RoR: Forum

Hi Bob,

I see you’re on a campaign to raise cartoon illustration to a fine art form.

If I were to look at this piece as fine art, one of many, many questions would come up: where is the source of light illuminating the man and the planet?

Don’t get me wrong man. It’s great for everyone to love art, pop or otherwise…but to insist that it is “magnificent” requires some explanation.

Michael

Post 1

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:02am

Valejo was not a cartoon artist. He was one of the most successful and celebrated illustrators of his time. His work appeared on the covers of the best books in the paperback industry Although he was largely 'type-cast' by art directors as a science fiction illustrator, he also did a great many 'romance' covers not for cheap outfits like Harliquin, but for the major houses, Simon and Schuster, Avon, etc.

Post 2

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:51am

Robert,

you are right about Boris being primarily an artist for novel covers (primarily science fiction and fantasy) but I think Mr. Newberry was refering to the large amount of commissioned work Boris did for the major comic publishing outfits, he did numerous paintings of super-heroes so I can see the comparison.

As far as the light source I believe it's metaphorical for the radience of the life of the earth he is holding shining down upon him.

But when I hear the debate about comics as fine art vs. pop art I get reminded that comics by themselves are not art qua art or writing qua writing they are their own artform and to a large degree by taking the narration away from the artwork does a disservice to the ultimate product. It kind of reminds me of the comic artist Daniel Clowes, one time when he had a gallery showing of one of his graphic novels he felt silly, he didn't intend for it to be posted on a wall somewhere for people to peruse he intended it to be READ.

---Landon

Post 3

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:55am

Bob, thank you for posting this. While I don't like it as the cover for the novel (the train emerging out of the tunnel is my favorite Atlas Shrugged cover and symbolizes the productive and active power of the mighty engine that is man's mind, which is why I prefer it), this is a very impressive portrayal of the Greek god who holds the world. Compared to the Nick Gaetano Atlas, the muscles are well-defined, the face is recognizable as is the massive effort in holding the world. The light on his body shimmers. Gaetano's Atlas looks like third grade material compared to this powerful rendition.

The face is that of a real individual, not an abstraction. And it has strength and a certain massive dignity adn resoluteness as befits someone who has to hold that colossal weight for millenia. The dragon lurking in the darkness is a nice touch as well.

The more I talk about it, the more I could almost see it as the Atlas cover. But that is just because the Gaetano is so atrocious and 'brutalistic' with no clear human emotion or purpose in the style of the crouching, huddled figure...sort of a poor man's Rodin.

Gaetano's best Rand-related work was the Ayn Rand stamp. His novel covers are embarrassing.

There was, however, one Atlas-themed cover that was emotional and did work well, an early paperback one, a painting inset into the cover: A thin, angular figure who had thrown off the burden and was uplifted with the fires all around him. It had the sense of exultant release of the Concerto of Deliverance and of the novel itself.

Phil

Post 4

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 7:53pm

Somehow the figure in this picture dose not evoke, to me, the image of a Greek god like those depicted in the ancient Greek sculptures. This is too much like a modern day sterol pumped, grossly over muscled body builder, a Fabio.

Post 5

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 8:36pm

You figuring someone leaner could hold up the world?

Post 6

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:45pm

Yeah - I agree with Hong. This guy doesn't look like a God, he looks more like an abomination. But maybe I just say that because I'm jealous.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 1:18am

something of Herman Munster in one of Andy Warhols' spare wigs...?
These sort of illustrations remind me of the covers of the bad sci-fi and fantasy books I read as an adolescent.
Now, having said that the artist is a master in his field.

Post 8

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:11am

Body builders sometimes get weird proportions because the exercises they choose to do are out of balance. This guy looks like a body builder. Pectorals are too big, his waist is too small. A better model would be one of the contestants from the world's strongest man competition.

Post 9

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:16am

Robert,

You figuring someone leaner could hold up the world?

But these are gods who are supposed to be divine and beyond our earthly limitations!

By the way, I've always loved the Greek gods. They are so...human...and beautiful.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:24am

It would be nice to see an Atlas looking up affectionately at the world he carries and not struggling under its weight, an Atlas capable of carrying the world easily and without effort. These beleaguered Atlas' could only lighten their burden by collapsing. They are incapable of a shrug.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 10:06am

But that would not be the Atlas of mythology. Bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders is the punishment Zeus dealt him for leading the Titans to war against the Olympians. The other Titans were consigned to Tartarus.

Post 12

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 11:38am

I suppose, although rather prosaic.

Post 13

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 2:27pm

Bob, this piece requires no explanation of its magnificence. One either sees it or they don't. I do.

