[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


---"D.I.G." <dinosaur@dinosaur.org> wrote:
> My intention was to put the focus on the ARTWORK ITSELF, rather than
> what term you apply to the artist.

That's the "paleoart" thread.  This is the "paleoartist" thread.  And,
if I recall correctly, someone else started the thread, not you.

> So, now, having said this, let me see if I understand this:
> Norman Rockwell worked from photographs, so he was a hack.

(snip of other offered examples)

I'm not sure that you do understand.  Though I'm not a huge fan of
Norman Rockwell's, let me say that I recognize that his pop art is
just that -- art.  He interpreted the human form and expression in a
totally unique manner completely identifiable as his.  Same goes for
that Da vinci fella.

On the other hand, James Gurney is a hack.  He looks at a Kaiyodo
ankylosaur and, viola, there's the same Kaiyodo ankylosaur on canvas. 
Nothing wrong with that, but the work we're discussing here, the
restoration of the animal from its fossil remains, was done by the
Japanese sculptor of the Kaiyodo ankylosaur, not Gurney.

> "Hack," as I understand it as a "term of art," is a pejorative and
> emotional term reserved for creatures that are beneath contempt by
> in the "know." Ad hominum. Onc could, after all, call them "commercial
> artists." 

In publishing (a field often employing the term), a hack is someone
who writes for money rather than because they have something to say. 
Extend it generically to mean someone involved in an artistic endeavor
for purely commercial purposes if you'd like.  So there's no need to
get all excited here; there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a
hack.  I know writers who happily call themselves hacks.
> If we are to appreciate the genuine skills of folks like Mr.
Franczyk or
> Doug Henderson, it would seem to be useful to understand what,
> it is that they do that differentiates them from artists who don't do
> what they do.  Finding a consensual label, may or may not help to do
> that.

An informative label may help intelligent but uninformed people
understand the work the artist does. If this is so, why not find a
clear label?  I personally think "paleolife artist," which suggests an
artist portraying very old life, is clearer that "paleoartist," which
suggests a very old artist, or an artist portraying very old things.  

Hmm, this is beginning to sound a lot like another 
thread . . .


Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com