Caricature Art

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

Ah, a woman after my own heart [don't tell Angie I said that]. You have great taste in art.

Victor

___

Edited November 13, 2006 by Victor Pross

[gary williams]

V,

I wish to apologize for my rather snarky attitude yesterday. It had nothing to do with you really.

It had nothing to do with your art.

I apologize and I mean it.

gw

[Rich Engle]

I always enjoyed caricature, I've seen lots and lots of it for years. Victor's is much more evolved, and it's young, but mature, and it's gently funny.

A lot of guys from my era like that kind of art. Probably because we read a lot of mags like "Mad" and "Creepy." Camp is cool for me...I like to laugh.

It is also innovative caricature; easy to spot that if you've seen a lot of caricatures

Now, I made a decision that kind of even interests me as to the why. I have all kinds of access to artists, graphic designers, loads of them. Looked at a lot of stuff for our album art. I had always imagined it would end up being something pretty sublime, or very modern CGA type stuff. And it was important to all of us because, well, it's the first record for us, and quite frankly we worked grisly club gigs forever without taking pay so we could do this thing.

Victor's art is the last thing I expected I'd end up using; meaning, I just didn't see the CD looking that way.

I showed the group a few renderings he's done for me. There was a moment of silence... then, smiles.

Victor's stuff has goddamn edge to it. It has lots and lots of elements. It has wonderful color. It pushes the boundaries.

So I figured the world could do without another "sublime" album cover. I wanted the edge. I wanted someone that was THAT original, and had THAT much command of their faculty.

I am much happier with how this is going to come out than I was. Much happier. People will turn heads at this, and that's a good thing.

[sjw]

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

You didn't say that. You said I was a "hostile person".

Shayne

[sjw]

I wasn't talking about you or to you.

Right... Well if you weren't, then you should have used some strong qualifications, because what you wrote sure looks like it was a response to what I said.

This is what gets tiring about participating in a discussion with you. Everything turns into a game of "gotcha."

Again with the insults. What's baffling is that you make a big deal about me saying what I think because you find it insulting, and then you engage in blatant insults. It's interesting too that my comments are usually targeting the particular thing that was said, whereas you engage in sweeping character attacks. My remarks might be sweeping, but they are usually about the *idea*, your sweeping remarks are about the *person*.

As for the rest of your post, your implication that I'm unwilling to examine my value judgments is ludicrous.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

Thanks so much for saying all of those things about my art. Hey, who said payola doesn’t work?

Okay, that does it. I’m really gonna roll up my sleeves and tackle this project giving my all! I’m even going to put the tracing paper and paint-by-numbers kit away. I’m doing it alone!

Edited November 14, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

TV GLARE, baby! Yeah!

I just hope I don't screw up the guitar parts too bad...

[Ellen Stuttle]

Victor's stuff has goddamn edge to it. It has lots and lots of elements. It has wonderful color. It pushes the boundaries.

Good description, I think. I admit that when I first saw Victor's stuff, I had a bit of an "ugh" reaction to the distortedness of the figures -- though I thought he was skilled technically. But with time the "edge" has kept enticing me back to look again.

I'm reminded of a favorite novel series of mine, the Gormenghast series. All the characters are "grotesques" in one way or another. Yet there's a lovingness in the books...

Mervyn Peake, the author, did quite a bit of caricature drawings. I don't find his drawings appealing to my tastes, but I do love his writing.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You didn't say that. You said I was a "hostile person".

Shayne,

Sorry for the poor impression. This is one of those cases where the popular use of an expression causes confusion when misinterpreted. I thought the context would provide the proper meaning (why explain a joke to a person who is hostile to that kind of humor?) I didn't mean that you were hostile as a whole person.

I have a suggestion. Why don't we now get off of the issue of why Shayne thinks what he thinks and how he thinks and get back to the issue everybody else is talking about?

Do you have any thoughts on caricature art other than a negative appraisal of Victor and his work?

Michael

[sjw]

Sorry for the poor impression. This is one of those cases where the popular use of an expression causes confusion when misinterpreted. I thought the context would provide the proper meaning (why explain a joke to a person who is hostile to that kind of humor?) I didn't mean that you were hostile as a whole person.

