Thread #7886649
File: n057073d-964x971.jpg (108.3 KB)
108.3 KB JPG
Why didn't anyone achieve a similar level of fame post Francis bacon?
Is the art world now even less relevant than in the 60s and 70s?
Plus Francis's work isn't even that technically impressive. Neither is his subject matter, he was literally a masochist gay midget who enjoyed being beaten up by his boyfriend
35 RepliesView Thread
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>7886649
I'd say Damian Hurst and Koon's are famous as well - though both are absolute hacks whose best work was made by others' expertise, rather than themselves.
>Oh, but they oversaw the making of the -
Then I should be called the artist, because I judge the final product, though I'd never put it in a gallery because none of it was all that impressive anyway.
Also, a lot of Koon's work comes across as bullshit AI users would think is art; "What if micky mouse, but bad"? Yeah, real inspired shit there, Mr.Koon... what were we talking about again?
Ah right, Bacon! Anyway, compared to those hacks, Bacon's work at least showed some effort and ability, and I admit his stuff is more provocative than Koon's 'big balloon animal', or Hurst's piece that belong in a sea life exhibit, rather than a art exhibition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>7887180
Nah, I'd say there are two very different causes for two similar situations.
Artists are losing their fame and prestige because the arts have sort of lost their place in society, with most people probably not even visiting an art gallery or art show even yearly. I doubt the average person can even think of a living artist they like, much less favor to the point of following their career. They likely only really know of older art moreso because of school teaching it, rather than any particular amount of appreciation.
For movie stars, that's entirely the film studios fault, and I think to their detriment.
So film stars gained their fame not just because of their films, but because studios would purposely try to prop up the actors so that they may be used for advertising and bring in certain guaranteed audiences.
However with the super hero film boom, the studios wanted to have the character themselves become the star, rather than the actor playing them, likely so the character could be continuously used regardless of the actor... this would be a smart move if marvel then didn't proceed to kill all their most popular characters for some baffling reason, and then bring back RDJ? So what was the fucking point then?
I suspect it was also a money thing, as an actor becomes bigger, they demand far more money.
It seems to have been a terrible idea in the end, as I suspect characters just don't get the diehard fans that actors do, and obviously a character can't bring audiences from other franchises like an actor can. I can't even name actors in most movies like I used to be able to at one point - the only recently famous actor I know of is pascal, and that's only because people complained about how he was in everything.
You'd think that streaming would be good for actors careers, but evidently they're not really publicising the actors there, either.
>>
>>
>>7886649
youre overestimating his fame, bacon wasnt even the most famous artist of his generation
>Is the art world now even less relevant than in the 60s and 70s?
yes, but its also easy to imagine the artworld of the past being bigger than it actually was. normies have been disinterested in modern art since its inception 100 years ago.
>>7887747
sure, and more people know walt disneys drawings than michaelangelo's. its kind of beside the point.
>>
>>7887787
True, but art has always been elitist. I'm sure very few normies knew of bacon back then, but every one in the art circle heard his name. Today even in these fart sniffing art scenes there's not a single one that can be considered a household name
>>
>>
>>7887324
>arts have sort of lost their place in society, with most people probably not even visiting an art gallery or art show even yearly
that was never the norm at any point in history
the actual reason is that plebs control the economy now
>>
>>7888004
>not a single one that can be considered a household name
depends what you count as a household name. if youre talking about households of people who arent actively interested in contemporary art to begin with, then as always, theres hardly any. most artists whove achieved household name status like that havent done so during their lifetime. its not until they make the history books that normies learn about them. by that point their less contemporary examples.
but if youre talking about households of people who engage in the scene then theres a fair few names that are common knowledge internationally. someone like basquiat is a household name now, during his lifetime he would have been a household name within the artscene but not beyond it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: Tanner-Banjo-Lesson-1893-thumb.jpg (694.7 KB)
694.7 KB JPG
>>7888115
Henry Ossawa Tanner
>>
>>
File: download.jpg (120.5 KB)
120.5 KB JPG
>>7888409
Camille Billups
>>
File: image_processing20211120-4-1wym7yg.jpg (206.2 KB)
206.2 KB JPG
>>7888413
This one just made me laugh because it looks like that Squidward self-portrait
>>
>>
>>
>>7889087
no, I mean the poorfags without a shred of taste
you'll note art moved from commissions by individuals to the commercial market
virtually all art produced today must have broad appeal to the masses to generate money
IDK what fantasy land you live that makes you believe le rich nepobabies decide what styles are popular
>>
File: Abstract Art.jpg (255.4 KB)
255.4 KB JPG
>>7889272
>virtually all art produced today must have broad appeal to the masses to generate money
NTA, but do you mean art like the banana the wall? The Dirty Bed? A can of Artist's shit? A lot of the modern art movements have been unappealing to the so called tasteless plebs, and have been more geared towards an in-crowd of art appreciators, who are more often wealthy than not. So I'll totally disagree with you here.
>>
>>7889332
nobody gives a shit about art trade, you dumb cuck, it's literally just IOUs with tax breaks, are you fucking retarded?
I literally said art has moved away from that into commercial art
99% of artists are commercial artists
99.9% of money is in commercial art
fine artists all have to grift /beg/s to make a buck because nobody fucking buys paintings except idle boomers, and then they do everything they can do gyp you
artists don't get famous with fine art because anyone with skill can make more money doing commercial art because again, nobody gives a shit about paintings
>le artist's shit
literal nft tier meme, he sold a couple to retards who thought they'd appreciate in value and like 80 just stayed in some basement until they exploded from pressure
even I never heard of the bed, and we both know literally nobody on the planet not in art trade knows the name of a single "artist" that made any of them, so not sure why you're even bringing them up in the context of famous artists
hell, I doubt you actually know their names
>>