I think Warhol was the last Living Legend Art has had...
have you heard of
Candido Portinari, Howard Hodgkin, Francis Bacon, Michael Hussar, Michael Hutter, Fernando Botero... and many others?
I think some of them are greater than Warhol and they are living ,or had lived the glory they deserved.
Looks as you don't know much about art !
I admire anyone who can appreciate abstact are, but I can't get into Hodgkin, and don't like Botero, would never hang one in my house.
Thomas Kinkade is alive and is living proof that he is basking in his Glory. His art is absolutely stunning and beautiful.
Who knows? Probably not....depends on what you mean by art. Jack Kirby and Gene Colan were always able to make a nice living as artists. I believe Gene Colan is still around so he can be our living legend. Some people see Frank miller as a living legend.
Andy is an iconiclast. and for that he will be a legend.
but to say he was the "L" word, i think is a far cry from true.
Art is an evolution & a revolution.
The beauty of it is that no one person can say this is their legacy, their art because in truth, it is everyones.
The inspiration behind any artist is the vision of the people and the expression of that idealism in the particular style or genre of the art form.
If he were the last, then art is dead.
If art is dead, we live in a sad, sad world.
I agree with Irene-- lovely response (and many others were as well, in my opinion)!
If you understand the term "glory", defined as "praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent"-- artists are anything but "common" and are not bound by popularity. Yes, Warhol was most definitely a popular artist (even more so after his death). Yet "glory" can also mean "great beauty and splendor" (according to ancient Greeks). That, if you choose this definition, is far too vast a condition to say that Warhol is "the last" or even a "legend" in.
I choose the latter definition, "great beauty and splendor", as it reflects the full magnitude of art, artists and their effect on society and cultures. Artists strive to express their impressions of truth (and beauty) found, excavated or manifested within themselves-- irrespective of people's reactions to them and their works; therefore irrespective of "popularity." The human race is far too complex as individuals to limit the "glory" of the effect of any single artist above another-- as there IS room and need for ALL artists. Just like every other aspect of life, we're effected by popular or admired fellow artists (as we are all "fellows", as Irene pointed out)-- but, ultimately, we are only responsible for and answer to our Inner Selves. Without such individualized integrity, there could BE no Warhols or any other popular artists.
Fascinating ideas from all-- and thanks for the forum!
i guess the term "living legend" is as subjective as one's take on warhol's "art".
Another bashing thread in the arts forum? Sigh...
You know, the sophisticated (oh, sooooo sorry for that word!) response is to realize there are many voices, many outlooks...many institutions....many shams. Especially as the art world stands today.
--a painter who hasn't painted in a couple years.
Nothing wrong with sophistication if one can afford it. Nothing wrong with artists living the glory they deserve. Luckily, nowadays a lot of artist can leave of their art, if they are good enough, althoug sometimes being 'good enough' has to do with institutions, good press and the like.
And about bashing...sigh....
I think art is a lifestyle choice in a way. I mean, if you are an artist, you have to create. It's something you are driven to do. Can you make a decent living at it? Sometimes. Will you 'get famous' in your own lifetime? That's an 'off' question in a way.
I honestly think that question misses the point. A creative life is its own reward. It would be nice if we valued creative people more. Many people think of art-as-product and so, if an artist is pumping out a salable 'product' those same people consider that artist to be a good artist, but really when it's being done at that level it's more like craft. That's OK--I love craft. it's just not usually what society as a will value for generations or look back on as genius.
It's often only in retrospect that we recognize someone's exceptional gift.
It's the nature of the beast.
i agree with you. But lately, many good artists are lucky enough to be able to live from their art. You have Fernando Botero, for example.You may like it or not, but his technique is awesome.
I agree with all this. I'd add that the best comparasion ios with playing a sport you love. Some sportsmen become wealthy, most don't.
The idea of using the amount of money an artist or a sportsman makes to measure their success is a stupid one, because the main motivation of the artists or sportsmen I've met has never been to become wealthy - though naturally they don't complain when they make sales.
BTW regarding Warhol--Part of the reason we remember him as an important artist was because his work by its nature criticized, parodied, and exploited the consumer/fame aspect of 'art', so it's kind of ironic you bring him up as an example.
I always thought Warhol sounded like a bit of a dick. His stuff was closer to performance art I think. His paintings--I think he was making fun of us with those.
I think he was making fun of all of us a lot, actually.
Personally I think that a 'legend' is something you leave earth when you are no longer on it.
Before 'legend' it is 'fame', and with 'fame' in this day and age normally comes money.
There are hundreds of living artists that are making a lot of money and have a lot of fame.
Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, those are a couple of so called 'artists', although their works are often pathetic (especially the latter), who are both famous and multi millionaires.
Banksy is another who, despite being completely anonymous, has without a doubt made a lot of money - passing on works directly to dealers on occassion.
A wealthy distant relative of mine recently bought a potrait of herself for £50k - obviously straight from the artist. That is the artists going rate, and she has a 12-18 month waiting list, she does 6-8 commissioned works per year. You do the maths
I would say that there are plenty of artists with fame, but Legend (in the sense of a legacy) is something which even many famous and rich artists will not achieve.
Art is a crazy subject since it seems the art is worth so much more when the person dies. The artists sometimes do not make much money and when they die, everyone wants to pay millions for their work. Artists do not get enough credit while they are alive. If I was an artist and knew I was dying, I would probably burn all of my paintings.
But that's against the whole point! The only reason why art flourishes after death is its then original and can never be made again!
All artists create art to be shared with the world. Making a drawing no one wants is the last thing an artist wants. They want to be seen and known, not just make money. You have to remember, writers immortalize themselves though poems and books, but artist immortalize themselves in what they create!
In concept, buying that million dollar painting is like privately owning the artist yourself in a way.
dieing only increases the value (both $$ and ooh-ah) not because it was an original but because, generally, society realizes its worth without having the artist there to agree or refute. thus, the stigma of social classes determining what is 'good' art remains. ridiculous, isn't it? Funny how things have not much changed since the end of the renaissance period.
if M. Angelo were alive today and he were speaking to Aristotle what would be their take?
Both artists, famous, extraordinary renaissance men. both now viewed as relics (even if people can't touch them and be enlightened). ironic indeed.
Maybe that's only people people don't think they can go talk to the artist when there around. After there gone art advances and there stuck in a different time. People who like art look back on these and only in the process of looking back do they have the ability to rate it in the first place. Maybe society should look at coming up artists more then old dead guys, the ones who have 3 or 4 public comments because in a few hundred years that same piece that you say "its nothing special" could be all anyone talks about.
what about your heirs ? wouldn't you leave them to somebody ??
If you get a chance check out Csaba Markus.
Some artists may---the Beatles for instance. But that was largely because they met up with the moment for their style, message and artistic vision. Their fanbase was waiting for them.
Probably no artist discerned to be "great" by later generations would ever enjoy their full and proper glory in their own day, if only because a full appreciation of art requires the passage of times, both social and artistic.
The passing of those times provide a reliable backdrop for forming a comprehensive assessment of artistic influence and durability per artist or artist clique.
Passing fads and the ultimately trivial are thereby filtered from the pool of genuine art.
I think every one has the potential to be a legend while they live, but I als think some don't want it while they live, they are content with "enough"
It all begins wiht a few people and then goes from there.
I'm not sure "glory" and art really go together. I think "respect" goes with art, and I think artists can get tremendous respect while they're alive (even though some dont).
To me, "glory" is more for heroes who save lives. I don't particularly think artist deserve glory.
I don't think artists are ever fully appreciated until after death. I have an Aunt who painted all her life. She stored most of her paintings in the closet, because she didn't think they were good enough. After she died, everyone wanted them.
You may be interested in a company called GYSTIink.
GYST-Ink is an artist-run company providing information, technology and solutions created by artists for artists. GYST–Ink stands for empowering and educating artists instead of exploiting artists for profits. Our software and services aim to streamline the business aspects of an art career, saving artists money and freeing up more time for work in the studio. Spearheaded by Cal Arts professor and renowned artist and curator Karen Atkinson, GYST-Ink has been the leading resource for professional practice, art advice and art business services in Southern California for over ten years, and helping thousands of artists from all over America get on the road to career success.
It has been a phenomenal resource to me, to my peers, and has brought light to the BUSINESS of art, rather than just the proces and/or hobby of it. Check it out!
by mega17 years ago
I'm wondering if anybody else ponders this. I have always felt that the distinction between "art" and "craft" is a very picky, very snobby, fine-line distinction wherein one should tread very...
by Skydweller20 months ago
People say that art is a way of life. There are many people who have spent their lifetime for the sake of art gaining very less for themselves. What do you think?
by Tanmoy Acharya5 years ago
It raises only eyebrows when someones says he or she wants to be an artist. There are exceptions; but the popular conception is that there is no 'practical' benefit that Art brings, whether painting or poetry or...
by RaymondLPeters3 years ago
I have showed at bars, festivals, art shows, on the web and it always leaves me with a lack luster feeling. I don't want to be a dead artist before some one notices me.
by wcharles6225 years ago
how do promote my art online and offline in 2010?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.