Do artists become better with the time?

[axolotl]

If art involves technique...then the older you get the better? But Baudelaire wrote one of his best works when he was very young... In the another extreme Dante was pretty old when he write the Comedy. What do you think, guys?

[Pike Bishop]

I think you answered your own question quite well.

[mortalterror]

I think that the techniques to be a master can be acquired by a man of talent in about ten years, but in order to improve as an artist one must improve as a man. Many artists enrich their technique but decline as human beings. You see this in rock and roll especially. The young man of passion struggling to be heard becomes the jaded and vacuous commercial profiteer. Dante got better as he aged because he gained life experience and he studied philosophy, theology, and history as much as he'd studied poetry before. He improved his stock of ideas, and what he had to say. On the other hand, Remarque exhausted his stock of ideas and said everything he had to say in his first book. Afterwards, Remarque was just trying to recapture the sentiments he'd already expressed but without the same freshness and originality.

In those artists in which we actually see great change and development of style, who go through phases of differing artistic production it's often not a change in quality but of kind. Milton's Lycidas written when the poet is 30 is probably as much a masterpiece as Paradise Lost which he writes when he's 60. The difference could possibly be simply one of scale and the amount of time put into creating the work. Similarly, one can ask oneself if Virgil's Eclogues and Georgics are just as fine as his Aeneid. One takes it's stylistic model from Theocritus, another from Hesiod, and the last from Homer, but they are all excellent examples of their types. You see the same developments in Pope as he studies the old masters. He creates The Rape of the Lock when he's 24, and An Essay on Man when he's 44, there's more variety of style and depth to the Essay but the Lock is more pure and simplistic. One thinks of Picasso moving from the blue period, the rose period, or cubism. Where any of those periods better than another or where they just good for their type? Was Picasso progressing or just changing? Mark Twain writes Huckleberry Finn when he's 50, but he follows it up with dreck like Tom Sawyer Detective and it was preceded by masterpieces like Tom Sawyer, and lesser works which show flashes of brilliance. Twain producing Finn when he did may just be a sign that he had more leisure to work on a book once he was established and wasn't rushed by money or circumstances.

[Poetaster]

Similarly, one can ask oneself if Virgil's Eclogues and Georgics are just as fine as his Aeneid.

I think they are - his Eclogues are some exquisite poetry. :)


You see the same developments in Pope as he studies the old masters. He creates The Rape of the Lock when he's 24, and An Essay on Man when he's 44, there's more variety of style and depth to the Essay but the Lock is more pure and simplistic.

I don't think this is true. I thought they came out a year apart, when he was 22, 23. And 'Essay' was first.

[mortalterror]

I don't think this is true. I thought they came out a year apart, when he was 22, 23. And 'Essay' was first.
1711 Essay on Criticism
1712 TROTL
1732 Essay on Man

[Poetaster]

1711 Essay on Criticism
1712 TROTL
1732 Essay on Man

Ah, sorry, I must have got myself confused. :)

[Eiseabhal]

Sometimes worse.

[ennison]

Age often matters. Some authors write juvenile stuff. Then the mature work . Then the same song repeated. Then the dreadful decline. But it's all relative.

[kev67]

I have often wondered. Turner, the painter of seascapes, painted many of his best pictures when he was old. However, most rock stars seemed have dried up by the time they are 40. First they are raw but energetic, then they become rather more polished, then they become bland and start repeating themselves. I have often wondered whether they had a seam of originality, which once they had mined was gone. Or it could be their lifestyle catching up with them. Many people think Dickens' later books were better than his early ones. I don't think it is so easy to say with writers. I thought P.G. Wodehouse started to repeat himself pretty badly after a while. The book I am currently reading, Brick Lane was written by a young author, but she put so much of her own experience into it, I would not be surprised if she never writes anything as good again.

[stlukesguild]

I think that the techniques to be a master can be acquired by a man of talent in about ten years, but in order to improve as an artist one must improve as a man. Many artists enrich their technique but decline as human beings. You see this in rock and roll especially. The young man of passion struggling to be heard becomes the jaded and vacuous commercial profiteer. Dante got better as he aged because he gained life experience and he studied philosophy, theology, and history as much as he'd studied poetry before. He improved his stock of ideas, and what he had to say.

