Caricature Art: Seeking to Capture the Essence and Learning to Appreciate an Underdog Art Form

By Victor Pross


There are many misconceptions about the art of caricature. People love caricature artists pretty much the same way they love baby chimps: they are amusing and not to be taken too seriously. But most people know nothing about caricature art. When it comes to the caricature artist, they pause to marvel, fire off enough questions to confirm that they don’t have much of a clue about art—much less about caricature art. This is no less true when it comes to some caricature artists themselves.

I come across inspired artists who are interested in exploring caricature and who often proceed to capriciously plunge in with little or no understanding of the art form. As a result, one will witness drawing after drawing of enlarged noses, lips, ears, foreheads, eyes, chins and heads—all the variable caricature clichés. Too often I see interchangeable drawings from different artists who bend themselves out of shape in the attempt to bend their subject out of shape, as if caricature was nothing more than enlarging and distorting every extremity. It all becomes so boring.

In this article, I would like to offer some insights—my personal approach--regarding this inspired and underrated art form. It is my intention to increase your pleasure and appreciation of this art form by letting you know of my philosophy to good caricaturing.

First, I would like to say a few words about the caricature genre in general: I hate most of it. There, I said it. There are only a handful of artists who spark my interest to the thousands who are out there. The vast majority are truly horrible as they are boring. However, I clearly believe that caricature art is a legitimate art form which I obviously wish to explore. But I pursue it as a fine-art painter. I loathe the candy-cartoon colors so characteristic of the art form. So I wish to state from the outset that I am not primarily a caricature artist, but rather, an artist who can paint caricatures.

At first, I was a much better artist than I was a caricaturist. I have spent countless hours laboring over a painting obsessing with technique only to discover that the finished caricature work struck me as flat. My paintings were flat because they were generic. They looked like dozens of other caricature artist’s works. The garden-variety caricature’s usual oeuvre is the tired cliché of BIG HEAD ON A LITTLE BODY. There is nothing wrong with this Big-head-Little-body cliché if done sparingly and not as the rule. This mode of caricaturing has fallen into the definite category of “been there and done that.”

After much trial and error, I discovered the main idea is to capture the soul of your subject. This is much more important than merely distorting features or resorting to exhausted formula. Like a shallow aging narcissistic model, too many caricaturists are obsessed with the outside at the expense of the inside. Now when I say “capturing the soul” of the subject, I find that a quote from Leonardo da Vinci very instructive to communicate my meaning:

“Faces display in part the nature of men, their vices and temperaments.”

With this quote in mind, I set out to capture my subject’s nature and temperament. In other words, I seek to capture their souls. There is much more to caricature than capturing features. It’s also about capturing the subtle [or not so subtle] nuances of a person—little highly individual touches that breathe life into the work. Caricature does not begin and end with a face: figure, stance, expression and attitude all add up to recognition. We can spot our friends or family members from strangers [even with their backs turned to us] and sometimes even from a distance. Sometimes you know a person’s walk or body language, even from that great distance. A rich personality tells more stories than a dozen oversized lips and bulbous noses. I strive to give my caricatures character.

When I set out to draw or paint a famous personality I usually know as much about the subject as does the general public, which is nothing more than tabloid personality. Sometimes they are just faces, and this doesn’t tell us much. So research becomes necessary. I approach caricature as a biographer approaches his subject: research, lots of digging. But try to imagine a biographer who couldn’t be bothered with conducting extensive research. What kind of manuscript would result? Of course, the result would be a banal and worthless book. If my subjects are predominately famous people, I find that doing at least some minimal research will spark ideas for a painting that would not have occurred to me otherwise, and the end result will generate a greater emotional response from my viewers.

There are many ways to capture a personality in a caricature painting. Legitimate “kill zones” can include a person’s characteristic facial or body language or political or spiritual allegiances or cultural ties or occupational backgrounds. I find that individualistic idiosyncrasies of the subject also provide fodder. The face is only a beginning. The idea is to find “the truth” of the subject. A keen artist will study the expressions of and nuances of person--mush as would an impersonator would. An outstanding impersonators base their mimicry on a much deeper level than mere speech imitation, and so in this spirit, I try get to the heart of the character while also working diligently to maintain a graphic likeness of a given subject. I consider the total person and not just isolated parts.

Consider the case of impressionist Will Jordan’s take on Ed Sullivan. When Will made the turn and presented you with that incredibly funny face—the Sullivan lantern jaw, the protruding teeth, hands on hips and the neck-brace posture pivoting like a doll at the circus, you saw Ed Sullivan even before he spoke! But when Will started to talk in that harsh, nasal, stammering voice--it was Ed Sullivan himself, body and soul.