You wrote "Have you ever tried to explain a joke to a hostile person?" If you mispoke, fine, say so, but don't blame it on me misreading you.

I have a suggestion. Why don't we now get off of the issue of why Shayne thinks what he thinks and how he thinks and get back to the issue everybody else is talking about?

So, it's wrong for me to object to you misrepresenting and attacking me? If you'd just lower your weapons and quit misrepresenting me, I'd be happy to stop talking about it. But I won't stand by while you attack and misrepresent.

Do you have any thoughts on caricature art other than a negative appraisal of Victor and his work?

And here we go again with the misrepresenting. Where did I give a negative appraisal of Victor? Because I only recall talking about a *very small subset* of his work (as that's all I've seen).

Maybe you just don't get it, or can't do it, or disagree. I've asked you several times to stop guessing at what I think. I don't like having the burden of correcting you when I never asked you to speak for me, and I don't like having your misrepresentations go without answer.

But even leaving that aside your remark here is ignorant. I have offered my thoughts on caricature for one thing. So I *have* offered more than mere criticism of some of Victor's work. *Again*, we see you making a sweeping judgment regarding me that is obviously wrong.

Again: I don't like this sort of thing any more than you, but I won't stand by while you attack and misrepresent me. You are the one wasting my time, but you paint me as if I'm the one wasting time. It's ridiculous. Please stop. The only reason this goes on and on is because you won't admit your mistake, and you keep making it over and over, and I'm not willing to let you off the hook while you continue to pretend that it's my fault.

Shayne

[sjw]

And another thing.

I don't know Victor. I haven't formed a conclusion about him as a person. He initiated the insults against me in the Talent thread and if I gave him a little jab here by quoting "art" and his own words I think he deserved it. But he didn't make a big deal about it and my jab was extremely little. It is Rich and Michael who are blowing this all out of proportion and they should just knock it off.

As far as my criticisms of Einstein and that eyeball thing, it's what I think. I'm open to discussing why that is, but I'm not open to your tacit idea that it's rude for me to say what I think. If you guys (Rich & Michael) don't like the turn this thread has taken then look no further than the mirror. I've been wanting to get back to the subject since Rich started this stupid tangent.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I am only going to address one point of this paranoia mishmash of you are making of supposed attacks, and then I am not going to discuss it anymore. You wrote to Victor:

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.

Then you wrote to me:

Where did I give a negative appraisal of Victor?

If you can't see it, I am sure I can't explain it. But I am sure that if he said something similar about you, you would be having a fit. Look at what you are doing with incorrect and improper interpretations of posts.

Anyway, I will not protract this. Your premise, that I want to attack you for some reason, is wrong. I like you (believe it or not). But I can't keep discussing this. I have better things to do and this is time consuming over nothing that is real (imagined slights).

I do suggest a more generous interpretation of what you read before getting aggressive and personal. Like you say, ask first. You might be surprised at how poorly you often understand what is meant. Not everything boils down to a personal attack against you. Actually, from what I read, not much at all does.

Michael

[sjw]

I do suggest a more generous interpretation of what you read before getting aggressive and personal. Like you say, ask first.

Ironic, since the thing you quoted me on *was* asking Victor for an interpretation other than the only ones I could imagine. And neither he nor anyone else has given a reasonable alternative explanation for why he so blatantly disregarded the facts there. If you want to claim that I've formed a judgment about Victor on the whole on the grounds that in this one instance I can't fathom the reason for his illogical statement, well that's more a reflection of how you form judgments about people than how I do.

I don't know what you *mean* to do, I am just observing what you *are* in fact doing. You *did* in fact call me hostile (and then were put off when I responded in a hostile manner to that bogus accusation); and you have *repeatedly* misrepresented my statements. If you don't mean to act this way, then perhaps you are simply making mistakes, except if that were the case I'd expect an apology and retraction, not lectures.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

I admit that when I first saw Victor's stuff, I had a bit of an "ugh" reaction to the distortedness of the figures -- though I thought he was skilled technically. But with time the "edge" has kept enticing me back to look again

Ellen, it’s funny. Rich says that I “push boundaries” and you speak of reacting to the “distortedness” of my subjects, and here I am thinking...I have been holding back! I told myself that for the next series of paintings that I’ll be doing in 2007, to just “let it go” and exaggerate and really explore my imagination! Just let it go! Don't hold back! Go nuts! I really want to climb out on the ledge of exaggeration--while retaining the essence and likeness of my subject. This is the challenge I want to set for myself. I hope you enjoy the results when I'm done.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen and Rich,

Yes. Victor's work has "edge" and it speaks on a deep level that makes you go back to it. There is another attribute, however, that interested me the moment I saw his work.

