Frank Frazetta vs Norman Rockwell

[luka]

• Carson of Venus – 1963
• Tales from the Crypt – 1964[57]
• Lost City – 1964
• Land of Terror – 1964
• Reassembled Man – 1964
• Wolfman – 1965
• Conan the Barbarian – 1966
• Conan the Adventurer – 1966
• King Kong – 1966
• Sea Monster – 1966
• Spider Man – 1966
• The Sorcerer – 1966
• Swords of Mars – 1966
• Winged Terror – 1966
• The Brain – 1967
• Bran Mak Morn – 1967
• Cat Girl – 1967
• Conan the Conqueror – 1967
• Conan the Usurper – 1967
• Night Winds – 1967
• Sea Witch – 1967
• Snow Giants – 1967
• Conan the Avenger – 1968
• Rogue Roman – 1968
• Swamp Ogre – 1968
• Egyptian Queen – 1969
• Mongol Tyrant – 1969
• Primitive Beauty / La of Opar – 1969
• Savage World / Young World – 1969
• Vampirella – 1969
• A Princess of Mars – 1970
• Downward to the Earth – 1970
• Eternal Champion – 1970
• The Godmakers – 1970
• Nightstalker – 1970
• Pony Tail – 1970
• The Return of Jongor – 1970
• Sun Goddess – 1970
• Tyrannosaurus Rex – 1970
• Woman with a Scythe – 1970
• Desperation – 1971
• John Carter and the Savage Apes of Mars – 1971
• At the Earth's Core – 1972
• Birdman – 1972
• Creatures of the Night – 1972
• The Silver Warrior – 1972
• Thuvia, Maid of Mars – 1972
• A Fighting Man of Mars – 1973
• Atlantis – 1973
• Black Emperor – 1973
• Black Panther – 1973
• Black Star – 1973
• Conan of Aquilonia – 1973
• The Death Dealer I – 1973
• Flash for Freedom – 1973
• Flying Reptiles – 1973
• Ghoul Queen – 1973
• Gollum – 1973
• The Mammoth – 1973
• Monster Out of Time – 1973
• The Moon Maid – 1973
• Serpent – 1973
• Tanar of Pellucidar – 1973
• Tarzan and the Ant Men – 1973
• Tree of Death – 1973
• Barbarian – 1974
• Flashman on the Charge – 1974
• Invaders – 1974
• Madame Derringer – 1974
• The Mucker – 1974
• Paradox – 1975
• Dark Kingdom – 1976
• Bloodstone – 1975
• Darkness at Times Edge – 1976
• The Eighth Wonder / King Kong and Snake – 1976
• Fire Demon – 1976
• Queen Kong – 1976
• Golden Girl – 1977
• Castle of Sin / Arthur Rex – 1978
• The Cave Demon – 1978
• Kane on the Golden Sea – 1978
• Sound – 1979
• Witherwing – 1979
• The Sacrifice – 1980
• Las Vegas – 1980
• Seven Romans – 1980
• Fire and Ice – 1982
• Geisha – 1983
• The Disagreement – 1986
• Victorious – 1986
• Predators – 1987
• The Death Dealer II – 1987
• The Death Dealer III – 1987
• The Death Dealer IV – 1987
• The Death Dealer V – 1989
• Cat Girl II – 1990
• The Countess and the Greenman – 1991
• Dawn Attack – 1991
• The Moons Rapture / Catwalk – 1994
• Beauty and the Beast – 1995
• Shi – 1995
• The Sorceress – 1995
• The Death Dealer VI – 1996
• From Dusk till Dawn – 1996

​

 

[WashYourHands]

View attachment 18022

23!

View attachment 18028
These are interesting departures for him

Gus reading as the tramadol kicks in

portraits of a dorky white America essentially, tons of charm but you can feel a bubbling earnestness too and the cynic in me wants to push beyond surface

all that’s missing in the more cartoon realism formats is a bulbous WC Fields nose and a Henry Wallace for prez (see also Obama’s hope) pamphlet

incredible illustrations, seriously, as in defies credulity but the themes? no sense of WWI veteran blues or any societal register of defeat at points more indicative of those realities

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is a good one.

