Coop's "Smoking Devil" painting
Coop has a terrific blog post about his latest painting, which is based on a smoking devil he created for a cigarette lighter company in 1993. The story of how Coop's illustration spread across the planet reminds me of the story of Robert Crumb's Keep on Truckin' illustration.
He quickly gained a life of his own. Lots of cars, trucks and skateboards, tool boxes, laptops, etc. ended up plastered with a Smoking Devil sticker. I started to meet people with the Smoking Devil tattooed on their body. It was at this point that I started to realize that I had, pretty much by accident, created something powerful. However those lines and forms came together, it had a power all its own. It was becoming something more than a piece of art or merchandise. It had become a symbol of something, a little talisman that people used to signify something about themselves and their lives. Pretty heady stuff for a dumb hillbilly such as myself.LinkAs is often the case when an image reaches this level of recognition, it started to become bigger, something that was beyond my control. Like Frankenstein's Monster, the creation often thwarted the will of its creator. The Smoking Devil started to pop up in places where I never intended it to be. It was knocked off as merchandise, used without permission to adorn bars and businesses. I began to understand how Nagel must have felt the first time he saw one of those hideous paintings in the window of a nail salon. (That's probably what killed him.)
the latest
latest episodes
Rbrt Crmb nvr clld hmslf fn rtst. H ws n llstrtr. Jst bcs y mk yr llstrtns rlly bg, dsn't mk t fn rt. fnd ths mg trt nd sly dsmssbl, lmst nn-mg. p nxt: My 10 ft pntng f Tz.
I believe my best friend has this, or a remarkably similar design, printed on "blotter" paper.
She and her husband got it on eBay, I believe, and then got some weird phone calls from the DEA because it's actual blotter (has nothing but ink on it, however).
@1: "He was an illustrator." When did he die?
Your ignorance of facts matches your ability as an art critic.
Just picked up this vintage boat decal that riffs on the classic smoking devil theme.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rossangeles/2568727240/
original smoking devil
http://www.brownsteins.net/RichsFamily/FamilyPhotos/George%20Burns.jpg
Neat story! Re: criticism of Crumb and Coop - who said art had to be "fine" to be good? And who gets to classify art as such, anyway? Art is subjective by nature. I may not dig Amy Crehore's stuff so much, for example, but that doesn't mean I necessarily hate it or can deride someone else for enjoying it.
Also, on a side note - Nagel's stuff has a really interesting look to it. It was quite a revelation to me that the cheap knock-offs weren't actually his. However, some of the fakes endear themselves to me in their own special ways. A great example of this is on the sign at the "College Books" in Bloomington, IN. (It's an adult bookstore.) Very pretty picture, but definitely clues you in that it's not really a "normal" college bookstore.
@#1 Clueless:
First -- be aware that I am not threatening you, only trying to advise you.
Dude - you REALLY shouldn't insult someone on the web when your name, address, and phone number are on your resume via your username-linked website.
That's just suicidal...
@1: Owned by Mark Frauenfelder. Dude.
I really wanted to hate COOP when I first started seeing his work, with a similar "oh, he's just an illustrator," but COOP is just so good. Now I love him.
@1: Would you like it better if he glued some felt and googly eyes onto it? Would that make it art?
There's a kind of ho-hum sameness to Coops art that turns me off, but I guess other people find appealing, because it's distinctive - hot rods, betty page type girls, devils, the psychobilly vibe, and repeated color schemes. But what do I know? He's making a mint off of it.
Illustration is not a dirty word. Though I'm sure they would hate to admit it, hardcore intellectual conceptual art that isn't about expressionism or formalism is usually, by some means, an illustration of an idea. Really bad conceptual art usually fails in this area--a poor illustration of an overwrought idea.
"Illustration" at some point became a dismissive word in the fine "art world. "Art world" being an insulated way to describe art accepted by academia as legitimate with pretensions towards being cosmopolitan. Since "fine art" didn't quite cover it all, they came up with a way to legitimize art that didn't fall into their arbitrary criteria for "fine art" by calling it "outsider art" with the assumption that Art with a capital A had somehow naively and accidently been created in a un-academically sanctioned vacuum.
Now what is called "painting" by academia is actually in some ways formally very conservative in that it must be done on a giant canvas or framed board and hung in a gallery with walls painted matte white, pictures evenly spaced.