Interesting theory. My artist friends and I have often pondered why painters such as Rubens and Rembrandt or composers like Mozart and Bach only continued to improve... to gain in depth as they aged... while many Modern artists peaked early and then seemingly burned out. I agree that many pop musicians becomes jaded and empty commercial hacks after often less than a decade of work of real merit. I see the same in many contemporary visual artists. Considering the money and stardom of today's art market I can see something similar to the burn out that occurs in pop music. This seems to especially strike artists who achieve a high level of wealth and fame early on (Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, etc...). Lucian Freud, in contrast, never really became an "art star" until he was older and his work only continued to grow and improve.

So does this prove the old notion that an artist must struggle and suffer?

[Lykren]

Well, Radiohead have continued to improve since they became famous. That is probably a rare phenomenon though.

[cacian]

Well, Radiohead have continued to improve since they became famous. That is probably a rare phenomenon though.

and many more separated or stopped.

[Pike Bishop]

Well, Radiohead have continued to improve since they became famous. That is probably a rare phenomenon though.

I wouldn't say that. I see them having taken a less linear progression, as this is how I would rank their albums...with chronological place in paragraph:

1. OK Computer (3)
2. Kid A (4)
3. In Rainbows (7)
4. The Bends (2)
5. Amnesiac (5)
6. Pablo Honey (1)
7. The King of Limbs (8)
8. Hail to the Thief (6)

[cacian]

do you mean to say
does art become better with time?

[Pike Bishop]

No, the issue is whether the artist gets better or not.

[Jackson Richardson]

[COLOR="#B22222"] composers like Mozart and Bach only continued to improve...

Poor old Wolfgang Amadeus, dead before 40, didn't have the chance to decline..


My star example of an artist improving would be Giuseppe Verdi's Falstaff written in his 80s. It was his first comic opera, apart from a very early conventional one, and completely transcends the conventions of C19 Italian opera, while being grounded in nothing else. It is also a far, far better work than it's source, Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor.

Usually you expect an artist's works to become more interesting: Bleak House is a more mature and engaging work than The Old Curiosity Shop and Emma is a more complex work than Nothanger Abbey.

On the other hand, I believe lovers of Wordsworth don't care for his later works. Walter Scott created a new genre with Waverley and played with the conventions he'd created in his subsequent nine or so novels set in Scotland. Then he wrote Ivanhoe, a fine work in its terms, and thereafter got went down hill in a rut, to mix metaphors.

[Pike Bishop]

Great Artists Who Did Great Work Early and Died Young:

Vincent Van Gogh--27
John Keats--25
Kurt Cobain--27
Sylvia Plath--28
Jimi Hendri--27
Buddy Holly--22
Jean-Michel Basquiat--28
Francesca Woodman--27
Christopher Marlowe--29

[cacian]

No, the issue is whether the artist gets better or not.

that is be too obvious a question because
practice makes perfect or so they say
it matters in so long as art changes us for the better
that is one causation for art to be
hence question appropriately asks
does art get better with time
still stands as a rhetoric to the OP.

[Pike Bishop]

Artists Who did Great Works Late in Life:

Cormac McCarthy--The Road (73)
Clint Eastwood--Mystic River (73)
Martin Scorsese--The Departed (64)
Sidney Lumet--Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (83...yes, 83)
Woody Allen (ugh)--Paris at Midnight (76)
Philip Roth--American Pastoral (64)
Metallica--Death Magnetic (Lars Ulrich, James Hetfield, and Kirk Hammett all 45-46, ancient by Rock standards)
Thomas Pynchon--Mason & Dixon (60)
Johh Milton--Paradise Lost (59)
Adrienne Rich--An Atlas of the Difficult World (62)

[stlukesguild]

Vincent Van Gogh--27
John Keats--25
Kurt Cobain--27
Sylvia Plath--28
Jimi Hendri--27
Buddy Holly--22
Jean-Michel Basquiat--28
Francesca Woodman--27
Christopher Marlowe--29

Van Gogh died at age 37. His finest work was produced in the last 5 years of his life.
Sylvia Plath was a mediocre poet at best.
Basquiat? The title of Robert Hughes post-mortem review said it best: Requiem for a Featherweight. "Saint Michel's" popularity was almost wholly owed to his shtumping Andy Warhol ("Who you know and who you...") and White Guilt: rich white collectors desperately wanted to prove their open-mindedness by supporting Black artists and Basquiat was hailed as the "Great Black Hope."

