This picture has been festering in the "Muse" folder of my computer ever since I found it some time ago. Like the Frankenstein monster, it's been lurking there, waiting to see the light of day. I almost hate to ugly up the world even more by re-unleashing it, but I guess it had to happen, so--here it is.Why am I posting it? I'll tell ya--you ready? Holding onto your LUNCH? Okay, here goes... drum roll...
This thing was voted BEST PAPERBACK COVER ART OF THE YEAR. What year I'm not sure, and really, I don't care. You can be pretty sure it wasn't 1964, though, or even 1982, or anything like that. It pretty much dates itself.
Let's see what we got here; a very plain, ordinary-looking girl, scrawny, I'd say, another hapless victim of the idiotic tattoo fad. Plus, she has her dinky boobs pushed up to create the asinine "cleavage" effect that, along with the "tats" (blechh!) has come to mark the strange and deficient times we live in.
Simply put, to this trained eye, the redeeming aesthetics of this picture are very close to nil.
"Artistically" speaking, it suffers the same sort of illness as a Boris Vallejo painting; it's over-rendered, yet large areas have been left void of detail, just as Boris does with his patented "fog effect". To me, fog has become pretty goddamn tiresome. And the fact that the figure's just been copied from a photograph doesn't endear it to me much either.
But all that aside, my main complaint is that this gal in the picture is essentially a piece of human garbage, and therefore is meant to be oh-so-desirable to us hip, modern guys with boners for real Art. She's like any of the other mindless teen-whores ya might see on the internet, no character, no personality, existing simply as a sheet of toilet paper to wipe some ejacula on.
What the artist has done is not take us somewhere new via the power of his imagination, but rather thrust the viewer face-first down into the worst and most odorous rubbish presently fashionable in our society.
And, this is what "Art" has come to; not only is it visible and "out there" in the marketplace, it has been deemed--presumably by those in the know--to be "THE BEST".
If this is the best, I'll take the worst any day.
32 comments:
I was gonna say,"how nice of you to call this a painting."
Then I re-read the post and realized you never did!
Ha!
Couldn't agree with you more Mike. Ugly grunge chick with a hampster face, pink snotty substance abuse nose, moonlit halo icon behind her head like she's some kind of tough feminist punk.
Seems to be what a lot of the youths around midtown aspire to :(.
Latest weird trend I see around here are those big chunky earing holes in peoples lobes you can fit a 1.5" diameter something or other in.
One of my colegues who works remotely "thank god". seems to be into all that stuff, spends half her time in front of a web cam with a S&W 38 and one of several tactical knives being weird and depressed.
Still she does have a medical reason for being the way she is that it wouldn't be fair to mention on here.
Yeah, you're jealous. We get it.
At least I'm somebody. As long as you're anonymous, you're nobody.
That makes you jealous of me.
Hey man, I couln't agree with you more! I hate this shit!! It was probably done on a computer and the figure was probably scanned in. They do this sort of stuff all the time. Why? Because "anonymous" types don't know how to draw or paint. LOL!! Looking forward to the UL stuff! BTW, I heard Pistella wrote the intro to your new book. I guess Dr. Dave will be next...
Like many modern covers, it's just a figure standing there. Eye level, just like the photograph the illustrator snapped. I like the wolf-motif on the gate though.
Well, I hope at least the wolves weren't copied, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Some more details please ... where did this win the title of best of the year? Was it in SPECTRUM? I've noticed that many of the winning illustrators in SPECTRUM are often judging the pieces. Nepotism is the word that comes to mind.
"One of my colegues who works remotely — thank god — seems to be into all that stuff, spends half her time in front of a web cam with a S&W 38 and one of several tactical knives being weird and depressed."
I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I'd be tempted to watch some of this. Does she post her manic depressive rantings on YouTube?
The artist who created this is called Dan Dos Santos, a very well respected artist, and it was created with oils, as you can see on his site.
