Caricature Art


Victor Pross

Recommended Posts

(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?

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.

-Shayne, you have merely reiterated what I just explained, and I agree with you. Why the echo?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

jackson_pollack_by_victor_pross.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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:

I can see where Shayne was taking it literally.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

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?

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.

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".

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

Michael's lame guesses come across as either poor psychology or ad hominem.

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

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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? :w00t:

Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

I agree.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now