I'm not familiar with Koons, but after quickly looking him up, it seems he's just screwing with what he perceives as highbrow sensibilities.I've seen him interviewed, and he doesn't come across as a jokester. He comes across as someone who is, if anything, absurdly serious about the crap he produces. FWIW Koons is arguably the most famous living visual artist (he's certainly among the handful of most famous), and his works are routinely among the highest valued. I note from the Wiki on Koons that he says there are no hidden meanings in his works. But I recall an interview he did where he stood in front of workmen who were constructing one of his enormous puppies peeking out from a sock. He said in dead earnestness that it reminded him of Christ on the cross. That might be funny if he were some kind of New Atheist, but this would have been in the late 80s and he wasn't joking.
And although Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker can be overplayed (especially in North America), I don't see how his music is not original.After listening to a little bit of Tchaikovsky, and reading a little about him, I've got to withdraw my criticism that he is unoriginal. I see he was fairly original for his time, although I don't care for his stuff that much.
I'm not familiar with Koons, but after quickly looking him up, it seems he's just screwing with what he perceives as highbrow sensibilities.I've seen him interviewed, and he doesn't come across as a jokester. He comes across as someone who is, if anything, absurdly serious about the crap he produces. Well, if you're correct about that, maybe he can be labeled a great accidental comic, because it would be funny if he takes his bullcrap that seriously! :lol:
Well, if you're correct about that, maybe he can be labeled a great accidental comic, because it would be funny if he takes his bullcrap that seriously! :lol:That's right. Thing about him is that he's a self-parody. But like Liberace, he's crying all the way to the bank.
And although Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker can be overplayed (especially in North America), I don't see how his music is not original.After listening to a little bit of Tchaikovsky, and reading a little about him, I've got to withdraw my criticism that he is unoriginal. I see he was fairly original for his time, although I don't care for his stuff that much. Now go and finish War and Peace. It'll really start making sense after the first hundred pages or so, but you have to get there first. ;-)
And although Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker can be overplayed (especially in North America), I don't see how his music is not original.After listening to a little bit of Tchaikovsky, and reading a little about him, I've got to withdraw my criticism that he is unoriginal. I see he was fairly original for his time, although I don't care for his stuff that much. Tchaikovsky thought that The Nutcracker was one of the worst things he had ever written, and found it ironic that even in his time it became popular. As far as ballets goes, Sleeping Beauty is definitely better. Disney used it for his movie, if you've ever seen it.
And although Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker can be overplayed (especially in North America), I don't see how his music is not original.After listening to a little bit of Tchaikovsky, and reading a little about him, I've got to withdraw my criticism that he is unoriginal. I see he was fairly original for his time, although I don't care for his stuff that much. Now go and finish War and Peace. It'll really start making sense after the first hundred pages or so, but you have to get there first. ;-)I've read way past the first 100 pages, and it's barely good for toilet paper, IMO. Seriously, F**K Tolstoy. EDIT Damn, I'm sorry for giving such a nasty response, George. :red: I was in a bad mood, and drinking. I hope you don't take it as a personal attack. I still can't get into Tolstoy, though.
Give it up George. MA is more Jeff Foxworthy] than Tolstoy.
My vote for most overrated writer goes to James Joyce. His supposed masterpiece, “Finnegan’s Wake,” is deliberately unreadable. His earlier works were not quite as bad, but also suffered from Joyce’s desire to incorporate gimmicks in his writing rather than engage his readers in a compelling narrative.
Underrated writer: Wallace Stegner. He wrote some of the best fiction I have read, as well as some of the best history books, and he taught some excellent writers, including Edward Abbey, another of my favorites. Stegner’s style was clear, concise and almost poetic: exactly the opposite of Joyce.
Definitely a fun thread. One of the difficulties with this kind of discussion is separating personal opinion from objective selection AND considering context. When I hear someone say Chopin was overrated my first thought is, clueless poster. But then again for that poster maybe music is supposed to get you revved up and ready to go. In that context, I supposed someone could think Chopin isn’t all that whereas the Rolling Stones might be. It’s a matter of context. I do think no matter what you have to consider what someone earlier called the “craft”. I personally don’t like Mozart BUT I do realize he was a master musical craftsman.
I have come to believe, as someone who has worked around artists and designers, that a large part of many artists talent is the ability to sell their work. I can’t fault them for this if it is the talent they possess. Fine artists really have to believe deeply in their work in some way, in the statement, (for lack of a better word), that they are making with their art. Even if they are saying something cynical or ironic, not so much in their work itself, but through manipulating the public perception of their work, they must believe they are saying something important and valid. Fine, and not so fine, artists also have to eat. Making art that sells is an art.
