Eugine_Nier comments on Things you are supposed to like - Less Wrong

68 Post author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2011 02:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (367)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 23 October 2011 08:00:26PM 8 points [-]

You've probably got an argument from physics about healing crystals.

However, in the case of modern art, you might contemplate people who think they know enough about science fiction to condemn it even though they know almost nothing about it.

Bruce Pollack, a contemporary abstract artist I like a lot. A little discussion of his work-- the first picture is presumably something more current from the gallery where he was displayed-- I think it's the sort of modern art neither of us like.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 October 2011 09:57:51PM 2 points [-]

Bruce Pollack, a contemporary abstract artist I like a lot.

He appears to be an example of what I called a "good" modern artist, which is to say, he's still worse that just about all pre-20th century western art.

Comment author: RomanDavis 28 October 2011 03:51:45PM *  2 points [-]

Wait. Huh? Pre 20th century? What about

Nikolai Fechin

Frank Frazetta

Andrew Jones

Geoffrey Mimms

James Gurney

There are lots of guys making art these days. You really don't like any of them?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 29 October 2011 04:20:51AM 2 points [-]

What Desrtopa said.

Comment author: Desrtopa 28 October 2011 04:43:51PM 3 points [-]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that; he's saying that prior to the 20'th century and the advent of "Modern Art," hardly anybody was making art that he considers as poor as the works of even those he considers to be the best participating in the genre of Modern Art, which is not the same thing as the works of all artists who produce art in the present day.