[Pike Bishop]

Sylvia Plath was a mediocre poet at best.
Basquiat? The title of Robert Hughes post-mortem review said it best: Requiem for a Featherweight. "Saint Michel's" popularity was almost wholly owed to his shtumping Andy Warhol ("Who you know and who you...") and White Guilt: rich white collectors desperately wanted to prove their open-mindedness by supporting Black artists and Basquiat was hailed as the "Great Black Hope."

So, you think Plath was a "mediocre" poet at best although she is highly regarded by many poetry scholars and poets. They could, of course, be wrong. So, please share what was exactly mediocre about Plath's poetry and her poetic skills. You have me truly intrigued.

And, I'm sorry, but one critic's near-racist post-mortem review of Basquiat is not a sufficient source or support for dismissing his talent. Neither you nor the quip you provided addressed Basquiat's work at all. So, please share with us your analysis of Basquiat's actual work, why you find it deficient, and why your aesthetic principles helping you do so are valid. Until then, all you have done is provide a substance-less quip saying nothing about the artist's actual work.

[Pike Bishop]

that is be too obvious a question because
practice makes perfect or so they say
it matters in so long as art changes us for the better
that is one causation for art to be
hence question appropriately asks
does art get better with time
still stands as a rhetoric to the OP.

The obvious is like mist in the air
winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
the artist, its gallant and sometimes its foe.
The blessed move sweetly into evening's breath;
the cursed rage fitful into fickle death.

[mortalterror]

Artists Who did Great Works Late in Life:

Cormac McCarthy--The Road (73)
Clint Eastwood--Mystic River (73)
Eastwood is overrated and I wouldn't call Mystic River great. It's good, but not quite great. In fact, were it not for Francis Ford Coppola sending him the script for Unforgiven, I don't know that Eastwood would be considered a master director by anybody. Million Dollar Baby was wretched. Space Cowboys was putrid. Absolute Power is insipid Hollywood schlock. Sudden Impact is probably the worst Dirty Harry of the series. Heart Break Ridge was alright, but not one of my favorite war movies, or even war movies he starred in like Kellly's Heroes. The westerns have their moments but aren't nearly as good as Leone's which he starred in. I thought that Letters From Iwo Jima had a lot going for it in terms of cinematography, set design, action choreography, and special effects but for the life of me I can't remember the stories, characters, or a stand out scene or line. Eastwood isn't great. Great actor, sure; but not a great director.

Martin Scorsese--The Departed (64)
Departed sucked, and I love Scorsese and the Chinese film it was based on. Scorsese is a great director: Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, etc. But his last really good film was Aviator in 2004.

Sidney Lumet--Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (83...yes, 83)
That's not a good film either. That's an alright film from a great director who hasn't done good work since 1988.

Woody Allen (ugh)--Paris at Midnight (76)
I'll say it. I hate Woody Allen movies, except for Sweet and Lowdown.

Philip Roth--American Pastoral (64)
Metallica--Death Magnetic (Lars Ulrich, James Hetfield, and Kirk Hammett all 45-46, ancient by Rock standards)
But not even their fans like that one. Look at the track listings. The best song on there is The Day that Never Comes, and this is the band that used to make songs like Enter Sandman or Nothing Else Matters.

[Pike Bishop]

Artists Who did Great Works Late in Life (Cont'd):

Cormac McCarthy--The Road (73)
Clint Eastwood--Mystic River (73)
Martin Scorsese--The Departed (64)
Sidney Lumet--Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (83...yes, 83)
Woody Allen (ugh)--Paris at Midnight (76)
Philip Roth--American Pastoral (64)
Metallica--Death Magnetic (Lars Ulrich, James Hetfield, and Kirk Hammett all 45-46, ancient by Rock standards)
Thomas Pynchon--Mason & Dixon (60)
Johh Milton--Paradise Lost (59)
Adrienne Rich--An Atlas of the Difficult World (62)
T.S. Eliot--Four Quartets (57)
Jacques Derrida--The Gift of Death (66)
Alfred Hitchcock--Psycho (61)
John Banville--The Sea (60)
John Ford--The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (66)
Jean-Francois Lyotard--The Inhuman: Reflections on Time (67)
Henry James--The Ambassadors (60)
Ingmar Bergman--Fanny and Alexander (64)
Akira Kurosawa--Ran (75)
Don DeLillo--Underworld (61)

[mortalterror]

So does this prove the old notion that an artist must struggle and suffer?
Struggling and suffering are subjective. Into every life a little rain must fall, and even rich famous people have their personal crosses to bear. If art were just the fruit of suffering then the poorest among us would make it best, rather than the reverse, which is usually the case. I'm sure that being a hunchback or deformed like Pope, Leopardi, or Gibbon surely contributed to their somewhat pessimistic world views, but whether it actually spurred them on to create art, who can tell. Misfortune tends to inhibit production, rather than inspire it, in my experience. However, the artistic temperament will strive to make something out of whatever meaningful experience they have, good or bad. But the essential stimulus seems to be foremost one of a creative character. The life a creative person leads will often shape the type of products he produces, so tragedies or love poems.

