Art mistaken for trash; thrown out

[Durandal]

Try and tell the art crowd that this crap is, well, crap, and you're an anti-intellectual. Bunch of douchebags....

They'll tell you that it's only crap by your definition of crap or ask you "Who's to say what crap is?" Naturally, they never propose an alternate definition for "crap"; they just arbitrarily remove whatever their latest creations are from the sweeping category of "crap."

The real anti-intellectualism is fueled by people like that: armchair philosophers who think it's intellectual or "deep" to question everything. Kind of reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter references his great ancestor, the Great Philosopher Shamus Griffin. Shamus' wife tells him to go to work, to which Shamus responds "Why?"

[Durandal]

Reminded me of this. Bed full of pork products is not art.

Oh but he's making a statement. Art makes statements. So anything that makes a statement is art!

There is a specific kind of art reserved for making a statement. It's called a political cartoon.

[Master of Ossus]

It's really quite understandable. Why wouldn't they rope off an exhibit, though?

[SCRawl]

I've always felt that commercialized art goes against the whole idea of art in the first place. Now, I'm no artist (and far from it), but it seems to me that art is something that is highly personal for the artist. There is something inside the artist's brain that wants to be given form, and it is through the artist's skills and talents that this is accomplished. It would seem unlikely for such a personal creation to ever be a commercially viable product; it is more likely that most of what gets sold is created by people who are good at making stuff that people like. Of course, there's also the set out there that just create crap, and because of their standing in the art community, it gets called art.

But that's just my rant.

[Gandalf]

Reminded me of this. Bed full of pork products is not art.

Wow, that's nuts.

In Australia we had a guy who received Government funding to regurgitate milk. I think he videotaped it or something.

[Peregrin Toker]

I love this! Proof positive what utter trash (pun intended) passes for art these days.

I have my own theories as to why this is. There was a time when "fine" art was very popular. The works of the Old Masters were admired by virtually everyone when they were painted. The works of the Impressionists were widely admired by the general public during the 19th century, when the impressionist movement was current.

And this was the problem.

You see, the art world is absolutely full of elitist snobs (not just visual either, you also find them in music, literature, etc.), and, well, there was just something wrong if this stuff appealed to the dirty, unwashed masses. So you had cubism, expressionism, and so on, and with each new avante garde style or school, art becomes nuttier and nuttier, until you get crap like this. The less the general public likes it, the more it pleases the art snobs. If Joe Sixpack says it's an ugly piece of shit, then the art snobs can praise it as high art, talk about its symbolism, and congratulate themselves on their superior insight, and appreciation of true artistic talent.

Somebody here doesn't understand art.

You see, art is supposed to be an expression and crystallization of the artist's worldview, not merely pleasing to the senses. If an artist sees the world as chaotic and ugly, would it not make sense for him to make art which is deliberately chaotic and ugly if he wishes to express his view of the world?

The reason that avantgarde art becomes weirder and more abstract is not that it's supposed to be less accessible to the general public, but because the currently dominant art directions are composed of people who consider the world a strange place.

If you question the relationship between ideology and art, I ask you to take a look at the art produced in the Third Reich, and then look at that produced in the Soviet Union.


If an "artist" creates sculpture, paintings or music which is intended to be pleasing to the senses rather than to express his/her worldview - it's not art, it's entertainment.

[Dartzap]

the amount which is being payed to replace this item... £2

[Meest]

Call me old fashioned, but I have this firm belief that art should, you know....take effort to create, and demonstrate the skill of the artist.

Agree with that, being somewhat of an artist myself, if an art piece can be replicated by any ol' person not even schooled in art then its not art. Artists I still classify as people with skill and imagination, not just imagination.

[Perinquus]

Somebody here doesn't understand art.

I understand art quite well, thank you very much. And having at least a degree of talent with it (I draw, and paint in oils, mostly as a hobby, though I have managed to sell a few pieces), I am at least as well qualified as anyone here to judge what art is.

You see, art is supposed to be an expression and crystallization of the artist's worldview, not merely pleasing to the senses. If an artist sees the world as chaotic and ugly, would it not make sense for him to make art which is deliberately chaotic and ugly if he wishes to express his view of the world?