Post 14

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 3:04pm

Joe,

You appear to be of the "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" school.

Post 15

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:44pm

Joe:

"Bob, this piece requires no explanation of its magnificence. One either sees it or they don't. I do."

I have to assume you are serious with the above statement. Sometimes I don’t always get humor if you meant the opposite…but I do think you meant what you said.

It may be wrong of me but I have also assumed that ARI, TOC, and Solo have a common denominator with the appreciation of Rand. And one of the most important premises in Objectivism is to give evidence for your estimations, art included. Personal taste in art is everyone’s prerogative: go for what you like and love! But as soon as you evaluate art and call it great, magnificent, shitty, etc. you better damn well have reasons for opinion. That is unless you enjoy being an ignoramus—on the other hand, people who are often stupid—aren’t aware of it.

Am I in the right place? Isn’t being objective observing phenomenon , naming it, and using facts to support ones stance? Or do you think that art doesn’t need to be weighed by such things as reason?

Michael

Post 16

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 12:14pm

Listen, Bob posted some art that he likes and wanted to share it with others who might also like it. I like it. Do we really need to convince those who don't? Because Franzetta and Ditko don't have the "integrity" of a Duchamp or Cage?No matter how much explanation is given, in the end, if someone can't or won't appreciate it, what's the point? Life's too short.

"But don't you want to convince me?"
"My dear, why should that be my concern?"

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 6/08, 12:20pm)

Post 17

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 10:05am

You know, Joe...sometimes I feel that the world is a "no man's land" for me. I have never fit in with the contemporary art world, the classical realist world, objectivism, the commercial world, or American culture…nor do I fit in with Solo.

The very odd thing is that I am profoundly sincere and when you combine that with a passionate love of art and a quest for truth in art you would think I should find a happy home somewhere.

I have now been exploring art for 37 years, since I was 11…I know Rembrandt, Picasso, and Kant and Rand’s aesthetics like the back of my hand…

I do have something that seems to throw off people including many soloists…I go for the purist and greatest people and art that I can find. That is an extremely high and very demanding standard and one I enjoy with simple sensual delight.

The vast majority of people never achieve, for whatever reasons, the greatest that they can be…and I am always amazed when some of them act as if that is more demanding, more heroic, more worthy of recognition than the people who do find the way.

Of course, I could ignore kitsch themes, no themes, contradictory light sources, the significance of the totality of entire operas, the difference between “like” and “evaluation”, history of art, original and independent thinking, passion, integration…and not offer anything but superficially kind support for people who insist on opinions with scant evidence and little supportive knowledge. What would be the point?

Though I am not laughing now, I have always enjoyed Francisco’s laughing with humor at frustrated people because he knew something much greater existed. The kind of world I live in, my authentic daily existence is filled with passion, dedication, waves of light vibrations, and thought, is such a place.

I don’t know how to say this, and maybe I shouldn’t, but you see I know I have a tremendous amount of beneficial knowledge of art…what is the point of sharing it here it if it is not matched in kind? On the other hand, that maybe the curse of original and independent thought.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 6/09, 10:08am)

Post 18

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 2:54pm

Michael,

You raised a valid point:

to insist that it is “magnificent” requires some explanation.

When I first came across Vallejo's Atlas, I had an immediate emotional reaction of awe, in other words, wonder and admiration. What I saw was a godly figure of a man holding the Earth above him and out of reach of the evil, as represented by the dragons, lurking below.

This is the concept I believe Rand had in mind in naming her novel, at Frank O'Connor's suggestion, Atlas Shrugged. From an Objectivist viewpoint, I see in this picture Atlas representing John Galt and the men of the mind, the producers supporting the world through their efforts and the dragons representing James Taggart and the destroyers.

I ask you, how could I describe Atlas as anything but magnificent considering my emotional reaction and assessment of this work? When I posted it, I believed everyone here would share my reaction and admiration. How naive I can be sometimes.

To those who share my admiration for this work, you are astute and very wise individuals. For those of you who don't, well, your tastes are different than mine (There are some posters here who enjoy listening to Mario Lanza and even, gasp, country music. I prefer the Pretenders and Emerson, Lake and Palmer, thank you.)

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying something like, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I could more elaborately say, "I haven't formally studied art but I know the emotional reaction I am having to it."

Joe very accurately described my reasons for posting Atlas and is also correct that I have no obligation to explain myself. This isn't a doctoral dissertation that I've presented and for which I have to defend my position, but I also know that I am dealing here with rational individuals and so have chosen to.

I'll leave the questions of lighting and proper anatomy to you and others, Michael. By the way, you never really said whether you like this work or not.

Post 19

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 3:31pm