Personally, I admire his work, and whatever faults there are in the character itself aren't his fault but that of the author whom he created the cover for.
I wish people would not criticise the work of other artists, especially well known ones, as they've obviously got to where they are for a reason....
My dear girl, I don't think the publisher or the writer of whatever book this illustrates said to the artist "copy a photograph". That's all this painting really is--a copy of someone else's photograph. Even if the artist took the photo himself, it's still copied.
I for one would be more interested to see what he can accomplish on his own without photographs, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be much.
This sort of painting is cold--it is characterless, faceless, and worse, it panders to the current fashions. It says nothing about the artist except that he's a xerox machine for money. It could be made by any of hundreds of commercial artists today, it's that generic; and I suppose that's why the signature's so big. Take off the name and it could be by any one of the "Spectrum" crowd of artists.
Anyway, the whole History of Art is about looking at pictures and making judgements--and criticisms--of them, and no one is above that--not him, not me, not anybody. Just because someone's famous or successful--like myself--is no qualifier for their work. There is plenty of trash out there that sells by the boatload; does that make it good? It doesn't.
BTW there's a summary of the technique he used to make this illustration in PDF format.
http://www.dandossantos.com/methods/moon_called_how_to.pdf
@DeaBellona
Thanks for posting who he is. I've seen a few of his other illustrations and it's nice that he uses oils. I can't say I like this particular painting even a little :(
Mike, Dan is a good friend of mine. I own this painting, traded it for one of mine in fact. It is truelly a lovely piece. Whether or not you like his art he does not deserve your rant. No artist, friend or not, deserves this kind of rant. Rant I say as you boldly state fashion as well as whether she is too skinny for you taste, as your key points of critique. You have a list of points that are arbitrary and purely opinion based but do not in fact give any other reasons for why this piece deserves your loathing, something a bit more concrete in terms of narrative, craft, or composition. I don’t understand this need you have to diminish works of other artists. It does not speak well of you and your own work; in fact it underlines certain fears. You have a right to your opinion, but you may want to wait and think on whether it is a good opinion or something formulated to hurt. Unsolicited critiques of peers is fine, saying it is not your cup of tea is fine, but you seem to go out of your way to insult.
Thank goodness there are all kinds of artist in this world. It would be a boring if we all just followed your cannon or mine or any one artist or movement.
Jon Foster
Art is subjective, you like this thing and I hate it. I do admit I have seen your work now too, Jon, and I like it more than your friend--whose name escapes me.
The trouble with both your stuff, to me, is that it all looks like something an art director would think up. I realize people have to eat, but I'd suggest taking more chances. I have, and I have a lot more freedom because of it. Your work represents safety and the status quo, no matter how many tattoos you both paint.
Why not leave out the tattoos? Then you'd really be rebels. The way things look now, you're both falling all over each other trying to get into the next SPECTRUM book.
The trouble with the painting in question by mister BPCOTY (Best Paperback Cover Of The Year) is that it tells us nothing about its creator other than he aims at being trendy, does work-for-hire, and has nothing much to say as an artist. More specifically, his work tells me that he is shallow.
Now, when all you guys cluster-up and think each other to be marvelously clever and artistic, then naturally you don't welcome criticism of "the Club". That's too bad, because you're out there on the on Internet, in public, and darn it to heck, people don't have to like your stuff. It's a free country.
I get attacked all the time, and personally, I don't want people defending me because they're my friends. Better that they're NOT my friends, then I may actually believe them.
With BPCOTY, I'll have people agreeing with me, and you'll have agreement too--probably more, because you're both playing it so safe by catering to public tastes. Mister BPCOTY appears to be bent over pretty far.
Lastly, I will reiterate in more detail: this BPCOTY piece is simply trash; it's the modern equivalent of a Bougereau, all form, no content, and aimed at a lowest common denominator audience; it is exactly the kind of art beloved by people who know nothing about Art. The paint may be adequately applied, but that's about it. It's status quo art, designed to sell books and nothing else. It's not really even Art so much as it is marketing.