When Coop makes an "illustration" for a book or a poster, the difference in quality or validity between it and what he might paint on a giant canvas varies very little, but painting on giant canvas enables him to sell his work to people who need it to be officially sanctioned by the geographically challenged "art world". If these people need to call it "outsider art" to buy it, that's what they need to do.
It's a game that Coop knows how to play, and more power to him, but it doesn't make either venue any more or less legitimate.
If you're going to share your art with others, there will always be some kind of formal constraint built-in to the venue. Whether its print or a gallery or an outdoor market.
"illustration" is not a magic word that enables you to pull down the sheet and reveal the man behind the curtain. We are so fortunate to be surrounded by all kinds of art in all sorts of venues made with all kinds of different intentions. If it makes you feel better to call some of it "fine-art" and some of it "illustration", whatever floats your boat. If you look upon something determined to be fine-art by the powers that be as legitimate, and are dismissive of what isn't, I feel sorry for you because you're missing out on a lot of cool stuff.
Clueless in Brooklyn, just because you trash an artist, doesn't make it art criticism. If you can't make your criticism substantive, please restrain your impulse to pee in other people's Wheaties.
I'm going to start using the term "nail salon Nagel" all the time now!
There's a whole slew of nail salon Nagels here: http://www.photomagnets.com/signsnails.html
I went to an LA show of Coop's a few years ago and was disappointed. The work at the show was pretty uninspired, and I had made the mistake of inviting a woman along that I was trying to impress - she was not impressed. Side note - she had enjoyed seeing a collection of poster art by Rockin' Jellybean, work that was even more overtly "pin-up" in style. But the work on display at Coop's show wasn't justifying his pin-up imagery. And I have seen work of his reproduced on the web or in Juxtapoz that was much better. AND there is no denying that the smoking devil is now iconic. But don't make the mistake I did - check out a show before inviting somone else along. Even better - don't try to impress women with your art hipness. And stop tracking mud across my nice clean kitchen floor!!!
Eustace,Eustace,Eustace.... where to begin? OK: get them drunk first,this is ART we're talking about. I recommend a Drambuie tongue-bath as a polite warm-up.
...and I knew, at the time, that I was overlooking some critical detail...
to create an iconic image using a very famous icon of our culture/mythology [devil] who is famous for pleasure/evil/badboy/etc... doing something like smiling/smoking, or even having a martini or something, is hardly original. and im not going to launch into some art v. illustration bit, cause its lame/boring. but i would say the other name mentioned, crumb, he did create something iconic and odd, the keep on truckin' character was not an already famous mythical/cultural character of any sort as far as i know, and it was really quite odd that it became so iconic/catchy. just my opinion, coop has the skills of any good comic book artist, but i think he is less original than just about any comic artist and he simply illustrates stale rock n roll motifs and somehow blows some hype for them.
There's no difference between an artist and an illustrator, other than personal perception.
Hundreds of years from today the decision might have meaningful cultural relevance. At this point, let's not kid ourselves.
"coop has the skills of any good comic book artist, but i think he is less original than just about any comic artist"
This might've sounded better in your head than it could possibly be true. "just about ANY comic artist"? That covers a lot of territory. I would say that there are a good many comic artists with less skill, and debatably, less imagination. This could be argued if for no other reason than sheer mathematics. And I wouldn't go around mistaking Coop for a comic artist as in: someone who draws images arranged in sequence designed to tell a story. In a style influenced by and reminiscent of, yes, not that you said anything to the contrary, but for the sake of clarity, Coop isn't known much for his comics.
And on the subject of illustrators and cartoonists: comics can involve illustration but illustration all by itself is its own animal. Robert Crumb's output is mostly in the area of cartooning or comic book storytelling. He's pretty good at illustration, too, but for the most part what Crumb does and what Coop does are very different things.
In my opinion I like opinions, especially when articulately expressed, and opinions are even better when convincingly argued, but denigrating someone's work in a sentence or two isn't much in the way of criticism. It's just your opinion. For what it's worth. And its usually worth more to people who agree with you than it's likely to convince those who don't. It's sort of like shouting out the name of your favorite football team.
But you do have a point about the difference between a riff on a preexisting icon, vs. the institutionalization of an image that has much less precedent.
As for the difference between an artist and illustrator (or art vs. illustration for that matter): Illustrator is in the subset: artist, just like orange is in the subset: fruit. So yes, it is a fact that there is no difference between an artist and an illustrator, and I don't believe history will have much impact one way or another on that one.
I learned a great new phrase this weekend: Internet Affective Disorder. It's what makes people feel obliged to whine and nitpick.
