Frank Frazetta vs Norman Rockwell

Frank vs. Norm


  • Total voters
    7

sus

Moderator
I think you've got to capture your own world, I think good ethnographic kitsch is superior to romantic idealized images of the past kitsch. I vote Rockwell
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Thats great. Suggestive but not expository insight. Can be taken many different directions. Thats whats the thread needed
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
i was wondering if these paintings would be more impressive in the flesh and it would appear so

you really can't judge any painting off a computer screen

perhaps the photorealistic drawings of chadwick boseman would bring me to my knees if i saw them in front of me
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Ive seen some photrealism in person amd it stikes me the exact same way. You give it a contended nod and go on your way. Though I havent seen any as good as the guy version and luka are talking about
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
486290@2x.webp
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Modernist writer Hermann Broch argues that the essence of kitsch is imitation: kitsch mimics its immediate predecessor with no regard to ethics—it aims to copy the beautiful, not the good.[7] According to Walter Benjamin, kitsch, unlike art, is a utilitarian object lacking all critical distance between object and observer. According to critic Winfried Menninghaus, Benjamin's stance was that kitsch "offers instantaneous emotional gratification without intellectual effort, without the requirement of distance, without sublimation".[6] In a short essay from 1927, Benjamin observed that an artist who engages in kitschy reproductions of things and ideas from a bygone age deserved to be called a "furnished man"[8] (in the way that someone rents a "furnished apartment" where everything is already supplied).

Kitsch is less about the thing observed than about the observer.[9] According to Roger Scruton, "Kitsch is fake art, expressing fake emotions, whose purpose is to deceive the consumer into thinking he feels something deep and serious."[10]

Tomáš Kulka, in Kitsch and Art, starts from two basic facts that kitsch "has an undeniable mass-appeal" and "considered (by the art-educated elite) bad", and then proposes three essential conditions:

  1. Kitsch depicts a beautiful or highly emotionally charged subject;
  2. The depicted subject is instantly and effortlessly identifiable;
  3. Kitsch does not substantially enrich our associations related to the depicted subject.[11][12]

 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy

For some reason I was thinking about this particular image last night (which in certain ways resembles franzetta's muscular axe men) and wondering why it isn't deemed kitsch-y, and I suppose it's because it has a serious moral/spiritual message underlying it, the despair of the damned soul being dragged down to hell—and the soul isn't even looking at the demons dragging it, it's staring into space or into the eyes of the observer, its an internal torment that's really torturing it.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Theres also stylistic choices made in the goofy way the faces are rendered and the proportions of the bodies that hint at something more going on than just the objects in the scene. That creates a 'distance between object and observer'
 
Top