Ed Sullivan was a colorless man, but Will Jordan was truly an inspired mimic who went beyond reproducing a voice, reshaping himself into the personality itself. Bizarre as it was, Sullivan gradually acquired all sorts of mannerism, which he didn’t originally have but which Will stuck into his act to make it funnier. Will raised the voice to a more metallic pitch, whistled through teeth, and barred teeth: “Thenk you all virr-ry much, la’ies and gennulmen!” Will Jordan caricatured Sullivan outrageously and it paid off for Will and his audience. And so with great exaggeration, facial expression, body language and voice—the whole package, I too, like Will Jordan, try to think of the “total person” when caricaturing. It is very satisfying as an artist to meet these challenges and the end result is much more rewarding for the viewer. It is about capturing the essence—and seeing it.




**

Jonathan, if you are out there...I would like your feed-back on this 'caricature philosophy.'

Victor,
I think you present a very good case, and I appreciate your seriousness and passion. The art of yours that I've seen is clearly not low-grade amusement park or mall kiosk stuff, where, as you say in your article, the artists work in nothing but generalized formulas and cliched distortions. More importantly to me, the thoughtfulness with which you seem to ponder the concept or theme of what you're bringing to a painting is complemented by a real understanding of serious art essentials - lighting, color modulation, brushwork, etc. I look at your work and recognize that you understand technical things (perhaps even on a level of their long having become second nature by now) that some artists who would look down their noses at all caricaturists will probably never understand.

Actually, now that I think of it, and maybe you've done something like this elsewhere already, it might be interesting to explore the entire spectrum of portraiture/caricature with illustrated examples. At what point does a portrait become caricature or vice versa? Is artist Gary Kelley's work (his Barnes & Noble cafe murals, for example) caricature, or is it a sort of gentle Iowan cubist realism? Was Tamara de Lempicka somewhat of a caricaturist? Were some of Ingres' intentionally distorted and highly stylized figures just barely verging on caricature? Are any of their works less artistically valid because they drastically distorted or altered reality for the purpose of enhancing expression?

J

Jonathan,

Cubism, as I understand it, is the attempt to render three dimensions without using perspective. The fractured geometrical shards that make up cubist paintings belong is in a different category than caricature. Or so I believe. Pablo Picasso’s influence on the history of the 20th century is unquestioned. Caricature, however, as we know it, involving exaggerated likenesses of specific individuals, seems to have gelled very slowly. William Hogarth [1697-1764] many have been the first to bring the Italian word into English as “caricature”—from “caricature”, meaning “loaded picture. But the art of caricature may be older than we know. One sculpture portrait of the Pharaoh Akhenaton [who was famous for rejecting the ideals of classic Egyptian art] combines an unnaturally long face with slanted eyes, long nose, and oversized ears. In fact, throughout history, various cultures in Europe and Asia have mingled human and animal features to represent demons.

Caricature, I submit, is indeed a legitimate art form. It is not cut off from the other factors and skills that a representational painting demands: tone, contour, space, light, color modulation, brushwork, etc. As long as there has been art, artists have felt free to stylize the human image, boiling the face and figure down to graphic essentials—creatively. Creatively is the key word here.

Artists have always understood the possibilities of emphasizing, exaggerating, and rearranging the human face and figure. There are many of history’s “fine art” painters who painted “manically morphed beings” such as Goya, Leonardo Da Vinci and Picasso. Can you imagine an art titan like Leonardo drawing caricatures? Why not?

What I’m arguing for is a full reappraisal—if not a removal—of the lingering opinion that humorous or exaggerated painting cannot be taken as a serious art work. It is ART--an art form that has so much potential, way above the candy-ass cartoonists seen in the mulls. This will be my artistic objective.

Victor

Jonathan,


Like I said above, artists have always explored the possibilities of emphasizing, exaggerating, and rearranging the human face and figure. There are many of history’s “fine art” painters who painted “manically morphed beings” such as Goya, Leonardo Da Vinci and Picasso, and so on. Today, "serious art" is really the joke. Look at the contemporary gallery scene where the rooms are decorated with inverted urinals and floating basketballs and nothing represents anything more than the aritst's agent who represents an affected misfit.

You said: "I look at your work and recognize that you understand technical things (perhaps even on a level of their long having become second nature by now) that some artists who would look down their noses at all caricaturists will probably never understand."