This thread is only mildly influenced by it.
Eustace, did she agree to a second date?
Is it okay if I point out the difference between fine art and illustration? I think it bears commenting. Illustration versus art is a "function over form" kind of discussion. Illustrators are typically charged with translating an idea into visual information for the purpose of advertisement. Illustrators usually need to deliver that message as effectively as possible in order to "sell" the product.
Although the lines are blurred these days, fine art has more to do with investigations, examinations of content or formal qualities. The message may be much broader or deeper, though the intent is obscure. There's a lot of art hating on this blog, especially over fine art.
That said, Coop is more of a "street level" artist, like others found in Juxtapoz, or painters who are coming up from skate culture or graffiti. He's not so much an illustrator, but his stuff doesn't rely on any art theory that I can determine, nor does it exist as a meta commentary on visual culture; it's just out there mining a particular sector of visual culture.
I know I've commented about this in the past, but it just goes to show you that art has the power to offend everyone at some point.
S, F PST SMTHNG THT Y DSGR WTH, LK NT LKNG BRNG PNTNG, THN Y THRTN M WTH NDNTTY THFT. ND Y HCK NT MY CMMNT T TRN THM NT BLRBS? WTF? ND Y HV TH TM T G T MY WBST ND CRTQ MY WRK N CMPLTLY MMTR WY? Y GYS DSGST M.
THS S BSH-N MNTLTY.
Theresa - alas, no.
If only I had taken her to the Juxtapoz show earlier that year, no doubt my incredible hipness would have carried the day. Damn that unpredictable art world!
Buh-bye, Clueless...
After reading Coop's blog, it appears he actually is going for a little visual culture examination, by way of his attempts to reclaim an image he considers part of his brand. Branding is a hot topic in fine art these days. Blurry, blurry lines.
Defty @ #17 sez "to create an iconic image using a very famous icon of our culture/mythology [devil] who is famous for pleasure/evil/badboy/etc... doing something like smiling/smoking, or even having a martini or something, is hardly original..."
Yes. Much better to have him paint a Madonna with Child, or a self portrait. THOSE ideas are really original and will get you into the louvre…
Using images, or combinations of, that others may have used before does not ‘lessen’ an idea (unless you’re directly aping a piece), or an artist’s work. It is refreshing to see new combinations, but most of the time we see a lot of repetition, and it’s in the way the artist handles the subject that can be most interesting.
So, Coop had success with an image that some dismiss as repetitive or ‘not art’… but he must have done SOMETHING right with his execution of the piece since so many people around the world glommed on to it.
Now, just because something is popular does not automatically make it ‘good’ or ‘art’… but just because art can become popular doesn’t dismiss it from still being art.
High and low art forms constantly send each other up, don't they?
However, if you are grounded in the 'artworld', stealing from comics is part of your commentary as a fine artist. When you rip off Picasso as an illustrator, you are playing with style, but remain outside the fine art milieu.
There are so many examples of this: Lichtenstein used comic images in his paintings, Warhol started as an illustrator, Crumb parodied Phillip Guston, and Guston ripped off comics after turning from abstract expressionism. Around it goes.
By the way, check out the David Sedaris cover art for "when you are engulfed in flames". The skeleton smoking a cigarette is from a painting in the Van Gogh museum, and was painted in 1885.
from Djinn PAWN #27
"Yes. Much better to have him paint a Madonna with Child, or a self portrait. THOSE ideas are really original and will get you into the louvre…"
i guess what i should have said is that he didnt so much "create" something iconic, he just repeated it/interpreted it [and i have no problem with that, and im not ranking that on any hierarchy, that method can lead to amazing things, i just dont think this is one of them]. whereas i would definitely say crumb created many iconic things which had not been there before in such clear form.
and #19/Jed Alexander
yes your right, i dont think i said that quite right. i think what i meant was more that his style/technique is a very basic comics art technique [makes me think of john buscema], and i dont think his subject matter is really much to write home about. and your probably right on the math of bad/unimaginative comic artists out there.
"but denigrating someone's work in a sentence or two isn't much in the way of criticism. It's just your opinion. For what it's worth. And its usually worth more to people who agree with you than it's likely to convince those who don't. It's sort of like shouting out the name of your favorite football team."
yes, a couple sentences isnt much of a critique, or lets say not much of a full-meal critique, more of a quick snack, but im not going to write a thesis on my perception of coops boring-ness in order to convince people to join my anti-coop army.