If rank commercialism should be condemned, then are we saying that the world is a better place if there is no decoration on your box of Kleenex? No single individuals taste determines good or bad art or the validity of any piece, and, for me, artists are not required to martyr themselves to the public or their work to be “true” artists. We don’t require that of other profession. It’s arrogant and a little despotic to think so. While I probably wouldn’t buy one, if someone can make a living painting sad eyed clowns with dog feces, they would fit my definition of a successful and valid artist.
I have come to believe, as someone who has worked around artists and designers, that a large part of many artists talent is the ability to sell their work. I can't fault them for this if it is the talent they possess. Fine artists really have to believe deeply in their work in some way, in the statement, (for lack of a better word), that they are making with their art. Even if they are saying something cynical or ironic, not so much in their work itself, but through manipulating the public perception of their work, they must believe they are saying something important and valid. Fine, and not so fine, artists also have to eat. Making art that sells is an art. If rank commercialism should be condemned, then are we saying that the world is a better place if there is no decoration on your box of Kleenex? No single individuals taste determines good or bad art or the validity of any piece, and, for me, artists are not required to martyr themselves to the public or their work to be "true" artists. We don't require that of other profession. It's arrogant and a little despotic to think so. While I probably wouldn't buy one, if someone can make a living painting sad eyed clowns with dog feces, they would fit my definition of a successful and valid artist.Good and valid points all, but then isn't it the case that it becomes simply impossible to "rate" art? All art is equally good and equally bad at the same time, and it's just a matter of passing fad or fashion what sells and what doesn't?
I have come to believe, as someone who has worked around artists and designers, that a large part of many artists talent is the ability to sell their work. I can't fault them for this if it is the talent they possess. Fine artists really have to believe deeply in their work in some way, in the statement, (for lack of a better word), that they are making with their art. Even if they are saying something cynical or ironic, not so much in their work itself, but through manipulating the public perception of their work, they must believe they are saying something important and valid. Fine, and not so fine, artists also have to eat. Making art that sells is an art. If rank commercialism should be condemned, then are we saying that the world is a better place if there is no decoration on your box of Kleenex? No single individuals taste determines good or bad art or the validity of any piece, and, for me, artists are not required to martyr themselves to the public or their work to be "true" artists. We don't require that of other profession. It's arrogant and a little despotic to think so. While I probably wouldn't buy one, if someone can make a living painting sad eyed clowns with dog feces, they would fit my definition of a successful and valid artist.There are always exceptions, of course (Cezanne, Van Gogh) but this does seem to be right in a general sense. It may also be possible to rate art in a general sense by aggregate opinion, although this also changes depending on the times and depending on the framing of the question. A good example of this kind of system would be to look at a couple of the internet movie rating databases, like Rotten Tomatos and IMDB. Oh, speaking of overrated/underrated artists: Kenny G. He's actually a fairly polarizing figure, popular amongst the masses, hated amongst musicians. He is a good businessman, and his musical abilities are fairly unremarkable. But, he also doesn't deserve the ire that many musicians direct his way, too. the general concensus among musicians is that he's an incompetent hack, but he really does know how to play. He just doesn't have the technical ability of someone like John Coltrane or Lester Young. But, his success is pretty much all due to his business skills, not his playing skills. There are thousands of good saxophone players who can play what he played on his albums better than he did. But those thousands didn't have his business skills. And he's a good showman.
Jackson Pollock. Most. Overrated. Artist. Ever. Random ass flicks of paint dripped on a canvas is lazy, garbage hack work. A toddler or a spastic monkey could make the exact same thing.Most abstract impressionists are overrated, IMO. And Thomas Kinkaid. There are many more in both categories.
I’d like to believe that there is some sort of inherent, universal idea of beauty. I wonder if the sense beauty that we seem to perceive in the natural world, i.e. sunsets, rainbows, seascapes, flowers is evidence of some sort of universal human sense of beauty. If so, I think some artists seem to be able to capture or translate this natural beauty into their work. There are a handful of artists who’s work we seem to recognize as beautiful, some over a very long time. I’m thinking of particularly of classical Greek art and the animals painted on the cave walls in France, but perhaps van Gogh, Rembrandt, Picasso and many others could be named. Such an idea raises the question: Why would we evolve to have such a sense or appreciation? I wish I had the easy, “glorification of God” answer to fall back on. It would make life less puzzling. 
Still, I don’t think that capturing a universal beauty, or tapping into it is the only form of valid art. For myself, valid art is any art which elicits a response in me. In that, I recognize that what is art to me may be merely a pointless scribble, an incoherent combination of words or tones to another. I have to accept that a piece of art which deeply offends me, by my very reaction, defines itself as art. So, I try, not entirely successfully, to maintain the position that there is art which I get, which moves me, and art which I don’t “get”. I try not to decide if it is good or bad.