Life goals.

 

[luka]

pedo norm

 

[Corpsey]

I've been trying to figure out what it is that I don't like about Rockwell. (Is it just that I feel I'm supposed not to like him? I looked him up and apparently the consensus has changed on him now and he's as likely to be bigged up by art critics as slagged off.)

I think there's something I don't like about the level of finish on Rockwell's paintings, a sort of photographic, almost hyperreal lucidity that (additionally) chimes weirdly, or horribly, with the cartoony expressions and the jokey situations. (And reminds me of many vintage book/movie covers and posters, I wonder if it's the material they used to produce work so fast?)

He falls between two stools — Daumier depicts cartoon people in 'telling' situations for satiric purposes, but his figures are properly cartoony, so it feels all of a piece

somebody like Velasquez (who i think of cos Rockwell is similarly good at capturing skin, fabric, facial expressions etc.) doesn't have his very realistic looking figures gurning and tottering around... But of course he wasn't a comic artist.

It's an uncanny valley. Not subtle enough and not cartoonish enough.

But again, that might be a way around working out why i don't like the hyper-detailed look of the Rockwells.

He's obviously incredibly talented, as is the other guy who draws nude women fighting snakes etc. And that brings up all sorts of interesting questions in my mind about why being incredibly talented isn't enough to be a high artist. Is being a high artist about something formal/material, or is it simply about sticking to the subject matter that's traditionally deemed 'high'?

 

[Corpsey]

I watched a short video about how he worked and it looks like he painted from photographs, which perhaps accounts for the level of detail and the quality of light.

 

[Mr. Tea]

pedo norm
View attachment 18029

You've got something wrong with you if you think there's anything 'pedo' about that.

 

[linebaugh]

I've been trying to figure out what it is that I don't like about Rockwell. (Is it just that I feel I'm supposed not to like him? I looked him up and apparently the consensus has changed on him now and he's as likely to be bigged up by art critics as slagged off.)

I think there's something I don't like about the level of finish on Rockwell's paintings, a sort of photographic, almost hyperreal lucidity that (additionally) chimes weirdly, or horribly, with the cartoony expressions and the jokey situations. (And reminds me of many vintage book/movie covers and posters, I wonder if it's the material they used to produce work so fast?)

He falls between two stools — Daumier depicts cartoon people in 'telling' situations for satiric purposes, but his figures are properly cartoony, so it feels all of a piece

somebody like Velasquez (who i think of cos Rockwell is similarly good at capturing skin, fabric, facial expressions etc.) doesn't have his very realistic looking figures gurning and tottering around... But of course he wasn't a comic artist.

It's an uncanny valley. Not subtle enough and not cartoonish enough.

But again, that might be a way around working out why i don't like the hyper-detailed look of the Rockwells.

He's obviously incredibly talented, as is the other guy who draws nude women fighting snakes etc. And that brings up all sorts of interesting questions in my mind about why being incredibly talented isn't enough to be a high artist. Is being a high artist about something formal/material, or is it simply about sticking to the subject matter that's traditionally deemed 'high'?

Ivan albright

And John Currin

Both do a similar thing to rockwell but lean into the discomfort and are 'high art'

 

[Mr. Tea]

I mean, that doctor is totally ignoring that boy's bare bottom, so he's a pretty rubbish paedophile if you ask me.

 

[linebaugh]

I've been trying to figure out what it is that I don't like about Rockwell. (Is it just that I feel I'm supposed not to like him? I looked him up and apparently the consensus has changed on him now and he's as likely to be bigged up by art critics as slagged off.)

I think there's something I don't like about the level of finish on Rockwell's paintings, a sort of photographic, almost hyperreal lucidity that (additionally) chimes weirdly, or horribly, with the cartoony expressions and the jokey situations. (And reminds me of many vintage book/movie covers and posters, I wonder if it's the material they used to produce work so fast?)