What I’m arguing for is a full reappraisal—if not a removal—of the lingering opinion that humorous or exaggerated painting cannot be taken as a serious art work. That is my objective.

I was wondering if you have a larger objective in art outside of making a living?








Again, let it be said: Caricature, I submit, is indeed a legitimate art form. It is not cut off from the other factors and skills that a representational painting demands: tone, contour, space, light, color modulation, brushwork, etc. As long as there has been art, artists have felt free to stylize the human image, boiling the face and figure down to graphic essentials—creatively.

**

Victor:


What I was getting at is that a painting style, like Gary Kelley's or Tamara de Lempicka's, which is fairly realistic but has been influenced by cubism, can be just as much an intentional distortion as caricature, and the cubism-like distortion can be employed for the same reasons.

Victor:


As I said, I think you make a good case. And, actually, I think that there are many, many serious fans of visual art who would also agree with you. A good example: I've seen some of Daumier's caricatures displayed at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. No one there seemed to believe that the works in the exhibition were not serious art. I think the only thing tainting the status of caricature as a serious art form is what you've complained about yourself: exhausted formulas, candy-cartoon colors, etc. Someone who is serious about caricature art should do a caricature of such caricaturists. ;-)

Victor:


I feel that I may be misinterpreting the question. If you're asking if I create art for a purpose other than making a living, then yes, I have a larger objective. If you're asking if I'm interested in using my art as a sort of aesthetic activism to try to convince the artworld that it should agree with my views on what is or is not art, then no.

J

I think the only thing tainting the status of caricature as a serious art form is what you've complained about yourself: exhausted formulas, candy-cartoon colors, etc. Someone who is serious about caricature art should do a caricature of such caricaturists. ;-)

Hey, I like this idea. Hmmm, I can see that.

By the way, along the same token, I don’t care too much for what is called hyper-photo realism. The sort of painting where you wonder if it is a painting or a photo—if you know what I mean? I’m not necessarily talking about caricatures. I just mean that whole hyper-photo realism deal all together. I like paintings to remain “painterly”—something that conveys something highly stylized and unique. A painter shouldn’t assume the role of a photographer, although many photographers have been inspired by the painting masters of the past. In art school, I tried a few photo-realism paintings, and I shocked my teacher by painting over them and starting again.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)



I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Ah, Shayne... once again I see you've managed to pull into a thread and leave another one of your Victor droppings. Will you ever tire of it? Looks like pretty much everyone else has.

Victor is a fine artist. He's working on a project for me right now, and not only am I pleased with his early renderings, but even more pleased with how pleasant the experience has been-- he is very sensitive to our needs, and is going extra miles right out of the gate.

Really, why can't you keep off the bash Victor bus? What is the positive purpose?

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



You object to me stating an evaluation of Victor's art (the art I have seen anyway, that's all I can speak to), and in return make an even more sweeping evaluation of me. Don't be hypocrite. If you don't like it when others judge, then don't judge. You're the Christian, right? Or did I misunderstand. Anyway, you seem to subscribe to the Jesus view of "judge not". So at least be consistent. Judge not. Or is it your view that it's only valid to judge judgers? That the worst evil is to be "intolerant" of evil?

Given your trashy tastes, I don't think it's speaking well to Victor's art that you like it. (For the record, I don't claim that all of Victor's art is bad since I have no idea what the scope of it is. I definitely did not like the Einstein rendering, I thought it was creepy.)


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

No, I'm not a Christian, I've made that abundantly clear, in reams. So that assumption cost you a bit of irrelevant typing, I guess...

I'm making no sweeping evaluation. You simply don't seem to like Victor, and you do what you do. It's really not very subtle or anything!

The tone is always there, you know? Why so angry at him?

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne, if the Einstein drawing didn’t grab you, maybe Jean Chrétien is more to your liking? Hee-hee.

Seriously, my art has always received mix reviews and I’m speaking outside of Objectivist circles. There is a sharp divide [Art World and public at large] and the battles have been even more ferocious than anything I have ever come across here or SLOP. The admiration and hostility seem pretty equal. As for any enmity, I can handle it, it’s old hat to me. Been there and done that. So the bunny ear around the word “art” doesn’t crush me--if indeed that was your attention. I doubt it was your intention. After all, you are an Objectivist and benevolent universers don’t behave that way.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



Well good for you.



