER again. I won't name any names, but there are some artists on dA that post incredibly similar artwork from the last and are loved for it. It's not necessarily their artwork is bad, but not seeing an artist push boundaries or try something new is baffling. Artists were meant to envision the impossible, not constantly draw the same piece of art over and over.
Art being totally subjective means we'll all have artists we feel are over-rated. I love Mignola's work- not so much the folks trying to emulate him. I like some of Van Gogh's painting, but really like his reed pen drawings. He is, though, like many of the Impressionists, super exposed, so his impact gets reduced. I personally cringe at art that is generally cloyingly sentimental and formulaic- artists who've found a way to be tremendously successful with that sh...stuff are all over-rated to me.
I think we tend to forget that a lot of artists, when they first tried something new, were truly breaking new ground. The true impact of their work was then- 40, 50, 100 years later, what we experience is more the echos of their impact. There are artists who, in their time, displayed art that created major shit-storms- that same imagery, today, seems almost passe.
Sometimes though you get to have a transcendent experience. I had a chance to see a few of William Blake's mixed media (prints with gouache) images. Incredibly precise & pristine, not to mention so intense they almost glow. No reproduction I can think of does the original art justice.
I'm not going to argue which artists from the past were the most overrated because they all brought something new, but the most overrated artist on dA in my opinion is . I mean, her art is okay, but it's nothing special, she has a really mainstream styles and I find her paintings boring and yet she gathered 15 000 freaking watchers!
Here's one of her best work
She's not that bad, but there are some seriously amazing artists who barely get any attention. That's not fair, seriously. And she's 21, there are some kids who paint better than her (me for example lol (not being serious here))
Forgive me for my inability to name the actual genres or artists themselves ('cause I'm really not overly educated in art history etc). Furthermore I'm sorry if I'm stepping on any toes here; but I just cannot see how this [link] or [link] is considered worth thousands if not millions of dollars. -may be modern/contemporary art? It's just...I don't get it. At the documenta in Kassel this year there was pretty much only such art: A small few installations/paintings/other works honestly gave me chills or just were really damn cool/impressive but the overwhelming majority (eg the completely empty, white room) felt senseless and random to me. But that is all due to personal preference of course.
I'm not too wild about any of the Young British Artists, and a fair percentage of what's been fetching massive sums of money in New York over the last decade or so has not done much to wow me. Thank Bob for the West Coast and Hong Kong.
Every style becomes overrates once people start imitating it so much that it becomes mainstream. Van Gogh was pretty unique for his time, but as more people have imitated his style over the years, it more or less becomes boring and mainstream. This is how it works for every single one of them.
I seem to be coming from a different background but (dA) artists I feel are overrated are ones who are pretty good with drawing fun ideas. Those ideas that tell fun stories definitely earns its praise in that aspect but the technique or art itself doesn't feel all that impressive.
I hope you aren't hating on Van Gogh because of one particular artist whom everyone thinks is inspired by? (and who seems to rub folks the wrong way) I'll go ahead and agree that I also rather [strongly] dislike Picasso, and his supposed realism was not very good either. But in your case you seem to be having a suspicion on modern art in general, you mentioned two of the most well known names (those who know nothing about modernism know those names) but not the lesser well known, like Moholy-Nagy and El Lissitzky, or the well-known-to-artists like Bauhaus or Mark Rothko... I would assume you have no appreciation of those artists, probably on the grounds that their art isn't realism or at least representational of the human form in a "semi-realist" way, to which most cartoons seems to fit into these days. 'Comic art' and high art are really two separate worlds and rarely do they ever overlap. I think Frank Frazetta (one of my personal favorites) does stray into the world of proper painting which can be admired in academic circles as well as among lay people such as ourselves. I'm not sure the same can be said about him, but this Dave Stevens seems to fit into the category of comic art as well. But I don't know what you mean by his subject matter being "questionable/boring": [link] That doesn't look boring to me, it's effing gorgeous. It might be a bit embarrassing to hang on my wall, but it is neat stuff and is very fluid. Some of his works I'm sure are better than others.