If that's all art is, then it is nothing more than self indulgence. Sorry, but I do not accept that definition. From ancient times, art was also supposed to appeal to mankind's sense of beauty. You even find this encapsulated in dictionary definitions of the word art. For example:

dictionary.com

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

b. The study of these activities.

c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

The reason that avantgarde art becomes weirder and more abstract is not that it's supposed to be less accessible to the general public, but because the currently dominant art directions are composed of people who consider the world a strange place.

Vincent Van Gogh, was weird too, and most likely considered the world a strange place, yet he managed to produce work that didn't look like the utter crap that passes for art today. Artists throughout history have been eccentric, idiosyncratic, and sometimes borderline insane, yet it is only in modern times that we get bizarre looking nonsense, and have so-called artists, and art critics trying to tell us its art.

Art is supposed to be less accessible to the general public these days, and I have met artists and art critics, especially when I was studying art and art history in college, who make that plain enough. They won't come right out and tell you this, of course, but it's plain enough in their words and attitudes.

If you question the relationship between ideology and art, I ask you to take a look at the art produced in the Third Reich, and then look at that produced in the Soviet Union.

That was sanctioned "art" made by approved artists, working to promote specific political ideologies. It is hardly representative of popular movements in art.

If an "artist" creates sculpture, paintings or music which is intended to be pleasing to the senses rather than to express his/her worldview - it's not art, it's entertainment.

By that definition, the portrait of Ginevra de Benci, which was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and which today hangs in the Smithsonian Museum, is not art, since it was intended to be visually appealing, as well as to make the artist money. By that definition, the Elgin Marbles, which once graced the Parthenon, are not art, since they were made on commision by Phydias specifically to enhance the beauty of the temple to Athena. By that definition, the portrait of Henry VIII by Hans Holbein is not art, since it was painted for money, for a King who was anxious to preserve his image with as flattering a portrait as possible. It really is amazing how many masterworks of art you will disqualify with this definition.

Art is not supposed to be merely self expression. There is much more to it than that. But I will tell you one thing that is a sine qua non of art: talent. You could take oil painting classes till the apocalypse, and if the talent is not there, you will never be able to paint pictures that equal those of Rembrandt. You can study sculpting for the rest of your life, and still never make anything to equal Michelangelo's David. If you can throw something together that anyone with a body temperature of 98.6 Fahrenheit could reproduce, and the reproduction would be indistinguishable from the original work (and the subject of the article cited in this thread is an excellent example of this), then it's not art.

[Iceberg]

I still stand by Phil Foglio's definition.

If you can get away with it, and if you can convince other people it's art, then it's art.

[Jade Falcon]

There's an episode of Spaced which deals with abstract artists perfectly, though one character in the series is a constant piss-take on arts students in general.

Of course the funniest one is the episode with Vulva, and Tim imagining what their performance art is like is not too unlike what it was in reality.

Though I suspect you're talking about the one where Brian gets knocked unconscious while doing the Installation.

[Peregrin Toker]

You see, art is supposed to be an expression and crystallization of the artist's worldview, not merely pleasing to the senses. If an artist sees the world as chaotic and ugly, would it not make sense for him to make art which is deliberately chaotic and ugly if he wishes to express his view of the world?

If that's all art is, then it is nothing more than self indulgence. Sorry, but I do not accept that definition. From ancient times, art was also supposed to appeal to mankind's sense of beauty. You even find this encapsulated in dictionary definitions of the word art.

According to you, H.R. Giger and Edvard Munch were not artists, since their paintings are intended to evoke terror and dread rather than beauty.

Art is supposed to be less accessible to the general public these days, and I have met artists and art critics, especially when I was studying art and art history in college, who make that plain enough. They won't come right out and tell you this, of course, but it's plain enough in their words and attitudes.

So? That just means that the dominant worldview of modern artists incorporates the notion that the intelligentsia are distinct from the general public and thusly do not need to communicate through the same language and set of archetypes.

If you question the relationship between ideology and art, I ask you to take a look at the art produced in the Third Reich, and then look at that produced in the Soviet Union.

That was sanctioned "art" made by approved artists, working to promote specific political ideologies. It is hardly representative of popular movements in art.

1. Most art of the Third Reich, and probably also some Soviet art, should fit into even your narrow definition of art, since they both resulted from an effort do depict reality - even if they depicted reality as filtered though political dogma.