This is why I usually refrain from interacting with you. I mean, it's trivial to notice that "benevolent universe" does not equal "doesn't ever make negative evaluations of anything." You're not stupid. What alternatives does that leave? You like spewing irrational statements (not unlike your irrational art)? You simply are irrational as a habit and don't notice the illogic? You tell me, that kind of behavior I cannot fathom.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

A small word of comment. I don't find Victor's art irrational at all.

It is a huge mistake to look at caricature and parody art and expect to get the same aesthetic experience one gets from art like Jonathan's paintings (or the works at the Cordair gallery).

This is a premise well worth checking.

Notice that technique-wise, Jonathan has made some very positive remarks about Victor's work.

On the personalities, you guys work it out. I am busy drooling over Jonathan's paintings and chuckling over Victor's.

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

On the personalities, you guys work it out. I am busy drooling over Jonathan's paintings and chuckling over Victor's.

Thank you, Michael. I'm thankful for the talent of the production people who manufacture those paint-by-number kits. They help a lot. Hee-hee.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



It's a huge mistake to assume that I think caricature and parody art should yield the same aesthetic experience as romantic realism.

Rather than make poor guesses about what I think about art in general, it'd be interesting to see an analysis of, say, the Einstein caricature, of the aesthetic value allegedly offered from that. Someone's brains popping out of their skull with shreds of skin dangling, I really am curious as to what somebody might think is great about that.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

Why on earth would I want to explain an instance of humor to you? Have you ever tried to explain a joke to a hostile person?

You can't. He won't let you. He likes being hostile about it.

I was merely suggesting you check you own premise ("you" in the general sense, not just "you" specifically). But that's your choice.

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



I ask you to explain why you're defending something as good and you react by attacking me. That doesn't help your case.



Yeah, the minute you try to answer I'm going to tape your fingers so you can't type... Unlike you, who doesn't have the power to ban me or delete my posts.... You're making almost as much sense as Victor.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

How on earth is saying you are hostile to a joke or humorous piece attacking you?

Dayaamm!

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

I welcome your challenge and will meet it with a serious reply. While I agree with Micheal, if you don’t see the humor in any of my work, I’m sorry for that, and it’s true there is no point trying to explain it so as to extort a chuckle. Besides humor, however, there are other reasons why I choose to include “visual clues” or whatever else you may see in a drawing or painting of mine--besides vying for a chortle.

There are many misconceptions about the art of caricature. People love caricature artists pretty much the same way they love baby chimps: they are amusing and not to be taken too seriously. But most people know nothing about caricature art. When it comes to the caricature artist, they pause to marvel, fire off enough questions to confirm that they don’t have much of a clue about art—much less about caricature art. Caricature is much more [or should be much more] than the rendering of enlarged noses, lips, ears, foreheads, eyes, chins and heads—all the variable caricature clichés. Too often I see interchangeable drawings from different artists who bend themselves out of shape in the attempt to bend their subject out of shape, as if caricature was nothing more than enlarging and distorting every extremity. It all becomes so boring. And such is the case with the so-called “fine art” painters. As far as I'm concerned, the world does not need another landscape artist, and nudes should be kept restricted to students—not as a primary esthetic mandate for a mature artist in today’s world.

I would like to offer some insights—my personal approach--regarding this inspired and underrated art form. It is my intention to increase your pleasure and appreciation of this art form by letting you know of my philosophy to good caricaturing.

First, a few words about the caricature genre in general: I hate most of it. There are only a handful of artists who spark my interest to the thousands who are out there. The vast majority are truly horrible--as they are boring. However, I clearly believe that caricature art is a legitimate art form which I obviously wish to explore. But I pursue it as a fine-art painter. I loathe the candy-cartoon colors so characteristic of the art form—colors that look as though they belong on a velvet painting or on the side of a 1970s Van. So I wish to state from the outset that I am not primarily a caricature artist--but rather, an artist who can paint caricatures.

At first, I was a much better artist than I was a caricaturist. I have spent countless hours laboring over a painting obsessing with technique only to discover that the finished caricature work struck me as flat. My paintings were flat because they were generic. They looked like dozens of other caricature artist’s works. The garden-variety caricature’s usual oeuvre is the tired cliché of BIG HEAD ON A LITTLE BODY. There is nothing wrong with this Big-head-Little-body cliché if done sparingly and not as the rule.