I don't think that an artist must struggle and suffer. As many good books have been written in an armchair by a fire as from the bunk of a prison cell. What is most important is that the artist should have something which they desperately want to say and feel passionately about. Success and comfort have a way of rocking the complacent to sleep. It's almost assumed that your success is proof that you are already doing your craft right and all that is required is repetition, rather than growth. Hip hop artists often continue to do what got them initial success, telling stories about their life, except chronicling the sordid details of drug dealing and murder on the streets their song becomes "I got a new gold watch!" You can tell an interesting story about luxury and glamour. Tolstoy and Fitzgerald did that. Balzac did too. But it ought to have the same level of insight and drama as you brought to those gritty raw stories of the streets.

[Eiseabhal]

This is an interesting thread. I am sure that in many cases artists (In the widest sense of the word) do their best work young but in even more do it after they have matured as a person and craftsman. There is less difference between craft and art than many people claim.

[JCamilo]

A best work, a masterpiece depends in more circunstances than just talent of thee artist. His motivation, dedication, effort, inspiration, reflection even historical circunstances that surround him to provide his theme and ideas. That must be why Shakespearee quit, his talent or technical skill was there, maybe at his best, but all the rest gone.

[stlukesguild]

So, you think Plath was a "mediocre" poet at best although she is highly regarded by many poetry scholars and poets. They could, of course, be wrong. So, please share what was exactly mediocre about Plath's poetry and her poetic skills. You have me truly intrigued.

You could likely find just as many critics and academics who would argue that "Saint Sylvia" was highly overrated. How influential is she today outside that school of Neo-Romantics who confuse poetry for diaries?

And, I'm sorry, but one critic's near-racist post-mortem review of Basquiat is not a sufficient source or support for dismissing his talent.

Oh? So a dismissal of Basquiat immediately amounts to racism? You seem just as quick to dismiss one of the most important art critics of the last 50 years based on less-than sufficient grounds. Hughes, by the way, championed Romare Bearden, Jacob Lawrence, Robert Colescott, Henry Ossawa Tanner, W.H. Johnson, and Martin Puryear among other African-American artists. Rather ridiculous that one is immediately presumed racist if one dislikes a certain Black artist. I personally this Kara Walker is one of the most over-rated artists of our time. Does than make me racist? Of course I also can't stand Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, and Tracey Emin.

Neither you nor the quip you provided addressed Basquiat's work at all. So, please share with us your analysis of Basquiat's actual work, why you find it deficient, and why your aesthetic principles helping you do so are valid.

There are some artists that are really not worth the effort to dissect. I would assume that one need not offer a critical "proof" of the mediocrity of Thomas Kinkade.

Basquiat's work is commonly stated to have built upon the colorful and energetic graffiti of NYC as well as Hip-Hop music.

https://36.media.tumblr.com/f9f5a2229ed79e471cd0101c891263da/tumblr_nnt1ht5PXV1uradzdo1_540.jpg

There is nothing wrong with building upon such "low" or "populist" sources. Picasso did as much, arguing that art that built solely upon "high art" was doomed to stagnation (ie. Minimalism and Conceptualism) which "true art" was the result of the merger of the "high" and the "low".

The problem with most of Basquiat's works is that they don't transform their source achieving something more.

https://36.media.tumblr.com/95a9edff0d0c9cebfcb21b4727b4abe6/tumblr_nnt1t3jdmP1uradzdo1_540.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/75fd82ec16437b6f833b535cf4c6cef7/tumblr_nnt1vmy4p41uradzdo1_540.jpg

A vast majority of Basquiat's paintings don't transcend their source material. The drawing is crude... not "expressive" but crude. The painting surface is amateurish. Much of this is due to the speed at which the artist worked... churning out paintings as fast as possible on any surface using any paint available... in order the get the needed money for his next fix. As Robert Hughes pointed out, Basquiat had a strong sense of color and composition that might have resulted in something truly spectacular with the proper training... or even a slow gradual development away from the Hot House of art "stardom" under the tutelage of such art world leaches as Andy Warhol, Madonna, Larry Gagosian, and Mary Boone.