"Illustration versus art is a "function over form" kind of discussion. Illustrators are typically charged with translating an idea into visual information for the purpose of advertisement. Illustrators usually need to deliver that message as effectively as possible in order to "sell" the product."
What's with the focus on advertisements and products? If you're talking professional, commercial illustrators, sure, they sometimes work in advertising, but by no means exclusively. But maybe that's not what you had in mind.
Ok, if this is meant as some kind of metaphor, it's really cynical and doesn't apply to ALL illustration. In fact it mostly just applies to advertising. The exclusive aim of advertising is to do everything in its power to get you to want the thing advertised, and it's a lousy metaphor for illustration.
Illustration is not by nature a commercial endeavor. I can make an illustration--and "translating an idea into visual information" is a good start--without any commercial concern whatsoever.
The other squeaky wheel here is "illustration" the word vs. "illustration" the professional field. As I mentioned before, I do think that post modern and conceptual artists ocassionally illustrate, as in:the act of clarifying or explaining; elucidation--using some visual device to get their sometimes overcomplicated idea across.
It's true, illustration otherwise tends to be a narrative and communications medium. It's purpose is often practical, but by no means purely practical. What I consider art to be is anything done for an aesthetic purpose beyond it's utility, and as far as I'm concerned, even the crassest commercial illustration does that. When it's utilitarian purpose is for whatever reason overshadowed by it's aesthetic one, illustration has got it going on.
Here's another tricky area: literature. Usually when we talk about "fine-art" we're talking about visual art, and when we talk about literature we're talking about words. But now that these sneaky people have come along and made comic books with depth that are sometimes formally experimental and otherwise interesting, we have to officially revise this stance. But comic books use illustration and illustrative techniques. Now some purists would lean more towards the glyphic or iconic as pure comics, but this aint always the case. Sometimes its a series of--gulp--illustrations. So where does the illustration end and the art begin?
Check out someone like Dash Shaw. You'll find: investigations, examinations of content or formal qualities. The message may be much broader or deeper, though the intent is obscure.
As for art theory and meta-commentaries--this stuff is academic in the purest sense, and leaves a whole hell of a lot of good stuff in the "outsider" or "street level" category. Like traditional African art or any type of aboriginal art. What's usually called "fine-art" is not just academic and elitist, but it's deeply ethnocentric. And terms like "street-level" are just dismissive ways to say, not smart enough. And that's no way to be.
Now I don't "hate" fine-art, and am not engaging in art-hating. I have a traditional art education, and--surprise surprise--so does Coop. You talk to Coop, and you will discover he knows a lot about art. I lot more than you might give him credit for.
But thanks for clearing things up anyway.
Let me revise that: it's not "fine-art" that's elitist, but the people that established the convention of fine-art vs. other kinds of art.
Relax, Jed.
I'm not trashing anything or anyone here, just pointing at distinctions. You are a little quick to go after me as an elitist.
Street level is a term used by folks who make street level art. i didn't make it up or mean it in a pejorative sense. Read my other comments-I'm talking about the relationship between high and low art.If you want to claim that anything with an "aesthetic purpose" equals art, go for it. That would indeed mean street level art, mall advertisements, cartoons, directions for building a model car, and the Mona Lisa exist on the same level on the same playing field. That's very postmodern of you.
Whoops. I did get a little snarky on that last comment-sorry.
I was trying to clear up one problem, and I just moved it somewhere else like the pink ring in "The Cat in the Hat".
This is all up for dispute, obviously.
How about this:If something is meant to convey the meaning of a text, it's probably an illustration-it carries along an existing message. If it's decorative, it probably will be frowned on in a fine art venue as there isn't much context to hang on it (like making some stylistically rendered paintings of Santa Claus-the "message" is way up front and easy to "get" because it's so familiar). The use of various styles and techniques don't really alter the main, up front, big idea. That doesn't make it illustration, per se, either...But it tends to be more immediately "readable" than stuff you might find at the MCA (or not).
It's not whether or not the folks that make it call it "street level" but your making a value distinction between it and the serious stuff, or the stuff that in some way explores art theory and so forth. Or maybe I'm wrong. This comment sounds more like it:
"That would indeed mean street level art, mall advertisements, cartoons, directions for building a model car, and the Mona Lisa exist on the same level on the same playing field. That's very postmodern of you."
I don't find that remark snarky at all. In fact you pretty much summed up exactly how I feel, and I have no prejudice against the word "postmodern".