2. All art is representative of the artist's ideology, if it doesn't promote it. And make no mistake, there is a strong connection between aestethics and ideology. If there isn't, then how were the Romanticist art movements in the early 19th century so indistinguishable from the philosophical movements of that age?

3. I dare you to find a film critic who does not consider Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein artists.

By that definition, the portrait of Ginevra de Benci, which was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and which today hangs in the Smithsonian Museum, is not art, since it was intended to be visually appealing, as well as to make the artist money.

Perhaps, but the way in which Da Vinci chose to depict Ginevra de Benci reflects Da Vinci's own worldview to some extent in that if he made said portrait with a total devotion to reality, it meant that Da Vinci might have believed that the human view of the world should not be distorted by any selective interpretations. You also said that Da Vinci made it to make himself money, a fact which indicates that Da Vinci's personal ideology incorporated a sense of self-preservation.

By that definition, the Elgin Marbles, which once graced the Parthenon, are not art, since they were made on commision by Phydias specifically to enhance the beauty of the temple to Athena.

Said temple was in itself a work of art designed to express the values and religion of the Greeks - or more likely, the way which the Greeks interpretated their pantheon. (which is undeniably related to ideology)

By that definition, the portrait of Henry VIII by Hans Holbein is not art, since it was painted for money, for a King who was anxious to preserve his image with as flattering a portrait as possible.

You just indirectly said that the portrait of Henry VIII was fuelled by an ideology - loyalty to the king.

Art is not supposed to be merely self expression. There is much more to it than that. But I will tell you one thing that is a sine qua non of art: talent. You could take oil painting classes till the apocalypse, and if the talent is not there, you will never be able to paint pictures that equal those of Rembrandt.

However, art usually has a subtle higher purpose than to merely depict something. This higher purpose does not have to be self-expression, it can also be to capture the dominant zeitgeist.

I might have forgotten to tell you that self-expression in art is not always intentional.

[Perinquus]

You see, art is supposed to be an expression and crystallization of the artist's worldview, not merely pleasing to the senses. If an artist sees the world as chaotic and ugly, would it not make sense for him to make art which is deliberately chaotic and ugly if he wishes to express his view of the world?

If that's all art is, then it is nothing more than self indulgence. Sorry, but I do not accept that definition. From ancient times, art was also supposed to appeal to mankind's sense of beauty. You even find this encapsulated in dictionary definitions of the word art.

According to you, H.R. Giger and Edvard Munch were not artists, since their paintings are intended to evoke terror and dread rather than beauty.

No, because I never claimed that that was the sole definition, as you did.

Art can evoke feelings like terror and dread, if the artist wishes to do so, and has the talent to achieve that effect. But art created simply for beauty is no less art because it does not attempt to "express the artist's worldview".

Art is supposed to be less accessible to the general public these days, and I have met artists and art critics, especially when I was studying art and art history in college, who make that plain enough. They won't come right out and tell you this, of course, but it's plain enough in their words and attitudes.

So? That just means that the dominant worldview of modern artists incorporates the notion that the intelligentsia are distinct from the general public and thusly do not need to communicate through the same language and set of archetypes.

They are perfectly free to maintain this attitude. And the rest of us are perfectly free to recognize them for the pompous, pretentious windbags they are because of it.

If you question the relationship between ideology and art, I ask you to take a look at the art produced in the Third Reich, and then look at that produced in the Soviet Union.

That was sanctioned "art" made by approved artists, working to promote specific political ideologies. It is hardly representative of popular movements in art.

1. Most art of the Third Reich, and probably also some Soviet art, should fit into even your narrow definition of art, since they both resulted from an effort do depict reality - even if they depicted reality as filtered though political dogma.

So what? You will see books on subjects like this with titles like "Art of the Third Reich", or "Totalitarian Art in the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and the People's Republic of China". It's still referred to as art. Just because art may be used in furtherance of a political dogma, or just because it may be generally thought to be sterile, lifeless, bombastic, unoriginal, or any of the other things such politicized art is often accused of being, does not mean it fails to qualify as art. Just because it is art made to serve an ideology does not mean that all art, therefore, must be used to serve an ideology. That's like saying all cats are animals, therefore all animals are cats.

2. All art is representative of the artist's ideology, if it doesn't promote it. And make no mistake, there is a strong connection between aestethics and ideology. If there isn't, then how were the Romanticist art movements in the early 19th century so indistinguishable from the philosophical movements of that age?