You both need more stuff going on your heads to make better stuff come out your hands.
I agree with Jon fosters comments completely-
As a professional in this industry too, I'm always ready to praise great and inspired work and offer honest critique to friends and fellow creators.
You do yourself no favors with biting rants-(No one ever does)
none whatsoever.
Rebecca
wow buddy, this post is going a long way to bring down someone you don't even know for a bunch of subjective personal aesthetics. Why so angry? And where do you find the time to even do this stuff?
Rebecca's right. No offense man, but you need to find a new, hopefully more constructive, outlook.
Best,
Drew Silver
Mike, your criticism is wrong-headed when taken in the proper context of the 'world of paperback books'. In that world, Art Directors look for a certain list of 'ingredients' that will sell their books to the bookstores. Dan has produced a piece that has those ingredients and has won an award for his work 'in that world'.
You are criticizing an apple for being an orange. All you say about Dan's piece is true, and would apply, if Dan were entering that work in the realm of fine art. He isn't and you are a bit out of line with this blog. You place the blame for the degradation of art on the shoulders of illustrators, yet they are not what has driven us to that point. Art Directors and bookstores are not to blame either. The population at large is to blame. Now, instead of ripping a good piece of illustration in your blog, why not address the true problem...how can we change what the people want on their book covers?
Until you answer that, all this is just misplaced angst.
Hello Mike,
Obviously you know nothing of Dan Dos Santos, which is fine. I took the liberty of looking up your work. Now, I've never heard of you so I'm going to assume that mikehoffman.com, which you advertise on your blog as a nonexistent place, is your website. Have you ever heard of Frank Frazetta? You must have since your art pretty much resembles his own, down to the distinctive Frazetta woman's eyes. You speak of art as if you are an expert, a truly gifted and experimental one yourself (ironic?). Because I've met Dan and seen him paint live on multiple occasions and even received one-on-one criticism, I can say that what you know of this artist is terribly incorrect. He is a truly inspired, creative, and talented individual. Several people seem to appreciate your blog as valid art criticism, but you don't really bring up any valid points at all, as Mr. Foster eloquently put you make "arbitrary" criticisms. I'll end by quoting Frank Frazetta in an interview from Seconds magazine... "I’ve seen my imitators and the rest and it’s wonderful, I’m glad. They’ve talked to me about it and I tried to tell them, “You have to do your own thing for your own joy.”'
Think about that one
I appreciate the loyalty of this gaggle of friends, and it's a nice showing, but might doesn't always make right.
But, because you've all shown up, I'll answer your points, even though most of mine were ignored.
Rebecca--your opinion of the efficacy of how I run my career is just that, an opinion, even though you claim it's a fact. The whole History of Art has to do with argument and criticism, and has nothing much to do with "professionalism". You're talking about doing a job for someone else; what I do is for myself and then I sell it to others. Therefore, I don't need to be "professional", I am free to say what I like. Many people envy that.
Now, I'd like you to address the subject of my argument and tell me what it is you personally consider to be the merits of this particular painting. Can you do that please?
Drew--good herdsmanship, buddy. I'm sure you couldn't understand my anger at the BPCOTY because you're too young to remember when people didn't have ugly tattoos and when paperback covers were still a joy because they took chances.
FYI, I'm constructive and positive all day long, but sometimes when you stick your head in a toilet you notice the stink; the BPCOTY is such a stink, IMHO.
It's funny how none of you are defending the painting itself, which is what this is really about as far as I'm concerned.
Mike--I believe you're dead wrong about the real culprits behind crappy paperback art, and I think you claim it to pass the buck. It's not the public, it's the fact that the money behind the publishers creates an environment that doesn't allow risks--or anything new. Books must have covers like the last ones that sold. It's Art directors, responsible to businessmen, who control the products. If they figure out that a Big Mac will sell, that doesn't mean the public chose it. It means that the public's choices have been limited.