(Aside to Victor: You can stop reading now. You get a big head too easily.)

(Back to Ellen and Rich):

The mark of a really good artist is when he has his own original "voice." If you mix Victor's caricatures with those of several other artists, you will be able to pick out which ones belongs to Victor easily. He has his own style.

Developing a personal style is not something you can teach because in comes from the artist wanting to say something and having something to say. It is a stamp of quality, so to speak, but quality in the sense of being authentic.

I started noticing this when I started producing pop music. As the window on radio air time is limited, it is important to an artist that who he is be clear to the public right at the start. That is why you can listen to a few bars of most songs by a great artist, even when you don't know the song, and you already know who it is. (With classical composers, sometimes more time is needed.)

All great artists have their own personal style.

Just having a personal style is not a guarantee of greatness, but personal style is a necessary component and it is generally lacking in most artists. Victor's style is unmistakable.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well said, MSK.

It's so true, and bottom line business results themselves support that over and over.

Even if I were just thinking pragmatically, I'd know one thing-- between Victor's art, and our new music, the album will be distinct. No one will have one like that, not even close. So, it will be unique, at least that's out of the way!

Of course I'm happy about all this for more reason than that...

As far as the supposed MSK/rde "vs." sjw thing, I concur with MSK. The main reason I come here is to enjoy myself on a level that is different than the many other things I do. I too believe you have ideas to chew on, Shayne. I don't try to guess what other people think, neither does Michael. What you might be seeing is when someone reforms a statement, perhaps adds their own take/question to it, and then wait for confirmation/feedback. That's how communication works. Language is NOT rock-solid. There IS nuance, tone. It's not an objective situation, it is a bi-directional model. That requires, among other things, understanding, benefit-of-doubt, patience, manners, mutual respect.

I don't speak for MSK, he doesn't speak for me, but we talk to each other and we know where the common experience/conclusions sit. I think it's fair to say that both of us are, after all this time, very tired of the classic O-format of debate, mainly because it is so often stiff, it's loaded with moral judgment, it can be mean, and above all, it's very often not a fun nor enriching experience.

I picked up some of that tone from you, it is actually a (to me unfortunate) constant in O-world. Others like it. But, I'm starting to think it doesn't have as much to do with what's inside you as how I react to this similar tone I've seen before, and the fact that you actually do try. MSK says he likes you, and I believe that. I don't know you well enough to say that, but I will say I respect you, because you stay with it and try to make meaning.

A few years ago it would've looked like two of the same going at it. I changed the way I talk to people, there were life reasons that made sense to me. I lost a lot of my anger. Where you go with things is for you to learn and decide. We can't control the behavior of others, but we can surely take a shot at our own. For me, for most people, that honestly is a full time job!

So what I am saying is I will continue to work at honoring the communication process. That it is not personal, at all. I'm not interested in putting out fires with gasoline. That's easy enough for all of us to do. I'm interested in the harder stuff, which in my case involves leaving the edge out of things.

Fair enough?

r

[Victor Pross]

No big head, Michael, just little heads on big bodies.

**

Rich, you took the words right out of my mouth. That some Objectivists are called “orthodox” is a very apt designation. It is very unfortunate that some people don’t approach Objectivism as a life-embracing and joyful celebration of life on earth and fully utilize it in that manner—instead of this angrily snippy moralizing huff-and-puff and blow your evil house down bit. Believe it or not, that is how I approach my art—most of the time. Much of it is a humorous and laughing--joyful--excursion—and I don’t think that a sense of life is limited in its expression by painting, say, little children by the pond or a naked person atop of a mountain reaching for the sky. That is the caricature of what an "Objectivist painting" is suppose to look like. Ugh!

