art is everywhere!

"Almost anything made by human hands CAN be considered art."

I don't particularly agree with that assessment, mainly because I think it is too broad and liberal an interpretation, but I will accept it for the sake of discussion.

If that is true, and essentially anything created can be labelled "art," then it is important to distinquish between high-art and low-art, much as Flashy alluded to earlier.

To me, this would be considered low-art. Again, it may be neat to look at, and certainly is a good display of talent, but it is not something that will impact the art community. You can see just as many displays of similar talent at a craft show, but I doubt most of us would consider that art.

Sure, it is not what I would call high art and a tremendous breakthrough, but it is art nevertheless. And it's amusing art, it's good to see that, as Gerli described in her headline, art is everywhere! I think life would be rather boring without it, it's just so GOOD to see those things. If I walked by it I would feel really happy, and just by seeing the pictures I feel uplifted. Therefore I refuse to look down upon it as something not artistic.

You can add my name to those who believe these drawing are art. It is my belief that 'art' should cause a reaction and by the ongoing debate here, over whether it is art or not, proclaims it as such.

However, I hope he has a day job 'cos he's rubbish. His use of colour, light and perspective is very poor.

No I couldn't do better I'm not an artist but anybody who owns a Tony Blair mask deserves criticism.

The sidewalk drawings are fun and there's a degree of talent in getting the perspective right (Da Vinci's Last Supper is effective in part because of the impossible perspective) but as Zeni says, it's hardly original or thought-provoking (except perhaps for the businessmen-in-hole drawing which would be a "statement" if placed in the right geographical context - Wall St, for example).

The difference between high art and low art is often how much some pretentious twat is prepared to pay for it. For example, Kevin O'Neill, Mike McMahon or Carlos Ezquerra have produced some great, original comic book art. But that's all it is - comic book art. On the other hand, people pay small fortunes for Roy Lichtenstein's work, and he is basically an unoriginal copier of comic book art.

Or consider Hiro Yamagata who was considered as a producer of "low art" when he was decorating the insides of shopping malls but is now considered to be producing "high" art only because the wealthy starting paying inflated prices for his work.

I never thought I'd see the name Carlos Ezquerra mentioned on these boards. You can't beat a bit of Strontium Dog and Wulf Sternhammer, and that's a fact.

Indeed.

Kevin O'Neill - Besides his work on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, what else has he done?

*Gets out 'nerd specs' and gives 'em a good dusting*

'Nemesis The Warlock' and 'Ro-Busters' spring to mind.

I was always a fan of the chap who did 'Slaine'. Might have been called Grant Mills, or did I dream it?

"Kevin O'Neill - Besides his work on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, what else has he done?"

I think Marshal Law is his best stuff.

"I was always a fan of the chap who did 'Slaine'. Might have been called Grant Mills, or did I dream it?"

The early b/w stuff I might've been Grant Mills - the name rings a bell - but that's back in the mists of time so I could be wrong. Later art was mostly by Simon Bisley, with some Glen fabry thrown in for good luck.

Those were the days, coats for goalposts and all that...

WOW!

That's really groovy!

thanks time

that brought me some happy just now
and
i really need it right now.
smiles for you. )