I thought everybody knew these dynamics already; it's how America has been operating ever since movies went down the tubes. Where have you been?
The BPCOTY piece itself has the effect of reinforcing a system which panders via a generic product, plus turns the artist into a whore in the process, if he even was an artist to begin with.
Do you follow me?
El Cubano, "nonexistent" implies that internet "places" such as "sites" aren't really sites at all; basically, they don't exist, therefore "nonexistent". Understand?
Here again, no one is discussing the painting in question, but keep changing the subject.
Sure, I've done work that builds on Frazetta's--like about a million others, but I've also done tons of other work that has nothing to do with it, like my cartooning, my recent Phase II work, my recording work, my Gallery shows, and about a million other art styles I've invented, no thanks to being "professional". Basically, "El Cubano", you know not of what you speak. Of all the comments here, yours seem to me to be the least informed and most like a layman.
Finally, kids, I do have work to do, so if anyone really wants this to continue, please stick to the subject of BPCOTY. Please defend this execrable piece of "art" instead of your cozy little network of "professionals".
Its nice seeing people handing you your ass again Hoffman, still, its wasnt as good as the verbal beating I gave you months back.
Are you ever going to become your own artist with your own style or just be a complacent poor man's Frazetta imitator? Are you ever gonna stop attacking people with more ability than you possess or continue to cry into your keyboard wondering why the world doesn't love you?
Just a reminder--no anonymous posts allowed.
Tommy Pons (NOT Tom Pons!) copies photographs on football helmets and is about the biggest pandering art-whore I've ever seen.
He's chubby, too.
If you go back to the original post, the subject was how on earth could that awful painting win the best of year in paperback book covers.
I for the life of me can't see why. My feeling is that maybe I'm too old to get it, for me it portrays most of the things that I feel are degenerate in society.
I'm sure if it hadn't won the award, Mike wouldn't have even given it a glance. I don't think the initial incentive was to put the artist down, he does need to pay the bills afterall.
Don't see why someone has to say they like it when they obviously don't.
The fact that it's actually oil painted means that he does have some skill with his medum, and makes a nice change from the usualy photoshop. Which is why I posted a link to the tutorial.
But nothing on earth is going to make me like that painting. It's the sad thing about illustration that you often do have to pander to what the art director and marketing want. The painting in question is a prime example of this and very dull indeed.
What disappoints me is not that this painting won the whatever-award ... but it looks like pretty much every other cover out there.
Central character (lately a female) with tattoos, standing facing the reader. Or with back to the reader.
There's some series of books right now about a female vampire, written by some woman, and the titles are all plays on spaghetti western titles. Each book in the series pretty much features the woman with her back to the reader, displaying tattoos. Sometimes the background, or the color of her clothing, changes. But it's basically the same pose over and over.
Now, look at James Bama's cover to DOC SAVAGE #1 — the central character standing tall, ready for battle. Great portrait to begin the paperback revival, but afterward, many of the characters featured DOC doing SOMETHING. On a raft, climbing a mountain, defending himself from some predatorial creature ... Whether you like em or not (I did), each cover was different.
The majority of today's paperback covers are just poses of characters, much like today's comic covers. Ho-hum.
Rick-- maybe this is what's called a "paradigm shift", away from the heroic "lone individual" in illustration a la Doc Savage and the majority of older PBs and comics, towards a faceless collective, marked only by their--ahem--identifying marks.
You should've seen the collective that was just swarming here yesterday--I believe that Mr. BPCOTY is also coated with inky ID marks. These marks show that you "belong", but to exactly what no one seems quite sure, but it obviously ain't the Body as a Temple movement. More like a living canvas for banal grafitti.