Honestly, Basquiat doesn't offer much original beyond what one might find far better realized in the work of Jean Duffet:

https://36.media.tumblr.com/b97739d5b60a051e9a692ec77d6a58fa/tumblr_nnt2jr8djr1uradzdo1_1280.jpg

https://40.media.tumblr.com/82dbe7e4382c17972f17e0fd730208b3/tumblr_nnt2jr8djr1uradzdo2_400.jpg

https://40.media.tumblr.com/fcfb139ccaf543216dd2eb0dc033b6c7/tumblr_nnt2jr8djr1uradzdo3_1280.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/6683b9596cb98effbcd498219e3f68b4/tumblr_nnt2jr8djr1uradzdo5_500.jpg

Or even the Abstract Expressionist, Conrad Marcarelli:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a58983745a1e316bdbd3b6b4887b421/tumblr_nnt2oxeOjq1uradzdo1_540.jpg

... as well as any number of artists whose works are rooted in text.

Until then, all you have done is provide a substance-less quip saying nothing about the artist's actual work.

Perhaps... but then my "quip" is based upon my artist's eye. And yours...?

[Pike Bishop]

1. You could likely find just as many critics and academics who would argue that "Saint Sylvia" was highly overrated. How influential is she today outside that school of Neo-Romantics who confuse poetry for diaries?

2. Oh? So a dismissal of Basquiat immediately amounts to racism? You seem just as quick to dismiss one of the most important art critics of the last 50 years based on less-than sufficient grounds. Hughes, by the way, championed Romare Bearden, Jacob Lawrence, Robert Colescott, Henry Ossawa Tanner, W.H. Johnson, and Martin Puryear among other African-American artists. Rather ridiculous that one is immediately presumed racist if one dislikes a certain Black artist.

3.There are some artists that are really not worth the effort to dissect. I would assume that one need not offer a critical "proof" of the mediocrity of Thomas Kinkade.

4. Basquiat's work is commonly stated to have built upon the colorful and energetic graffiti of NYC as well as Hip-Hop music. There is nothing wrong with building upon such "low" or "populist" sources. Picasso did as much, arguing that art that built solely upon "high art" was doomed to stagnation (ie. Minimalism and Conceptualism) which "true art" was the result of the merger of the "high" and the "low". The problem with most of Basquiat's works is that they don't transform their source achieving something more.

A vast majority of Basquiat's paintings don't transcend their source material. The drawing is crude... not "expressive" but crude. The painting surface is amateurish. Much of this is due to the speed at which the artist worked... churning out paintings as fast as possible on any surface using any paint available... in order the get the needed money for his next fix. As Robert Hughes pointed out, Basquiat had a strong sense of color and composition that might have resulted in something truly spectacular with the proper training... or even a slow gradual development away from the Hot House of art "stardom" under the tutelage of such art world leaches as Andy Warhol, Madonna, Larry Gagosian, and Mary Boone.

5. Perhaps... but then my "quip" is based upon my artist's eye. And yours...?

1. I seriously doubt that. She is held in high esteem and has had influence on important poets ranging from Adrienne Rich to Olga Broumas. What I don't doubt is that you are unable to support your now hollow claim she is "mediocre at best." Even The un-informed can cast such unsupported aspersions. Those confident in their criticisms actually back them up...you didn't.

2. I never said a dismissal of Basquiat amounts to racism. Now, you're adding false strawmen to your repertoire, and that is truly ridiculous. I correctly said dismissing his popularity as only being because he was black was racist, and it was. Your claiming he liked other Black artists, too, takes nothing away from that. It also takes nothing away from the problems with your embracing that dismissal.

3. Again, you refuse to actually support your dismissals/criticisms with any analysis. I sure hope you don't do so in your professional analyses; I wouldn't assume that leads to much success. And you know as well as I Basquiat has artistic recognition and artistic presence in critical discourses Kinkade does not have. So, your comparison is also ridiculous.

4. Again, you make a lot of un-fjounded statements about Basquiat without any syllogistic or analytical support at all. It's almost as if you think what you say is automatically correct...well, it's not, and has yet to be. You claim, without support, he didn't transform his source, his drawing is crude, and it's amateurish. What you don't do in any way is support that with actual analysis of his art and actual appeal to aesthetics supporting that analysis.