I fabricate architectural and ornamental iron. When I take on a customer, I commit myself to attempting to create work which is meaningful to my customer, but the work does not have to be especially meaningful to me. I feel, as a craftsman, not as an artist, that this attitude is a fundamental part of my craft. It is much easier, and perhaps more satisfying, to create a piece of work for someone with whom I share a sense of art and beauty, but in some ways it is a greater accomplishment to do good work for someone who’s tastes differ. I should admit though, that the difference can be too great to overcome…Anyway, all this makes me think a lot about beauty and art sometimes.
For Literature: Stephen King, Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, James Joyce, Kurt Vonnegut, Leo Tolstoy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Issac Azimov, Greg Egan are overrated. Anthony Burgess, Graham Masterton, F. Paul Wilson, Chuck Palaniuk are underrated. For Music: Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Hayden are overrated classical artists. The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Allman Brothers, David Bowie, Bob Dylan are overrated classic rock artists. Underrated classic rock artists - Love, Mountain, Blue Cheer, Van DerGraff Generator, Ammon Duul 2. Underrated classical music artists - Vangelis, Carl Nielsen, Wojiech Kilar.Great Scott! This illustrates as good as any post in this thread about the sheer importance of subjectivity in relation to art. The Rolling Stones are not overrated. Bob Dylan is severely underrated-not overrated! Bob Dylan will go down in history as the No.1 influence on popular music of the late 20th century. Obviously this will happen post-mortem. But I am willing to guarantee this.
Definitely a fun thread. One of the difficulties with this kind of discussion is separating personal opinion from objective selection AND considering context. When I hear someone say Chopin was overrated my first thought is, clueless poster. But then again for that poster maybe music is supposed to get you revved up and ready to go. In that context, I supposed someone could think Chopin isn't all that whereas the Rolling Stones might be. It's a matter of context. I do think no matter what you have to consider what someone earlier called the "craft". I personally don't like Mozart BUT I do realize he was a master musical craftsman.In the case of Chopin, personally I don't care for his music - it seems too weak and one sided; however his technical proficiency on the piano is hard to argue with. When you measure other classical pianists/composers like Liszt, or Rachmaninov against Chopin, he seems less creative. Perhaps Chopin's "tragic suffering artist" life has help his popularity to endure? That's why I label him overrated.
For Literature: Stephen King, Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, James Joyce, Kurt Vonnegut, Leo Tolstoy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Issac Azimov, Greg Egan are overrated. Anthony Burgess, Graham Masterton, F. Paul Wilson, Chuck Palaniuk are underrated. For Music: Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Hayden are overrated classical artists. The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Allman Brothers, David Bowie, Bob Dylan are overrated classic rock artists. Underrated classic rock artists - Love, Mountain, Blue Cheer, Van DerGraff Generator, Ammon Duul 2. Underrated classical music artists - Vangelis, Carl Nielsen, Wojiech Kilar.Great Scott! This illustrates as good as any post in this thread about the sheer importance of subjectivity in relation to art. The Rolling Stones are not overrated. Bob Dylan is severely underrated-not overrated! Bob Dylan will go down in history as the No.1 influence on popular music of the late 20th century. Obviously this will happen post-mortem. But I am willing to guarantee this.How will you guarantee it? Why do you think the Stones are not overrated?
I was thinking about some of the Warhol hate, and while he definitely made a lot of crap (and even farmed some out, or "collaborated") I've always kind of gotten the impression that he simply didn't care. His choice of subject matter, the way he acted around the media and fished for rich patrons. To me, he's always come off as someone who thought the whole thing was a joke and just sort of churned out BS and screwed with the art community to see just how much he could get away with.That's your opinion. I can relate to it but, that describes tons of artists. The impressionists, the Classicists, modern art, many artists from all time I would reckon. Some artists paint a still life or a landscape. And that's it. The art is done and one admires the choice of subject, the brush work/composition etc. The colors. Other artists put a message in their art. A political or social message. This was one of Warhol's devices. I believe Warhol gets all the credit he deserves. I like his work. I get his message though.
Mid-A....How will you guarantee it? Why do you think the Stones are not overrated?I can't guarantee it. That was figurative. More like a gentlemen's bet. But a bet I'm willing to wager. My near certainty is not based on one iota of emotion or personal affectation. It's based on a knowledge of history, the music industry and on Dylan's repertoire and the recognition he already has with people who define history. The Stones are certainly not overrated. The deserve ever accolade ever showered on them. Parameters: Originality- 8 out of 10 Popularity: 11 out of 10 Body of work: 10 out of 10 Quality of work: 10 out of 10 Songcraft: 11 out of 10 Live Performance: 10 out of 10 Money made: 11 out of 10 Management and production:10 out of 10
I think I can see your reasoning with this.Mid-A....How will you guarantee it?I can't guarantee it. That was figurative. More like a gentlemen's bet. But a bet I'm willing to wager. My near certainty is not based on one iota of emotion or personal affectation. It's based on a knowledge of history, the music industry and on Dylan's repertoire and the recognition he already has with people who define history.