Wrong again. Many art movements are connected to an ideology. Some are not. Some are connected to an ideal, or simply a prevailing style that needn't represent anything remotely ideological. The Dutch masters were not serving some ideology, though they did have an ideal - photorealism. The art on Greek vases probably served no ideology, it merely conformed to a prevailing aesthetic. The Ringerike style wood carvings of Viking Age Scandinavia didn't represent some kind of ideology, they were merely part of a cultural style of art. The oil paintings Winston Churchill painted as a relaxing hobby are very unlikely to have represented any ideology, it was simply a relaxing pastime he enjoyed. Frank Frazetta's paintings were not ideological, they were designed to make him money, and to appeal to the tastes of a particular audience.

3. I dare you to find a film critic who does not consider Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein artists.

Why should I have to? I never claimed art can't represent an ideology, merely that it's nonsense to say that it has to.

By that definition, the portrait of Ginevra de Benci, which was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and which today hangs in the Smithsonian Museum, is not art, since it was intended to be visually appealing, as well as to make the artist money.

Perhaps, but the way in which Da Vinci chose to depict Ginevra de Benci reflects Da Vinci's own worldview to some extent in that if he made said portrait with a total devotion to reality,

And it could also relect the fact that realistic portraiture was popular at the time, and if he had made it any other way, he would not have been able to sell it to his patron.

it meant that Da Vinci might have believed that the human view of the world should not be distorted by any selective interpretations. You also said that Da Vinci made it to make himself money, a fact which indicates that Da Vinci's personal ideology incorporated a sense of self-preservation.

And you are adding complexity where there is no need for it. There is no need to suppose that Da Vinci had some complex internal debate over how best to represent his personal worldview. It is also quite possible that he was simply a talented artist, painting a realistic portrait to the best of his ability.

By that definition, the Elgin Marbles, which once graced the Parthenon, are not art, since they were made on commision by Phydias specifically to enhance the beauty of the temple to Athena.

Said temple was in itself a work of art designed to express the values and religion of the Greeks - or more likely, the way which the Greeks interpretated their pantheon. (which is undeniably related to ideology)

Just how does a temple "express the values of the Greeks"? It may express their sense of aesthetics, but how does building a building like the Parthenon express one set of values, while building a different sort of building, express another? And what values are they, exactly?

By that definition, the portrait of Henry VIII by Hans Holbein is not art, since it was painted for money, for a King who was anxious to preserve his image with as flattering a portrait as possible.

You just indirectly said that the portrait of Henry VIII was fuelled by an ideology - loyalty to the king.

My god, you are really good at reading more into a sentence than is there, aren't you. That's not what said at all, especially since Holbein was not English, and was not a subject of Henry's. Hans Holbein was born in Augsburg, and if he had loyalty to any monarch it was most probably the king of Bavaria. He also was much in demand as a portrait artist, and he appears to have taken no less care to give all his clients their money's worth, so where does political or ideological loyalty come into this? He was an artist who earned his living painting pictures for his income. As a necessary adjunct to this, he had to make his pictures as beautiful as possible, so that they would please his patrons, and they would pay him well. But since his art was made the way it was entirely for aesthetic considerations, by your definition, it is not art.

Art is not supposed to be merely self expression. There is much more to it than that. But I will tell you one thing that is a sine qua non of art: talent. You could take oil painting classes till the apocalypse, and if the talent is not there, you will never be able to paint pictures that equal those of Rembrandt.

However, art usually has a subtle higher purpose than to merely depict something. This higher purpose does not have to be self-expression, it can also be to capture the dominant zeitgeist.

I might have forgotten to tell you that self-expression in art is not always intentional.