As many know, during my brief stay at SLOP, I went through a period of asshole fever before snapping out of it. See, I asked myself: what the hell am I doing here, what’s my purpose and what am I getting from all of this? That was a key question: what is the value?

-Victor

[Rich Engle]

Romantic Realism is fine with me. I enjoy a lot of it. Kind of still like Maxfield Parrish better, as far as women standing on rocks and stuff...

As far as discussion-as-bloodsport, it wore out it's welcome with me. It doesn't mean I won't step up to the plate; I do, and try oh-so-hard to not go back into the former mode when I do so. Not easy all the time.

It's too easy for me, and I always ended up feeling kind of less-than-joyous inside after a first-rate cast the soul into the void job. It takes a lot more effort the other ways, and since it does require more of me, I value it more.

There's been endless discussion on Objectivist-approved art. Again, I've not seen much in that area that I didn't like. One of the first gifts I gave my girlfriend was the lovely ballerina photograph w/ the Fountainhead quote (Atlas Society store)... it's gorgeous and being a ballerina, more meaningful to her.

But there's just MORE. I do really believe that generally, the somber nature is the main one when looking at existence (or individual spiritual consciousness, as I would say). But it DOESN'T mean all the damn time. I like to laugh, be happy. They are not exclusive of one another.

And, I think the O-aesthetic is somewhat caught in dated mode. What Ayn said, what she approved of. Only.

Humor continues to be problematic with many in O-world. But there are some damn fine exceptions!!

I'm just hoping Shayne understands I am extending an olive branch here. If taken, great, if not, then we simply disengage from interaction until or if something changes; no harm, no foul. With all sincerity I say this.

[sjw]

So what I am saying is I will continue to work at honoring the communication process. That it is not personal, at all. I'm not interested in putting out fires with gasoline. That's easy enough for all of us to do. I'm interested in the harder stuff, which in my case involves leaving the edge out of things.

Fair enough?

I take that to mean that you're going to stop trying to get me to leave off the "edge"?

Yes, I would appreciate it if I could make a point around here without having someone get on their soapbox about "Orthodox Objectivists" and how nasty they are. For my part, I prefer an "edge" to the incessant self-righteous and preachy admonitions that I change myself into what you all fancy yourselves as having become. If you're in a happy place, good for you. So am I, I like being direct and saying what I think. So let's all be happy and "live and let live." I won't complain about how "nice" you all are (if preaching at me can be called "nice") if you don't complain about my "edge".

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Caricature art has a long history dating back to the days of Leonardo da Vinci to modern times as a major art form. But it is an art form that is often misunderstood. It is an enormously popular art form-and yet it is also very under-rated. In fact, at one time to openly discuss caricature as "art" was considered a silly presumption worthy of ridicule. In the intervening years, however, recognition and acceptance has fertilized the soil and this unique art form is apart of the cultural establishment. Why, consider caricature artist Anita Kunz! Her caricature paintings had a solo display at the Library of Congress! How more "establishment" can you get than that?

Now, in a culture warmed by serious adult attention, caricature artists can attempt new growth in an area that formally was look down upon. Humor was considered "lowbrow"-and it was exactly this kind of thinking that has prevented caricaturists from enjoying a position closer to the top of the hierarchy. Personally speaking, I am not an amusement park caricature artist who whips off a fast marker sketch for a few bucks. This is one reason why, among other setbacks, caricature art has been dealt a deadly blow by art historians and by art critics. There has been a battle among caricaturists and the snob "art Guardians" in art history, but this art form has thrived.

But I do not need to defend the medium. Critically important works like Understanding Comics or Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer for MAUS stand on their own-anybody who does not consider this worthy of artistic relevance is sleeping at the wheel! (I should also mention here my own forthcoming coffee-table book-- "Icons and Idols"). Today, the popularity of caricature [and indeed other comic art forms] is all around us! This is not only evident by the sheer popularity of "adult" shows like the Simpsons, South Park among many others. Let's not forget the critically acclaimed documentary films Crumb (the underground artist who now enjoys mainstream appeal) and Comic Confidential. There is also an organization in the U.S. called the National Caricature Network (NCN for short) that celebrates caricature art. On the recent front: Let's not forget about Robert Pulcini's film adaptation of Harvey Pekar's underground comic series. Of course, these are just a few examples.