5. Finally. I love your specious and precious "I'm an artist; your'e not" floundering shot. It erroneously assumes an artist is always inherently right about art and the non-artist--although I am a literary critic--is inherently wrong. That is so syllogistically flawed, it's darling. So, both your quips about Plath and Basquiat still say nothing about the artists' actual work, and none of your unsupported and/or erroneous statements have changed that. I, on the other hand, have syllogistically supported all of my statements. Maybe in your next post, you could do the same?

[stlukesguild]

1. I seriously doubt that. She is held in high esteem and has had influence on important poets ranging from Adrienne Rich to Olga Broumas. What I don't doubt is that you are unable to support your now hollow claim she is "mediocre at best." Even The un-informed can cast such unsupported aspersions. Those confident in their criticisms actually back them up...you didn't.

Well the fact that you assume Arienne Rich and OLga Broumas amount to important poets seems little more well-informed than my dismissal of Plath's work. Perhaps your notion of what amounts to truly good or "great" poetry is a bit different from mine.

2. I never said a dismissal of Basquiat amounts to racism. Now, you're adding false strawmen to your repertoire, and that is truly ridiculous. I correctly said dismissing his popularity as only being because he was black was racist, and it was. Your claiming he liked other Black artists, too, takes nothing away from that. It also takes nothing away from the problems with your embracing that dismissal.

What do you actually know of Basquiat's career? The artist was marketed as "The Great Black Hope" to wealthy white collectors by sleazy dealers including Mary Boone, Tony Shafrazi and Larry Gagosian. Following Basquiat's early death from a Heroin overdose, the dealers closed ranks and presented the image of the artist as a virtual saint, above all criticism. To question or challenge Basquiat's reputation was deemed proof of Racism. Every scribble, drug-addled incomplete scrawl and endless forgeries were marketed as works of genius. There was actually one critic who went so far as to suggest that Basquiat's incoherent scrawled texts was poetry equal to Shakespeare.

Basquiat is now part of the current problem of excess money in the "art world" that really began in the 1980s. The money involved in collection art has grown to such an extent that everything is done to maintain the reputations of "art stars" like Saint Michel. The art periodicals are largely funded by advertising from the biggest dealers which results in the critics essentially earning their from the very dealers whose artists they should be objectively assessing. The museums are heavily influenced (if not dominated through wealthy collector/patron trustee members) by the fact that with the exception of the Met and Getty and a few other institutions they have less money to play with than the super rich collectors and are dependent upon these collectors to underwrite blockbuster exhibitions and donate "new" art to their collections. Not surprisingly, nearly half of the artist shown in major museum exhibitions over the last decade show with one of the 5 leading galleries. Under such conditions it comes as no surprise that Basquiat remains canonized by a great many critics and academics.

3. Again, you refuse to actually support your dismissals/criticisms with any analysis. I sure hope you don't do so in your professional analyses; I wouldn't assume that leads to much success. And you know as well as I Basquiat has artistic recognition and artistic presence in critical discourses Kinkade does not have. So, your comparison is also ridiculous.

4. Again, you make a lot of un-fjounded statements about Basquiat without any syllogistic or analytical support at all. It's almost as if you think what you say is automatically correct...well, it's not, and has yet to be. You claim, without support, he didn't transform his source, his drawing is crude, and it's amateurish. What you don't do in any way is support that with actual analysis of his art and actual appeal to aesthetics supporting that analysis.

5. Finally. I love your specious and precious "I'm an artist; your'e not" floundering shot. It erroneously assumes an artist is always inherently right about art and the non-artist--although I am a literary critic--is inherently wrong. That is so syllogistically flawed, it's darling. So, both your quips about Plath and Basquiat still say nothing about the artists' actual work, and none of your unsupported and/or erroneous statements have changed that. I, on the other hand, have syllogistically supported all of my statements. Maybe in your next post, you could do the same?

Unfortunately art is not based upon logic. One can offer logical analysis proving the weakness of failure of even the finest works of art on one ground or another. Cevantes was a miserable poet and put far too many of such miserable poems in Don Quixote. Rembrandt and Velazquez were limited colorists. The Abstract Expressionists (especially the gestural painters such as DeKooning) struggled with the corners. Renoir and Pierre Bonnard were limited draftsmen. None of these criticisms prove anything or undermine the achievements of the same artists. I stated that Basquiat's drawing is crude and that the surfaces (an essential element in painting) are amateurish. I suggested that his paintings fail to transcend their source material. Anything can be the source of great art. Images that are "ugly" or simply mundane can achieve something of brilliance in the hands of the right artist (Goya and Cezanne or Morandi). I don't see Basquiat's work as having achieved this. I don't see where it has transcended the street graffiti from which it came.