And I'm not going after you personally as an elitist, I don't know you that well, but I'm attempting to address the whole institution of "fine-art" and the geographically obtuse "art world" that has determined what's valid and what aint. That just so happens to be elitist.
"High" and "low" art are distinctions of academia and the marketplace, and a gallery is a commercial marketplace with it's own set of rules and distinctions that dictate how its products are to be sold. Qualitatively there's no line to draw that can be delineated by a simple label. It's all just a difference in venue. Even if it's the directions to building a model car.
And I'm not saying it's all homogenously of the same quality and value, but "high" and "low" is just too simple a dialectic to apply to everything under the sun. It's such a boring way to look at the real world of art.
Well, there's no disputing taste. Except there is.
You gotta make those distinctions! High, Low, Mediocre, Sub-mediocre.
You gotta make distinctions and assign values based on qualities in the thing you are looking at, right? That's using critical thinking skills, but people will call you an elitist if you pick the wrong set of qualities to champion. It's all good, though. We can agree to halfway agree. I'm used to this sort of discussion not having a clear cut ending.
It's not the "wrong" or "right" set of values, but academia does tend to make exclusive distinctions based on what academia considers educated vs. naive. Thus the whole outsider art phenomenon. Calling something "outsider art" isn't a qualitative evaluation of the art so much as it is a judgement of the value of the person who created the art's education and background. Insider seems to mean: someone with a BA or MFA or the equivalent background and knowledge, and outsider seems to mean: everybody else. It's not "wrong" or "right", it's just very very insular.
And I would argue that most non-objective modern art is also decorative since it is primarily concerned with color, composition, texture and pattern. As for Postmodern art: Takashi Murakami, Jeff Koons--pretty decorative stuff.
As for familiar motifs: Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol did their share, and they used different styles and techniques in a non-expressionistic way to explore the formal qualities of those motifs.
"How about this:If something is meant to convey the meaning of a text, it's probably an illustration-it carries along an existing message."
Very good. A text or narrative. It doesn't have to explicitly involve words. But what do you call the interaction between words and pictures employed in a comic book or illustrated book? Illustration or literature? Or both? Or neither?
And yes, critical distinctions are important to determine how you value a thing, but academia's criteria are pretty narrow. It would be a boring world if the only art we paid attention to was art deemed worthy enough to put in a museum or gallery. Even to say that the museum stuff is the important stuff and the other stuff is minor or low dismisses the enrichment you get from the art that surrounds you.
Fine art is insular and the criteria can be extremely difficult and narrow. Comix are insular. It's had to break into skate graphics, costume design, or tattooing. Each category has it's own set of criteria. Sometimes the categories cross-pollinate and take on each other's characteristics, but they don't become each other entirely. It's still okay to like as many forms of art as possible, but they don't always fit into each other's category. I'm not attacking all that is not fine art,far from it. I'm just unwilling to say it's all the same.
A Mondrian is not decoration. Wallpaper is decoration. Mondrian wallpaper comissioned by Target is decoration that is clever and/or tacky, but it is not fine art. Why? Why IS it art when an artist hangs a piece of Mondrian wallpaper in a gallery? Its still decorative, but it has stopped being a decoration because the artist has implied a context beyond it's surface qualities, or had better imply one. It has jumped from being about the elements and principles of design to something more.
There is a huge variety of visual information, but if it's empty save for it's own sake it doesn't go over in a gallery-it is only about itself. Gotta go eat!
Anthony:
A Mondrian is decoration if it's being used as decoration. If wallpaper is wallpaper in the store, but "fine art" if you hang a piece of it in a gallery, then the distinction is a matter of commerce, not any quality inherent in the artifact itself. The "context beyond the object's surface qualities" is brought to the interaction by the viewer -- again, it's not a quality inherent in the artifact.
Privileging the gallery version is about defining art as something so spiritual and magical that it has to be fenced off from everyday reality, thereby implicitly giving permission for everyday reality to be artless and butt-ugly.
In order for an object to be considered art, in the context of the gallery system, it must be singular, intentional, useless, of known provenance, and an article of commerce.
I like Coop's art just fine.
Teresa,
Sure, a Mondrian can be used as a decoration or a serving platter or whatever else, whether or not the server is aware of the artist's intent.
This discussion may not belong on this post, but it's like an itch I keep having to scratch. None of my comments have to do with Coop directly, they have just been responses to comments about art in general. You are incorrect about the criteria for art in the gallery system, though.
