The source material for his first
pop painting was a bubble gum wrapper. He was inspired by the cartoons on the
wrapper and it started as just an idea, nothing for him to continue. Roy used a
projector to sketch his paintings onto canvas, similar to Warhol. However, they
differ in that Warhol used a silkscreen rather than sketching like Roy did. I
prefer Warhol’s method because I feel like he got a more realistic image than
Lichtenstein. Warhol’s paintings kept me interested, where Lichtenstein’s did
not.
He projects the image up against a
wall to see how big the painting would be. He enlarges the exact same image
onto the canvas. When he reuses the comic books, he changes the colors and
lines to make it its own. He changes the image to fit what he thinks he should
look like and what will satisfy him. With the famous paintings, he wanted to
see how they looked in different contexts. You can tell the differences between
reusing the two because the comic book paintings look a lot like the actual
comic books. Where with the famous paintings, it is harder to tell that he used
the original image. I prefer Lichtenstein’s comic book use because I think they’re
entertaining and fun. I like the comic book aspect because it has a carefree
feel to it. Painting always seems so serious and this makes me feel like it’s
not. I think it is acceptable to “copy” other artists because I don’t see it as
copying. He doesn’t do them exactly the same, he simply makes them his own. He
makes the image larger, adds color and lines, and makes them mean something
completely different. This is not copying at all and I think it’s an ingenious
way of painting.
Fine artists make art in order to develop a concept
or establish a meaning behind it. It is so that they can relay an idea onto its
viewer. Commercial artists are different in that they make art for distribution
or advertisements. They are the same in that money is a motivation. Every
artist wants their art to be bought or liked by its audience. They make it for
a reason other than their own enjoyment. Fine artists do not have many rules to
follow. They paint pretty much what they want and how they want it. Commercial
artists have to follow what is going on in the media, business world, etc. They
have to adapt to what the person buying their art wants. The client controls
what and how an image is painted or made. The curator can also influence the
artist by telling them what would fit in their museum as well.
Which type of artist do you think has more success? Commercial or fine?
Amanda, this is a ver thorough post and repsonse to these questions. I believe that you really take your time when answering these questions. I would have prefered more pictures though.
ReplyDeleteThis a tough question, because I know many commercial artists have tons of sucess. I also know many fine artists have tons of sucess in the right environment. If I had to choose, I would say fine artists because they're art often finds itself in museums and it is widely seen by a lot of viewers. They also can make a lot of money off of their paintings. Many of them rarely made lot of money, but they are successful in the way that many of us know, understand and apprecaite their art til this day.
I agree and disagree with you here. I agree that fine artists make a lot of money and have success in the right environment. However, I think that fine artists get a lot less viewers than commercial simply because commercial artists' work is being put in the media or the business world. On a large scale, only a small percentage of people are visiting art museums or places where fine artists paintings are displayed. With commercial work, people are exposed to this art whether they realize it or not. Commercial artists are often used for advertisements. These ads can be seen by large populations every single day. Compare that to where a fine artists' work is being displayed, the viewing is significantly less.
ReplyDeleteI think that your question is somewhat loaded. I only say that because it truly depends on what you define success as.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, commercial artists have their work seen my perhaps millions of people because they create art for a purpose and a customer. This is definitely something that could define success; money and ubiquity. HOWEVER...
If you define success as a type of self-fulfillment rather than being known and having money, then I believe that fine artists have a great deal more success because they are creating art for themselves, not for a customer that brings with him: guidelines and rules. It really all depends on your personal definition of success.
It depends on what you consider success. In today's society, most people measure success in a dollar value. This this case, I would have to say a commercial artist more successful. However, if you meausure in happiness, I'm not sure if they be as "successful" as a fine artist.
ReplyDeleteBecause commercial artists don't have complete artistic freedom with their work, they may not be completely happy with the outcome of their work. Whereas fine artists are complete artistic freedom to create things that they truly love and set out to create.
I feel that the answer to your question really depends on the individual artists because everyone has different views on success.
I would think commericial especially when it comes to money. There are billboards all over the city with advertisments on them. So someone has to be making money when it comes to that. As in success fine art would work better there because of all the paintings in the art galleries that hung up.
ReplyDelete