Second, in response to the remark about comic art and fine art rarely overlapping:
Comic art itself has continually made gains in fine arts circles over the last half-century, as people continue to work to legitimize it both on narrative and visual grounds. In fact, several movements of the last twenty-five years came about directly and in-part due to an influence by comics and cartoonists. Most notably, the Lowbrow movement, and Pop Surrealism, which extended out of it in the 1990's and millennial decade. If we were going to make a list of fine artists who are also comic artists, Robert Crumb, Robert Williams, Spain Rodriguez, S. Clay Wilson, Bill Griffith, and Jim Woodring come readily to mind, considering that they have been using the vocabulary of comics to create fine art imagery since the Underground Comix scene of the 60's (and continuing it into the indie/alt/diy scenes of the 70's, 80's, 90's, and beyond.) Williams, specifically, can be given a lot of credit for helping establish a lot of current fine art trends, especially on the West Coast, since it was his publication, Juxtapoz, which was really one of the first that celebrated such works and fought the arts establishment long enough and hard enough to really gain attention.
On the flip side, there are a lot of more academic fine artists of recent generations that have been so steeped in things like comic art, that they can't help but use it as a foundational element to their work. The fact of the matter is that comic imagery has been so pervasive to our culture for so long, that its influence on artists, although sometimes subtle, is hard to avoid these days. It's a cultural shorthand, which everyone born in the last century can recognize and understand. Indeed, I could list off the top of my head several high-profile contemporary fine artist who show in major museums that make it no secret that their work draws from and explores comics in aesthetic terms, and I'm sure that if I went looking, I'd find far more than that. So, no, comic art and high art are not so separate as they might seem at first blush. It's a conceit that I think gets repeated as a truism out of habit, but the evidence is clear that it is not actually true.
The Bauhaus was a school of artists and architects. I know that, and even if I truly had not- don't you think I would have just googled it on Wikipedia the way you obviously did? I think you misunderstood what I meant in the way I was listing artists (plural) and single artists. Bauhaus can be loosely defined as an art movement. I could have listed more (artists), but I don't think the person who posted this topic will get anything from that anyway. I flatly disagree that comic art and high art converge, except that since comics has become part of pop culture and hence much of the high art that succeeds today is going to take apparent inspirations out of it. 'Comics' belong to the realm of 'low brow' in my mind, unless- Frazetta for example- they are extremely sophisticated. This 'truism' of yours is not simply repeated, as if people do not realize there is an attempt to make low brow into 'high brow', but precisely to try and keep them separate. Personally I don't want to see a bunch of teenagers claiming they're "doing semi-realism" with their anime and claiming it gets to sit on the same shelf or hang on the same wall at an art gallery as Van Gogh. Call it intellectual snobbery if you want- but do you really want all of fine art to be dragged down by these comic fans and spoken of as if it's "just another style"? I used to make a distinction between what I called "capital A-rt" and 'art'. The doors to 'High Art' should not just be held open so easily for anyone who can paint or draw a photorealistic face. For the love of all that is holy!
First, don't get so defensive about a simple clarification.
Second, you don't get to disagree with facts. You can't argue whether or not comics have been enveloped into fine arts. They are. I've already described several instances where this is the case. You can't ignore it, just because it doesn't fit with your presumptions. Perhaps you're confused by my use of the word "Lowbrow" in reference to an actual fine art movement that started about twenty years ago, and continues into today. It's a movement that has been ironically named, partly because it is giving consideration to popular culture in the same way that Pop Art had done half a century ago. Part of the point in the name is to take the derogatory connotations back from the term "lowbrow" or "low art".
That stated, it should be mentioned, though, that comics themselves can't be considered a purely "low art" anymore, any way you slice it. "Low art" doesn't get awarded Pulitzer Prizes, National Book Award nominations, NEA grants, museum fellowships, major gallery retrospectives, and various other sorts of attention from the critical community, the academic community, and the art market. As I've already stated, and whether you want it to be this way or not, comic imagery is so much a part of the cultural lexicon at this point that it cannot be separated from what you seem to perceive as more serious artistic pursuits. Too many real live accomplished contemporary fine artists -- such as Raymond Pettibon, Kerry James Marshall, and Trenton Doyle Hancock -- have grown up with comics as an early influence and inspiration to take up art in the first place, and now actively engage in the comic aesthetic and vocabulary as a major facet to their fine art work. It's there, it's been there, and it will continue to gain attention as more kids who started out as comic fans grow up, their work matures, and they become important artistic voices.
And it's not intellectual snobbery that you're exhibiting. It's loud, willful, and condescending ignorance. This is now my second round of providing you with specific examples to support my claims, and I can continue to do so. So far, your only refrain has been, "Frazetta good, teenagers suck." This is not a strong challenge. So, flatly disagree with it all you want. It doesn't make you right, and until you come up with a better argument, I'm just going to assume that you're out of your depth, and unable to swim.