Of course this is my opinion based upon my experience as an artist and one who has studied a lot of art (new and old). A good number of art critics, including Robert Hughes, Hilton Kramer, and Donald Kuspit share my opinion of Basquiat. Is this an appeal to authority? Certainly... but no different from your own: "(Sylvia Plath) is highly regarded by many poetry scholars and poets..."

I, on the other hand, have syllogistically supported all of my statements.

So where are your logical proofs of the poetic/artistic genius of Plath or Basquiat? You seem to assume both are "great artists". What... beyond the opinions you site of vaguely unnamed critics and academics makes them "great"?

[Pike Bishop]

[COLOR="#B22222"]
1. Well the fact that you assume Arienne Rich and OLga Broumas amount to important poets seems little more well-informed than my dismissal of Plath's work. Perhaps your notion of what amounts to truly good or "great" poetry is a bit different from mine.

2.What do you actually know of Basquiat's career? The artist was marketed as "The Great Black Hope" to wealthy white collectors by sleazy dealers including Mary Boone, Tony Shafrazi and Larry Gagosian. Following Basquiat's early death from a Heroin overdose, the dealers closed ranks and presented the image of the artist as a virtual saint, above all criticism. To question or challenge Basquiat's reputation was deemed proof of Racism. Every scribble, drug-addled incomplete scrawl and endless forgeries were marketed as works of genius. There was actually one critic who went so far as to suggest that Basquiat's incoherent scrawled texts was poetry equal to Shakespeare.

Basquiat is now part of the current problem of excess money in the "art world" that really began in the 1980s. The money involved in collection art has grown to such an extent that everything is done to maintain the reputations of "art stars" like Saint Michel. The art periodicals are largely funded by advertising from the biggest dealers which results in the critics essentially earning their from the very dealers whose artists they should be objectively assessing. The museums are heavily influenced (if not dominated through wealthy collector/patron trustee members) by the fact that with the exception of the Met and Getty and a few other institutions they have less money to play with than the super rich collectors and are dependent upon these collectors to underwrite blockbuster exhibitions and donate "new" art to their collections. Not surprisingly, nearly half of the artist shown in major museum exhibitions over the last decade show with one of the 5 leading galleries. Under such conditions it comes as no surprise that Basquiat remains canonized by a great many critics and academics.

3. Unfortunately art is not based upon logic. One can offer logical analysis proving the weakness of failure of even the finest works of art on one ground or another. Cevantes was a miserable poet and put far too many of such miserable poems in Don Quixote. Rembrandt and Velazquez were limited colorists. The Abstract Expressionists (especially the gestural painters such as DeKooning) struggled with the corners. Renoir and Pierre Bonnard were limited draftsmen. None of these criticisms prove anything or undermine the achievements of the same artists. I stated that Basquiat's drawing is crude and that the surfaces (an essential element in painting) are amateurish. I suggested that his paintings fail to transcend their source material. Anything can be the source of great art. Images that are "ugly" or simply mundane can achieve something of brilliance in the hands of the right artist (Goya and Cezanne or Morandi). I don't see Basquiat's work as having achieved this. I don't see where it has transcended the street graffiti from which it came.

Of course this is my opinion based upon my experience as an artist and one who has studied a lot of art (new and old). A good number of art critics, including Robert Hughes, Hilton Kramer, and Donald Kuspit share my opinion of Basquiat.

4.Is this an appeal to authority? Certainly... but no different from your own: "(Sylvia Plath) is highly regarded by many poetry scholars and poets..."
So where are your logical proofs of the poetic/artistic genius of Plath or Basquiat? You seem to assume both are "great artists". What... beyond the opinions you site of vaguely unnamed critics and academics makes them "great"?

1. Actually they are important poets because they are significantly taught and studied in our universities, and thus have a significant influence on what is considered good, important poetry in our culture. They have also--moreso Rich--influenced a generation of brilliant, studied poets, which in itself makes them important. Yet, again, you dismiss their importance and quality without any support at all. Children often do that, as well; I assumed you could do better. Also, you don't just dismiss Rich, Broumas, and Plath; you asserted both erroneous claims as if they were bad poets outside of your opinion. It's clear you can't support those claims in any way, so they are as valid as someone calling Chopin a bad composer because they don't like him.