Again, so what? I still maintain that it requires talent. Take that idiot who calls himself Cristo (how pretentious, this affectation of using only a single name), who went out to the Carribean a few years back and wrapped the shorelines of several small islands temporarily in pink plastic, or who, again temporarily, erected a miles long cloth fence out in the American midwest. he might be expressing something, but that doesn't make this kind of ridiculous tripe art. I saw another idiot on TV once, who was creating "art", by erecting a huge, blank canvas behind a jet engine, and throwing cans of house paint up into the jet's exhaust. Now just what the hell is this supposed to express? What can the artist or any art critic say it expresses or means that won't sound like a load of pretentious bullshit? I'm sorry, this is not art as far as I am concerned. Literally anybody who is not a quadruplegic can duplicate this, and the result will be no different. And here's the problem with that: the orginal jet splatter painter may say his art expresses X. The imitator may or may not make any claim of what his work expresses. But they look exactly the same. So how is the viewer to know that the original expresses X, and the imitation expresses something else, or expresses nothing at all? Art may indeed be used to say or mean or express certain things. But if it is to have any value as a form of expression, then that expression has to be in some way intelligible to its audience. This is where talent comes in. To many so-called artists today have none whatever. They churn out crap like a bunch of garbage in a clear plastic bin liner and call it art. Well, you can call a tail a leg, but that will not make the name fit.

[Peregrin Toker]

No, because I never claimed that that was the sole definition, as you did.

You said that modern art was not art because it wasn't aestethically pleasing, or you at least implied it.

If you question the relationship between ideology and art, I ask you to take a look at the art produced in the Third Reich, and then look at that produced in the Soviet Union.

That was sanctioned "art" made by approved artists, working to promote specific political ideologies. It is hardly representative of popular movements in art.

Wrong again. Many art movements are connected to an ideology. Some are not. Some are connected to an ideal, or simply a prevailing style that needn't represent anything remotely ideological. The Dutch masters were not serving some ideology, though they did have an ideal - photorealism. The art on Greek vases probably served no ideology, it merely conformed to a prevailing aesthetic. The Ringerike style wood carvings of Viking Age Scandinavia didn't represent some kind of ideology, they were merely part of a cultural style of art. The oil paintings Winston Churchill painted as a relaxing hobby are very unlikely to have represented any ideology, it was simply a relaxing pastime he enjoyed. Frank Frazetta's paintings were not ideological, they were designed to make him money, and to appeal to the tastes of a particular audience.

Ideology means "the study of ideals" in Greek. If art is connected to ideals, they are by definition connected to an ideology. And culture usually incorporates a set of ideals or values.

Just how does a temple "express the values of the Greeks"? It may express their sense of aesthetics, but how does building a building like the Parthenon express one set of values, while building a different sort of building, express another? And what values are they, exactly?

There is a clear relationship between architecture and the societies it comes from. If not, then explain why architecture changes as a culture evolves ideologically and philosophically. Explain why the interiors of medieval cathedrals often evoke a sense of divine power and presence.

Again, so what? I still maintain that it requires talent. Take that idiot who calls himself Cristo (how pretentious, this affectation of using only a single name), who went out to the Carribean a few years back and wrapped the shorelines of several small islands temporarily in pink plastic, or who, again temporarily, erected a miles long cloth fence out in the American midwest. he might be expressing something, but that doesn't make this kind of ridiculous tripe art. I saw another idiot on TV once, who was creating "art", by erecting a huge, blank canvas behind a jet engine, and throwing cans of house paint up into the jet's exhaust. Now just what the hell is this supposed to express? What can the artist or any art critic say it expresses or means that won't sound like a load of pretentious bullshit? I'm sorry, this is not art as far as I am concerned.

What you have described may be art, but it is certainly not good art. As for Cristo, it certainly takes some effort to wrap entire shorelines in plastic. And he might intend to symbolize the enslavement of nature by man.

But as for the guy with the jet engine... I'll have to agree with you there.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I've always felt that commercialized art goes against the whole idea of art in the first place. Now, I'm no artist (and far from it), but it seems to me that art is something that is highly personal for the artist. There is something inside the artist's brain that wants to be given form, and it is through the artist's skills and talents that this is accomplished. It would seem unlikely for such a personal creation to ever be a commercially viable product; it is more likely that most of what gets sold is created by people who are good at making stuff that people like. Of course, there's also the set out there that just create crap, and because of their standing in the art community, it gets called art.

But that's just my rant.

No, commercialized art is still great stuff: check out Michael Whelan, Bob Eggleton, Boris Vallejo (sort of), Frank Franzetta, etc.

They do stuff that has personal meaning, but they also do stuff that earns a living while expressing an idea or an emotion as well. They do it all.
They certainly produce a more genuine experience than a bag of trash.