I was wondering if you have any views--good or bad--regarding the genre of caricature art as such, regardless of my own approach to it. I would really like to know your views on this.

Victor

Edited November 15, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

I was wondering if you have any views--good or bad--regarding the genre of caricature art as such, regardless of my own. I really like to know your views on this.

I haven't given it much thought. But here's a few thoughts off the top of my head.

On one level all that matters is whether it's valid or not (I think it is). It does not matter whether it's a "lesser" art form in some sense; it is a creative activity that demands intelligence, skill, insight to do the best job at it. The same could be said for cartoon strips. So--if you are trying to say that it matters whether caricature is a lesser art form in some sense, I disagree with that, it doesn't matter on the level of "is this a worthy pursuit". It's a worthy pursuit, it can be done with intelligence, taste, skill, insight, and can be admired on those terms.

On the other hand, I do regard it as lesser art, in the sense that it does not address the deepest reason why we need art. It is a peripheral, optional art form. It does not deserve to be ranked on the same level as The David, Atlas Shrugged, or The Geographer. There is nothing any caricature artist can do that would inspire a human being on the deepest levels such as these works can. Caricature art can be insightful, witty, intelligent, funny, sarcastic--but it can't be profound, it can't be spiritual fuel.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Shayne: Not exactly what I meant but more than adequate for our purposes!

Victor: Interesting you mention Pekar... I still run into him once in awhile. He likes to frequent a bookstore in a little artsy area called Coventry, not far from my office. What a character! It's just hit or miss if you see him or not, but he loves to talk. The film was very good, but I don't think there's any way to totally grasp how eccentric Pekar is...he's like a giant, disheveled wrinkle that's full of ideas. It's quite an experience, best taken in short doses!

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

When I saw the movie, I was a little surprised to learn that this Harvey Pekar dude was more of an idea guy—and not an actual artist. I thought he drew. But he had artists placing himself in a la Crumb scenarios--having slice-of-life comic depictions of his experiences and views. He is the caricature of the classic curmudgeon, and a funny one to boot.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Well, Harvey has drawn. But mostly I guess you'd say he's a writer. I've seen him trot out occasional pieces in recent history, mostly in the local "Scene" magazine (Village Voice owns them now I think).

This goes back years, but the thing with him is he used to just turn up at scenes... you know, like off the wall rock shows, things like that. Seemed like he was always somewhere, but you could never really figure out why. I think about the most I remember is seeing him draw on napkins or bits of paper. Sign bathroom walls, maybe.

Years ago in the Scene, I think he had a crude little cartoon strip, and I think he drew it...

I still don't know how to classify him... Hunter Thompson quote, maybe:

"He was a high powered mutant: too weird to live, too rare to die."

Heh... If I manage to see him anytime soon I suppose I should grill him about stuff. I was trying to get him to work on another project with me, but it's just so impossible to keep him focused...

See, here's a kind of guy that I treasure in a certain way. I wouldn't want to be him, and for sure he wouldn't make it through the O-ist aesthetic stylebook, but the world is a better place with him in it. He makes me laugh.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Somewhere along the line humor, let alone caricature, in the visua artsl—the very idea of humor in visual art--has been dealt a deadly blow. It is considered as in 'bad taste.' I have said elsewhere that the whole concept of “taste”, let alone its goodness or badness—is subjective. Those who determine “taste” have decided it’s alright for an artist to move us to tears, anger, awe or out-and-out repulsion—but to make his audience laugh was considered beneath the artist’s station! Satirical work, like that of Daumier, can be just as provocative, and thought provoking. Laughter is wonderful. But humor for humor’s sake was considered lowbrow. It was barely tolerated and usually had to be couched in something that had a “moral message”---typically called satire--to justify it. The “art world guardians” have hampered development and the art world, as a whole, suffers from an intolerable snobbery. In most circles, humor—and even satire—was considered tawdry, and it still is. I don’t know why.

-Victor