2. You do like the irrelevant strawmen and red herrings. We're not discussing Basquiat's career or marketers. We're discussing the quality of his work. You clearly are still unable to support your unfounded indictments of it. So, that's a truly fascinating rant against our "art world." However, it doesn't in anyway support your criticisms of Basquiat's "work." So, like your hollow, unfounded criticisms of Plath, Rich, and Broumas, it stands as "valid" as an ill-informed frat boy saying Van Gogh's self-portrait "sucks" for being blurry. I had assumed you could do better. Many artists and scholars are fond of Basquiat's--and Rich's, Plath's, and Broumas'--work. Using your flawed logic, they would be inherently correct as well.

3. Art may not be "based" upon logic, but logic is involved in all discursive, articulated artistic criticism. So, your initial claim is specious and untrue. All consensually accepted aesthetic principles have logical structures to which we adhere and/or reject when we formulate and articulate our criticisms. Your rejection of your litany of bad criticisms are based on logical precepts. Ironically, it logically indicts your criticisms of Plath, Rich, and Broumas, since none of those criticisms proved anything or undermined the achievements of the same artists at all, either. So, thanks for helping me show your own criticisms were in error; I appreciate the support.

And nothing you say about your evaluations of Basquiat's work are legitimate criticisms having anything to do with his art at all. They just say--without support--you think his art was crude; you think his surfaces are amateurish; and you think his paintings "fail to transcend the source material." It's all about what you think, not his art. And your being an artist isn't itself validation of those views. I'm stunned you would take such a logically fallacious stance. Many artists have terrible aesthetic views of art, and they have many contrasting views of the same artist; so no artist's view on art is or can be inherently correct; and yours certainly isn't.

4. The difference between our appeals to authority is you use yours to confirm an erroneous, unfounded dismissal of the artist discussed. An appeal to authority can never do that. I used mine to correctly counter your erroneous, unfounded dismissals by showing the informed consensual evaluations of those artists preclude such a mercurial dismissal. I never claimed I could prove the artists were great. I made a statement they were on a list. You, for some reason, decided to flippantly dismiss my statement with snarky, unsupported quips. I simply assumed someone who claims to be an artist could do better. It is now obvious that you can't.

If you want to actually support your statements with aesthetic/syllogistic support and textual analysis, I would gladly discuss with you what makes Plath and Rich great poets. I will even provide close readings of the poems.

[stlukesguild]

3. Art may not be "based" upon logic, but logic is involved in all discursive, articulated artistic criticism. So, your initial claim is specious and untrue. All consensually accepted aesthetic principles have logical structures to which we adhere and/or reject when we formulate and articulate our criticisms. Your rejection of your litany of bad criticisms are based on logical precepts. Ironically, it logically indicts your criticisms of Plath, Rich, and Broumas, since none of those criticisms proved anything or undermined the achievements of the same artists at all, either. So, thanks for helping me show your own criticisms were in error; I appreciate the support.

And nothing you say about your evaluations of Basquiat's work are legitimate criticisms having anything to do with his art at all. They just say--without support--you think his art was crude; you think his surfaces are amateurish; and you think his paintings "fail to transcend the source material." It's all about what you think, not his art. And your being an artist isn't itself validation of those views. I'm stunned you would take such a logically fallacious stance. Many artists have terrible aesthetic views of art, and they have many contrasting views of the same artist; so no artist's view on art is or can be inherently correct; and yours certainly isn't.

Many artists have terrible aesthetic views... and still are able to create art of real merit. Many individuals posting on online forums are simply morons without the least clue of what they are talking about. I'll allow you with your superior logical ability discern who fits that category.

[Pike Bishop]

[COLOR="#B22222"]Many artists have terrible aesthetic views... and still are able to create art of real merit. Many individuals posting on online forums are simply morons without the least clue of what they are talking about. I'll allow you with your superior logical ability discern who fits that category.

I never said artists with terrible aesthetic views couldn't create art of real merit. That's your fourth straw man your logical "ability" has produced. I correctly said many artists--and I'm thinking of one right now--have terrible aesthetic views, and they do. As to what category your logical ability belongs in, i'll be polite and stay silent on the matter...;)