[Jadeite]

Psst...perhaps you mean this link instead...
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/2691 ... news;w=431

[Jadeite]

Uh...could a mod delete that post or something? People obviously figured it out, I should have read the rest of the thread before posting.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

A bag of trash does not express a worldview. It expresses "trash." An artist should be aware of this distinction, and reflect on the fact that they share a world view with the county dump.

[Perinquus]

I've always felt that commercialized art goes against the whole idea of art in the first place. Now, I'm no artist (and far from it), but it seems to me that art is something that is highly personal for the artist. There is something inside the artist's brain that wants to be given form, and it is through the artist's skills and talents that this is accomplished. It would seem unlikely for such a personal creation to ever be a commercially viable product; it is more likely that most of what gets sold is created by people who are good at making stuff that people like. Of course, there's also the set out there that just create crap, and because of their standing in the art community, it gets called art.

But that's just my rant.

No, commercialized art is still great stuff: check out Michael Whelan, Bob Eggleton, Boris Vallejo (sort of), Frank Franzetta, etc.

They do stuff that has personal meaning, but they also do stuff that earns a living while expressing an idea or an emotion as well. They do it all.
They certainly produce a more genuine experience than a bag of trash.

I never bought the distinction people try to make between modern day commercial art, and fine art. After all. Holbein, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Sargent all painted portraits and other pictures for clients who paid them money. Even Michelangelp was hired to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. So where's the difference? The only one I can see is that an artist like Frazetta has his worked reproduced in prints for mass distribution.

[SCRawl]

I've always felt that commercialized art goes against the whole idea of art in the first place. Now, I'm no artist (and far from it), but it seems to me that art is something that is highly personal for the artist. There is something inside the artist's brain that wants to be given form, and it is through the artist's skills and talents that this is accomplished. It would seem unlikely for such a personal creation to ever be a commercially viable product; it is more likely that most of what gets sold is created by people who are good at making stuff that people like. Of course, there's also the set out there that just create crap, and because of their standing in the art community, it gets called art.

But that's just my rant.

No, commercialized art is still great stuff: check out Michael Whelan, Bob Eggleton, Boris Vallejo (sort of), Frank Franzetta, etc.

They do stuff that has personal meaning, but they also do stuff that earns a living while expressing an idea or an emotion as well. They do it all.
They certainly produce a more genuine experience than a bag of trash.

I never bought the distinction people try to make between modern day commercial art, and fine art. After all. Holbein, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Sargent all painted portraits and other pictures for clients who paid them money. Even Michelangelp was hired to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. So where's the difference? The only one I can see is that an artist like Frazetta has his worked reproduced in prints for mass distribution.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the word "art" has a different meaning for me, and yes, that means that much of what the old masters created doesn't fall under that distinction. Da Vinci was a fantastically talented and skilled individual, but were his made-to-order pieces art? I'd have to say no. The creation of beauty, while admirable, does not make a person an artist. I recognize that not everyone will agree with me, and I'm fine with that.

[Peregrin Toker]

I've always felt that commercialized art goes against the whole idea of art in the first place. Now, I'm no artist (and far from it), but it seems to me that art is something that is highly personal for the artist. There is something inside the artist's brain that wants to be given form, and it is through the artist's skills and talents that this is accomplished. It would seem unlikely for such a personal creation to ever be a commercially viable product; it is more likely that most of what gets sold is created by people who are good at making stuff that people like. Of course, there's also the set out there that just create crap, and because of their standing in the art community, it gets called art.

But that's just my rant.

No, commercialized art is still great stuff: check out Michael Whelan, Bob Eggleton, Boris Vallejo (sort of), Frank Franzetta, etc.

They do stuff that has personal meaning, but they also do stuff that earns a living while expressing an idea or an emotion as well. They do it all.
They certainly produce a more genuine experience than a bag of trash.

I never bought the distinction people try to make between modern day commercial art, and fine art. After all. Holbein, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Sargent all painted portraits and other pictures for clients who paid them money. Even Michelangelp was hired to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. So where's the difference? The only one I can see is that an artist like Frazetta has his worked reproduced in prints for mass distribution.

I think that most of Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo's paintings are/were done as illustrations for fantasy novels. All literature, even the escapist genres, is a product of its time - so you can say that if a fantasy novel's illustrations are to capture the spirit of the story itself, it will also capture the zeitgeist of the period in which it was written.