Here is where we get to the gist of the Einstein drawing: After much trial and error, I discovered the main idea is to capture the soul of your subject. This is much more important than merely distorting features or resorting to exhausted formula. Like a shallow aging narcissistic model, too many caricaturists are obsessed with the outside at the expense of the inside. There is much more to caricature than capturing features. It’s also about capturing the subtle [or not so subtle] nuances of a person—little highly individual touches that breathe life into the work. Caricature does not begin and end with a face: figure, stance, expression and attitude all add up to recognition. We can spot our friends or family members from strangers [even with their backs turned to us] and sometimes even from a distance. Sometimes you know a person’s walk or body language, even from that great distance. A rich personality tells more stories than a dozen oversized lips and bulbous noses. I strive to give my caricatures character. The end result will generate a greater emotional response from my viewers.

There are many ways to capture a personality in a caricature painting. Legitimate “kill zones” can include a person’s characteristic facial or body language or political or spiritual allegiances or cultural ties or occupational backgrounds. I find that individualistic idiosyncrasies of the subject also provide fodder. The face is only a beginning. The idea is to find “the truth” of the subject.

A keen caricature artist will study the expressions and nuances of person--mush as would an impersonator would. An outstanding impersonators base their mimicry on a much deeper level than mere speech imitation, and so in this spirit, I try get to the heart of the character while also working diligently to maintain a graphic likeness of a given subject. I consider the total person and not just isolated parts.

Now in conclusion, what can be said about Einstein that is essential to the iconography of the man? His wild and unkempt hair? Well, sure. But every other caricature artist has always done that! What else is there to focus on? His brain.

Victor

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



Now this is funny!

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Victor, my response is "Ugh."

--Brant

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Victor,

I hope you realize two things. First, the fact that someone doesn't like your caricatures doesn't mean they don't understand art. Second, that there's nothing clever about the idea of showing Einstein's brain bursting out of his skull. I mean, that's an obvious gag to think up.

You said a lot of things. But precious little about the Einstein caricature. Actually I wonder if it's fair to ask the artist to explain. It's definitely not your duty to. But I am interested and curious about what you thought you were trying to convey there. If you want to know what I get out of it I'll try to explain.

I don't claim to be expert on the theory of caricature art. But I off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

I hope you realize two things. First, the fact that someone doesn't like your caricatures doesn't mean they don't understand art. Second, that there's nothing clever about the idea of showing Einstein's brain bursting out of his skull. I mean, that's an obvious gag to think up.

-Is it? It’s never been done before, as far as I know—but Google and yahoo away! What would you have done?

I don't claim to be expert on the theory of caricature art. But I off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject.

-Shayne, you have merely reiterated what I just explained, and I agree with you. Why the echo? Having said what I said, however, I don’t pretend that a two dimensional representational drawing or painting will tell as much as a biography can—or a novel in regards to characters. Painting, in this instance, is limited.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)


Again with the illogic: the fact that something has never been done before does not make it clever, nor does it make it a good idea.

Since I wouldn't caricature Einstein I couldn't answer you. But I would say that I would not make any art that displays the crude type of imagery you seem to like. Bloated brains and skin, eyeballs popping out, it's just disgusting. There's nothing redeeming about showing flesh being ripped apart in this context. I'd say that some movies *might* call for it, if the values in question are very profound. But you use it gratuitously, and I find it quite tasteless.


I wasn't echoing you on purpose. I was putting in my own words what I think. In retrospect though I see the similarity. I like how I put it better though, it's a lot more concise. If you think condensing something to essentials is "merely reiterating and echoing", well, that's a bizarre attitude for an artist to have.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

One of the main problems I see in understanding caricature art is understanding the spirit behind it.

If a caricature is seen as mocking, it can be very offensive. It it is seen as mischievous, it can be very funny. And caricatures can be one or the other.

The Einstein caricature is a good example. If a person looks at it as mocking Einstein, and mocking the good and the intelligent, in essence, saying "Who are you to think you are so much better? You look really ugly with your brains hanging out," and things like that, then this would be offensive to Einstein and to all who admire intellectual feats--in essence, who admire the mind.

If a person looks at it mischievously and sees it in the same light as a little girl trying to use her father's house-shoes or a playful poke in the ribs, he sees that the value of Einstein's mind (and the mind in general) is not sneered at. It is held up as a value. The person is merely looking and saying, "Wow. Look at that. When you peel away Einstein's personality, there's all those brains."

In the first instance, the person focuses on the literal interpretation and sees something that in real life would be an abomination. If a person were to have their brains exposed in the manner of the caricature, he would die shortly.

In the second instance, the person focuses on the metaphorical meaning, the "visual pun" so to speak. He already takes as a given that the scene is not real and that nobody walks around with his brains literally exposed. So he applies the "brains exposed" description to what else he knows of Einstein and sees the literal depiction as a funny contrast.