I also think the focus on performers has moved towards mirroring the audience instead. Rather than be content to observe characters from afar--essentially looking up at them--now the view must be lateral. I believe this accomodates feelings of inferiority.
I also get the feeling of being a lone individual up against a faceless mob--for no other reason than my refusal to join up.
It's funny that a lot of people who follow my work are artists wanting to better themselves, and my critics--if they're artists at all--think they're already "there". Giving them rewards and prizes doesn't help matters.
No one wants an Rock Star untouchable in his talent anymore, they want someone like themselves they "relate to". In other cases, I think Pop culture encourages the audience to actually look down at their "heroes" like "Scarface" and Death Metallers, f'r instance.
It's such a repulsive equation that you almost have to choose a side--whether you want to or not. Believe me, I'm sick of fighting, but some things have to be said.
Adrian--you're right, I'd never have given this painting a second thought without the award tacked on.
The rest of you--avoiding the crux of this issue--for shame.
This came in via email from an Art Historian at the National Gallery in London. I don't think it's an award:
I’m glad I don’t have to review, or read, the book.
What’s the picture trying to say? What mood is it trying to convey? She looks like a waxwork, and a second rate one at that (see attachment for something better). Those highlights are far too sharp. Is she meant to be dead? Her skin, especially on the stomach, looks like a corpse’s skin. I assume the artist covered her face in hair and shadow to hide errors; certainly her chin is too big. The thing that most bugs me though is the lack of unity; she doesn’t seem to be connected the the background, her shirt is the wrong colour and texture, her jeans look like they’re being worn by somebody else & c.
Hey Mike,
Dan Dos Santos was an intern in my studio when he was in High School. He did an assemblage for a student art show which featured the juxtaposition of a doll, Christmas lights and some nails. The school administration went nuts and tried to ban it. In the end he compromised by additionally displaying a statement explaining the power of art to evoke emotion. I see that he has done it again. I confess I didn’t fully appreciate ASFA’s award until I read your blog. Now that I see the level of dramatic response from the work’s admirers and detractors, I comprehend its power. I am amazed by the detailed observations of the model’s physique, the implied connotations of her tattoos, the implications of the composition and the greater questions of the state of commercial art itself. I wish one of my paintings could get people half as worked up
Steve-- I see this "power" as a powerful stench. Then outrage is the award, not the piece itself, which to me is mundane, banal, pandering, and unimaginative in the extreme. I think you misread the intent--which was simply to make a buck.
Outrage is easy--I do it all the time. I've had death threats and harassment for years now. Does it make me a genius?
You talk about "implications" and "connotations", which strikes me as some pretty flowery jargon indeed. Maybe you see this thing as some profound work, and if so, please explain the "why" a little better without the vague and arty double-talk.
I do want to thank you for being civil and identifying yourself. Maybe you can communicate to myself and others what it is we're missing.
Mike, I'm curious. Exactly what chances do you imagine you've taken? Also, why don't you address the almost painful similarity between your work and that of Frank Frazetta? Finally, have you ever won an award... prestigious or not?
Mabey you should read the book that the picture reps. Then you would have an inkling of that she was going for. And further more who are you to judge anyway. Oh and do a little research on the image you are slamming this time. Its the cover of the first book from a very popular series that you most likely know nothing about or have never read.
lady_sasha2001@yahoo.com
I still hate this painting, and the people who show up here to attack me for that have all forgotten to mention why THEY like it so much. They're apparently voting for it without knowing why.
You'd think if it had such redeeming qualities, someone would've mentioned them.
Like a thundering herd of gnus, they arrived here to "fight back" against my cruel, carnivorous attacks upon one of their own. What they don't know is that I'm not attacking so much as defending; defending humanity itself in this sick, tattooed monoculture of ours.
Anyway, this has dragged on enough, and I don't need any more chatroom refugees around here. So, this topic is officially CLOSED.
Don't write to me about this posting, it won't even get looked at.
Post a Comment