He falls between two stools — Daumier depicts cartoon people in 'telling' situations for satiric purposes, but his figures are properly cartoony, so it feels all of a piece

somebody like Velasquez (who i think of cos Rockwell is similarly good at capturing skin, fabric, facial expressions etc.) doesn't have his very realistic looking figures gurning and tottering around... But of course he wasn't a comic artist.

It's an uncanny valley. Not subtle enough and not cartoonish enough.

But again, that might be a way around working out why i don't like the hyper-detailed look of the Rockwells.

He's obviously incredibly talented, as is the other guy who draws nude women fighting snakes etc. And that brings up all sorts of interesting questions in my mind about why being incredibly talented isn't enough to be a high artist. Is being a high artist about something formal/material, or is it simply about sticking to the subject matter that's traditionally deemed 'high'?

Theres no mystery with frazetta or rockwell is there? Nothing to make you think theres something going on beyond exactly what your seeing. None of that mercurial Thing that 'high art' has.

 

[linebaugh]

It makes sense as both are often making work as adjunct additions for products of mass consumption- book covers, magazines, album art advertisements and etc.- but frazetta and rockwell completely hold the hand of the veiwer. Theres nothing about them that isnt user oriented and I think that makes the idea of them as high art uncomftorable.

 

[linebaugh]

No need to put them in a musuem as theres no special condition neccesary to accomadate the veiwer towards the art, the work itself does that.

 

[Corpsey]

It reminds me of the importance of subject matter in painting, which I tend to think plays a very distant second fiddle to technique in art. (Obviously I'm thinking about figurative art here.)

But it's also the technique. A lack of subtlety.

Anyhoo, I'm sure they wouldn't care to be compared to the "old masters" but it's an interesting comparison from my point of view.

Perhaps it's all bollocks that I've got into my head via book learning.

 

[craner]

I've been trying to figure out what it is that I don't like about Rockwell. (Is it just that I feel I'm supposed not to like him? I looked him up and apparently the consensus has changed on him now and he's as likely to be bigged up by art critics as slagged off.)

I think there's something I don't like about the level of finish on Rockwell's paintings, a sort of photographic, almost hyperreal lucidity that (additionally) chimes weirdly, or horribly, with the cartoony expressions and the jokey situations. (And reminds me of many vintage book/movie covers and posters, I wonder if it's the material they used to produce work so fast?)

He falls between two stools — Daumier depicts cartoon people in 'telling' situations for satiric purposes, but his figures are properly cartoony, so it feels all of a piece

somebody like Velasquez (who i think of cos Rockwell is similarly good at capturing skin, fabric, facial expressions etc.) doesn't have his very realistic looking figures gurning and tottering around... But of course he wasn't a comic artist.

It's an uncanny valley. Not subtle enough and not cartoonish enough.

But again, that might be a way around working out why i don't like the hyper-detailed look of the Rockwells.

He's obviously incredibly talented, as is the other guy who draws nude women fighting snakes etc. And that brings up all sorts of interesting questions in my mind about why being incredibly talented isn't enough to be a high artist. Is being a high artist about something formal/material, or is it simply about sticking to the subject matter that's traditionally deemed 'high'?

Do you like Photorealists like Chuck Close and Ralph Goings?

 

[luka]

pedo-ism

I mean, that doctor is totally ignoring that boy's bare bottom, so he's a pretty rubbish paedophile if you ask me.

that means youre a pedo

 

[Mr. Tea]

pedo-ism

that means youre a pedo

You do a very good impression of someone who reads The Sun.

 

[luka]

can't belive Mr Tea has just publicly confessed to being a pedo!

 

[version]

And that brings up all sorts of interesting questions in my mind about why being incredibly talented isn't enough to be a high artist.

You see this with the kind of art that goes viral these days. It obviously takes skill, but it's often stuff like timelapse footage of someone doing a photorealistic portrait of Chadwick Boseman.

 

[linebaugh]

You do a very good impression of someone who reads The Sun.

Hes definitely a tad noncey tea I think you can admit that

 

[luka]

mr tea is a bald literalist he dont understand subtext and that sort of thing.