In the first instance, when something is funny, the purpose is to laugh in contempt and scorn. In the second instance, the purpose is to laugh in celebration of the differences from oneself life provides.

In the first instance, pure offense is seen with Einstein. In the second instance, a quirky tribute to him is seen.

In Objectivist aesthetics, there hasn't been too much room for the mischievous spirit. Rand considered humor as an essentially destructive element and something that had to be disciplined by what was appropriate according to moral judgments. She stated clearly that it was appropriate to laugh at the evil, but it was evil to laugh at the good. In her sense of humor, which was restricted to mocking, she was correct. But for the rest of humor, her observations do not apply.

I personally think that a mischievous spirit is essentially "life premise," but more. It is "young premise."

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Michael,

Yes, that is precisely it. It is a metaphorical rendering, but I took that for granted. That was my mistake, I suppose. Let’s be clear: I’m not trying to re-create a Todd Browning and Lon Chaney horror flick here. I can see where Shayne was taking it literally. It is a matter of right and left brain thinking. But I would also argue that “beauty” is not a defining characteristic of painting, and it can be applied by the artist or not. It is optional. If ‘beauty” was an essential of art, we would then have to say that abstract “art” is art, because the colors are so purrrr-dey.

Victor

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Michael,

You are trying to get at what I don't like about the art without asking me, and that's always a mistake. Why make poor guesses if you can just ask?

The true explanation is much simpler. I think the vivid depiction of flesh being ripped apart is bad regardless of your intent (except, *maybe*, in very special contexts where profound values are at stake). And I don't pretend to know what Victor's intent was, that's why I asked.

I think the sane, psychologically healthy response to that kind of explicit imagery is to be disgusted. Like Brant's "ugh". If that's the artist's intent then that's evil. If that is not the artist's intent then I think he's been psychologically numbed. It's akin to crude jokes. Some comedians spew forth filthy jokes as if filthiness was funny in and of itself. I think they are vile, but many seem completely numb to the vileness, as if that is just normal or something. And then they claim I have no sense of humor, when even ignoring the crudeness, it's just not clever or funny. Which is an indication of what they're really laughing at.

Victor adds:



Bull. Michael's lame guesses come across as either poor psychology or ad hominem. The metaphorical meaning is obvious. That's why I said that I didn't find it clever. If it were clever, then there might be some redeemable quality in it to appreciate. The only quality I find that can be appreciated is the technical aspect.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

We are now speaking beyond the scope of caricature. We are speaking of esthetics as such—but more: we are speaking of the "politics of esthetics" it seems. But when it comes to the business of “good taste” or “bad taste”—that type of approach is hopelessly subjective. The nudes you may appreciate today--or the book Lady Chatterley’s lover--was considered “obscene” and “crude” at one time, but now they are merely "a given." Crude! Obscene! Repulsive! Bla, bla, bla! The long standing whine of the social conservatives is like a fly on a beautiful summer day—they are here to stay and they just won’t go away.

Social conservatives...How has this story unfolded?

Throughout history whenever something new or radical has appeared, they must pass through four standard stages of growth before finally gaining general acceptance. First, the new or radical idea or notion is ignored, scoffed at, and then dismissed as foolish and trivial or crude. Next, members of the establishment, its traditions under challenge, react with fear and hostility to “the new”. They attack it and scorn and ridicule what they perceive as a threat. In the third stage, the concept is hailed as brilliantly illuminative. Everybody rushes forward to claim ownership. Last, be it penicillin, the automobile, architecture, painting, or the personal computer, it becomes an essential part of the very world that once derided it. This is the typical re-action—mostly from the social conservatives—when encountering anything progressive and seemingly “crude”—simply because it is new--and falls outside of the narrow confines of their mental paradigm. In this case, the paradigm may be the Objectivist esthetics. And while I am in large agreement with Rand, I do not define myself as an “Objectivist artist.” UGH!