The art in question does not even have to fit the description of "object". Ideas and the theory behind them are what drives the art(world) market currently. I was referencing the institutional theory of art when I wrote about the wallpaper-it's a concept that has informed art since probably 1915, but for sure since Warhol. It has to do with intent over any inherent quality the art is supposed to possess (very modernist thinking-I don't go for that one either).
I don't think art should be fenced off from reality. I don't think fine art is crap because it's not easy. I don't think street level stuff is crap because it's too easy. The distinctions I bring up have little to do with commerce. They have to do with deep examination of the forms and concepts being manipulated from historical, cultural, or personal contexts. If you find such distinctions in this kind of work, great. I just think there's a difference, and I got hung up trying to clarify that difference.
Speaking of intent, it wasn't mine to pick a fight.
Maybe we should have had this conversation over on the "Erased DeKooning" post?
"Fine art is insular and the criteria can be extremely difficult and narrow. Comix are insular. It's had to break into skate graphics, costume design, or tattooing. Each category has it's own set of criteria. Sometimes the categories cross-pollinate and take on each other's characteristics, but they don't become each other entirely. It's still okay to like as many forms of art as possible, but they don't always fit into each other's category."
The big difference here, between academically endorsed fine-art and other "insular" art as you describe it is that fine-art academia feels the obligation to judge the worthiness of all other art. Tattoo artists don't tend to feel the same responsibility.
"they have to do with deep examination of the forms and concepts being manipulated from historical, cultural, or personal contexts."
Now that sounds pretty important, but I'm not sure it means a whole lot. It's pretty opaque language, and if you want it to mean something you're going to have to elaborate, otherwise that's just a whole lot of "deep" sounding gobledegook.
As for your clarification for Teresa about whether or not art has to be an "object"--I don't know that that's material to what she was trying to get across.
knw y spnt WHL LT n yr dctn nd y wnt t t mn smthng mprtnt, tht y hv lg p n ths thr flks wh ddn't tk s mny rt hstry crss. Fr yr sk, sr hp tht t ds.
Now you are picking a fight, but I'm not going for it.
Jed, smooth down your bristles. You were doing just fine until that last paragraph. I think it's possible that you and I and Anthony are all on the same side, and what we're trying to figure out is which argument (if any) we're having.
I do think you missed a major distinction between that stuff that's labeled "fine art" and stuff that isn't: the stuff that's sold as fine art has a much higher price tag. I've edited comics, and commissioned cover art for books. I have some notion of how much illustrators get paid. I've also been in more than a few Soho galleries, and read news reports of auction house prices for art. Something's badly out of whack there.
I'm not a Philistine. I've taken more than my share of art history classes, and there are plenty of modern artists whose work I like. But I don't think there's anything by DeKooning I wouldn't swap for N. C. Wyeth or Charles Vess (especially his charcoals) or Norman Rockwell; and if you're talking about living with a piece of art, day in and day out, I'd far rather have Richard Powers than Robert Motherwell.
I'm impressed that Warhol got away with tying art to manipulations pf context and intent. It's rare for anyone to come up with a genuinely new con game. If the value and meaning of fine art inheres not in any quality of the work itself, but in the judo moves it pulls on meaning, then the work itself need not even be recognizable as art in any traditional sense. Of course, Warhol's work is recognizably intended to be art; but I don't see any structural difference between it and work by Coop or Art Spiegelman. The only real difference I see is the system under which it's evaluated and marketed.
Teresa, there's some good thinking about art. It gets tough to distinguish where the lines are drawn. I, too gag on Sotheby's auction results from time to time.
Let's not forget that good art should include a measure of rigor. I think it was Matisse who answered a critic who watched him make a drawing in 15 seconds by saying "No, it took me my entire life up to this point".
The notion that venue is the only thing that separates these very different but similar regions of art is something that I might agree with on Tuesdays, but not on Thursdays.
I think cultural, critical, philosophical thought brought to bear on those things that somehow speak for our times is what sheds light on "fine art" (or that which is considered such) more than price tag. But maybe they go hand in hand.
I teach visual art, and trust me when I say I give equal billing to all forms included in the culture (as much as possible).
And yeah, bring on the Spiegelman, the Chris Ware, the Gary Panter. There's room!
i have a uv smoking imp on my arm the imp wasnt orignal aprte from the cue and the 8 ball and the spliff i put in his mouth
does that mean i can do what this coop guy is doing