Victor

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

This is just an observation and general statement that not only pertains to this thread but many many others as of recent. I had an interest in this thread but have now grown rather allergic to it due to all the insults being thrown such as the recent one I saw as "Michael's lame guesses." Truly there is no need to add the word "lame" other than to insult the person. The intention is to provoke anger and a negative reaction from that person; ie, pushing buttons and the negative reaction is what they want. It's not just coming from one person but many. I've seen much of this on SOLO and quite frankly it is a major turn off and I will now avoid this thread. The insults that are being thrown are very revealing of the person throwing them and how they are as a person. Whatever happened to debates or what have you where opinions can be expressed without the insults, especially if their view is different than yours or their views are being challenged? I also see much of a vacuous state going on here, just over and over and over and over and quite frankly is irrational. Doesn't anyone get tired of this? I know I sure do.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Honey, I agree with you. And that’s why I am confining myself to argumentation –presenting my case and avoiding personal insults. That's crude.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



On the contrary, I am insulted when someone has the gall to put *their* views into *my* head. As far as I'm concerned, Michael initiated the insult with the presumption that he could speak for me concerning what I think.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



It's true that my complaint has nothing to do with caricature per se. Your apparent belief that "drawing outside the lines" (so to speak) is inherently good is however not true. If you want to claim that torn flesh is good art then you'll have to do better than to point to creative people and say "but they were different too!" Besides, the torn flesh thing is tired and old. It goes right back to the Dark Ages in fact; it's a very Christian style. Go visit a medieval art gallery; your stuff would fit in well in that respect.


Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

I wasn't talking about you or to you. This is what gets tiring about participating in a discussion with you. Everything turns into a game of "gotcha."

But let's go ahead talk about your last post.


I didn't ask because I wasn't addressing you at all. I discussed the mocking/mischievous angle because I just wrote an article about it which I haven't posted yet (still revising). So this is on my mind right now and the present discussion was pertinent.


As a personal reaction, you are entitled. But checking this premise outside of humor, I daresay that I am very pleased butchers, medical examiners, doctors and other such professionals do not share your disgust. (And the existence of these professionals shows clearly, the "ugh"" reaction is a learned one, or at least one where learning is possible.)


The second statement is incredibly pretentious and shows very little understanding of the psychological nature of man. It shows more about your personal preferences than anything else. I suppose it would be fair to say that such an artist is "psychologically numbed" to your particular preferences. He has others.


I don't like low-level humor either, but I can see clearly in this statement that you have no proposal as to why people laugh other than they are "numb to the vileness." Does being numb to the vileness make one laugh? What is so funny about being numb?

Since you didn't say, I will ask. What do you think they are "really laughing at" and what is it that you think makes them laugh? Why laugh and not do something else?


Huh? I suggest this statement comes from a very lame reading of my post. It bears no relation to reality.


Whoever said that a metaphorical meaning must be clever to be humorous?

I return to my original judgment. You can't explain a particular type of humor to someone who is hostile to that kind of humor (like you, Shayne, have proven to be in your posts in this thread and elsewhere on OL). He won't let you. This does not mean, in this context, physical restraint, as in your silly supposition in another post. It means he will not even attempt to understand the principles or contexts involved. He will impose his opinions constantly or be dismissive.

The point is that he has already made a value judgment and is unwilling to examine it further, even in light of the observation that many people appreciate it. He does not want to understand why they laugh at that kind of humor--he has already decided that the reason is that they are numb or evil or whatever, even though this does not explain the laughter. That is his right and I will not argue with that. But it is the right of other people to choose other values and approaches and understanding.

One thing is for sure. The more you explain a joke, the less funny it gets. (This aligns with Arthur Koestler's theory of unexpected intersecting planes in humor in The Act of Creation, which is the theory I find best explains my own experiences and observations.)

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

The issue of the “torn flesh” as been answered, and you are revising it again in a literal sense. That rendering has nothing to do with mutilation or violence. And you know it, but are merely arguing as if the matter has not already been addressed.

And I am not appealing to “the new” as an esthetic devise or as a standard. I have already explained myself—thoroughly—as to how I approach caricature, and “never-been-done-before” was a side issue.

To use your own words, in a more precise manner, if you wish, my approach to caricature was captured already:

“…off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject.”

Yes, Shayne...something "abstract" about the subject, that is how the brain is to be taken. This is not a "Christian rendering."


Victor

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

I am thinking about breaking some of the posts off into a new thread on caricature art.

None of the bulk of this discussion has anything to do with Jonathan's magnificent paintings.

Michael


EDIT: I did. The discussion where posts have been so indicated used to be on this thread.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

I am thinking about breaking some of the posts off into a new thread on caricature art.

None of the bulk of this discussion has anything to do with Jonathan's magnificent paintings.
Michael,

Yes, sure, good idea. I'll be posting there!

Why not post some new caricature work to fuel the conversation? Do I sound excited?

Victor

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)



I agree.

Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

Oh My!

Jonathan's got a secret! He is a fabulous artist!


Such a refreshing change around here!



Of course hell has frozen over! I find myself agreeing with sjw!


I find the criticism of prefering the exquisitly photographic-esque renderings of Jon over...say cartoons is nit-picking. Shayne is quite capable of knowing what he likes. As are we all.

Is thar anyone here, who in choosing great art would not choose any of Jon's work over Victors?

Which would you prefer to hang on your walls? (There is no wrong answer)



There is a reason that caricature has its own catagory. It is not great art and will never be.


Great art is in the eye of the audience. Not in the eye of the artist.

If artist's chose greatness then Jackson Pollack would be famous!



Wait a minute..................




Now who's side am I on?



What is art?


Who is good?





I only know what I like. I only know what makes me happy.


Jonathan's work makes me happy!


gw

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Gary, you’re not helping my case at all!

Hee-hee!

Great caricature art—and some of it pretty ugly-- by Leonardo da Vinci:

A writer notes: "Several such drawings still exist in which Leonardo either portrays or invents pronounced facial features, exaggerating them like a caricature."

http://www.artcult.com/vinci.jpg


http://www.wga.hu/art/l/leonardo/08heads/045heads.jpg


http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventor...antmanwoman.jpg


Caricature of a Laughing Man by Leonardo da Vinci: http://www.art.com/asp/sp.asp?PD=10273697&...ngine=sitematch

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

V,

It ain't personal.

I truly think you are capable of greatness.

You just ain't hit it yet.



You want my opinion? (Probably not)


Leave the caricature behind. Step out there and strut with the big dogs!

You know you can do it, so do it!


Do it!


Looking at your caricature, I know you have the mindset for greatness. And god knows everyone here knows you have the talent.


Do it.


Wow us!


I'll be the first to shake your hand!





Where do I get off giving you advice?

I buy art. Lots of it.

I am always looking. I am always encouraging kids to work and learn and improve.


You are not a kid.

You are an artist.


Wow me!


I dare ya'!


gw

Sorry dude.

Da Vinci was an anatomist.


If he drew them, then they really looked like that.



Caricature is a more modern art form.




Keep going with the Da Vinci thing. I know nothing of Da Vinci!


Absolutely nothing!

Caricature is a more modern art form.

Oy, art history time!

Strange, but I suddenly feel as if my knowledge of art and art history is being challenged!



Give it your best shot!



gw

Oh good golly!


I hope nobody comes up with more Da Vinci knowledge!


That might scare the dickens out of me!!!!!


No more Da Vinci...........Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!




I would go with Jackson Pollack! I know nothing about crap!!!!





gw





An art flame war?!?!


I dig it!!!

No flamewars, but if there is to be discussion or debate, a common reference of facts should be helpful. Here are a few:

Caricature, as we know it, involving exaggerated likenesses of specific individuals, does go back to da Vinci. However, William Hogarth [1697-1764] may have been the first to bring the Italian word into English as “caricature”—from “caricatura”, meaning “loaded picture.

But the art of caricature may be older than we know. One sculpture portrait of the Pharaoh Akhenaton [who was famous for rejecting the ideals of classic Egyptian art] combines an unnaturally long face with slanted eyes, long nose, and oversized ears. In fact, throughout history, various cultures in Europe and Asia have mingled human and animal features to represent demons. Look at the works of Thomas Rowlandson [1756-1827], James Gillray [1757-1815], Isaac Cruishank [1762-1811].

Further more, caricature, I submit, is indeed a legitimate art form. It is not cut off from the other factors and skills that a representational painting demands: tone, contour, space, light, color modulation, brushwork, etc. As long as there has been art, artists have felt free to stylize the human image, boiling the face and figure down to graphic essentials—creatively. Creatively is the key word here.

Ohhhhh! You have access to Wikipedia!


How coool is that!




gw



PS - I can't but help notice how quickly you got off the Da Vinci references!


Smart! Of course I never doubted your intelligence! I think you are fabulous....or.....Well, you could be!!!!



Of course, I know nothing of Da Vinci!!!!!!!





Now, I have a real job. I must earn a feable living. (Yeah folk! I am a poor bastard!!!!)

So I must lay me head down to sleep, and pray my lord my soul to keep..............




Hmmm? I wonder if Da Vinci is in Heaven?!?!?!


I bet I know that answer too!!!!!!!!

I find all of those oddly beautiful, not ugly, maybe especially the second one. All of them have the feature of a compositional framing of the face or faces to the dimensions of the drawing, and the ones with more than one face fit the juxtaposed figures to each other rather like a jigsaw puzzle. Fascinating, I think.

Ellen

___