I'ma need an actual explanation for that. One that doesn't completely #### on entire professions, schools of thought, and actual concepts.

Or, y'know, not something totally off-the-cuff dismissive.

Also, this statement, as written, doesn't make sense.

You're essentially saying that the objective study of art, in any form, is a fruitless and stupid pursuit.

Sorry, can't agree. Should objective criticism bear a disproportionate amount of weight? No. But to say it is entirely invalid? Yeah, sorry, that's crap.

But my explanation completely ####s on entire professions, schools of thought, and concepts!

You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong

No, though I can say that you're not doing much aside from stirring the pot in somewhat lackluster fashion.

C'mon, man. You're better than saying "This is stupid" devoid of reason.

But my opinion here completely lies in there being no reason for a thing. Art is, in and of itself, completely meaningless and holds no inherent value. Art is entirely dependent on the life story of the beholder.

Alright, that's workable.

I don't entirely disagree with your position, for what it's worth. My own field of study is filled with self-satisfactory literary circle-jerks. That said, there's something to criticism in that it can reveal other perspectives one might otherwise not have experienced or considered.

Granted, sequential art isn't as "rich" in terms of historical impact or prominence, but there's still some stimulating discussion to be had (YMMV) from analyzing the objective merits of an artist in juxtaposition with the era in which he/she draws.

That said, I don't feel that Rob Liefeld's art merits any sort of significant discussion as...well...it sucks, IMO.

I'm not saying that discussion isn't worth having, I'm a fan of discussion. I'm a fan of criticism, as you well know. I just can't stand for an individual imposing their view on art as though there view holds any kind of weight.

That being said, yea, Liefeld's art stops me from enjoying books.

Yep. And relativism works both ways.

I'm reminded of a dialogue I had with my first thesis adviser regarding the literary canon. Her view was that she would be loath to see Stephen King placed in the literary canon.

She then went on to tell me that she was teaching a course on vampires in literature, with the second half of the course being devoted to the "Twilight" series.

Just goes to show you that, in the eyes of a Harvard professor, King is crap unworthy of study but Twilight is worthy of half a course.

Yeah, just...can't do it.

ahhh....

I came here to read up on Liefeld's latest stupidity, and end up with a bigger ignore list.


I also learned, yet again, that not everyone is like that.

You can't ignore me. I WILL BE HEARD!

or at least read.


AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER!

You say this.

Then you say this.

So, if the view of the beholder is all that matters, how can that view not hold any weight? Maybe you mean from one person to another? And I never said what a person could like or not like. I actually said the opposite. Anybody can like what they want.

My points were meant to express how Liefeld can be considered "bad" or "good" beyond "he sucks" and "he makes dat munny." I don't like his art or writing. I figure that was obvious. But, the man is a career management and promoting genius. His success can't be argued with. He has come back again and again from events that should have buried him, but he continues to be thrive.

I disagree. It is perfectly acceptable to evaluate art on an objective basis of technique and craft completely disassociated with ones feelings or opinions. You can completely hate the subject matter or how it is depicted, but you can appreciate how a picture is drawn, or how a sculpture has been crafted, or the technique with which the paint has been applied. The opposite again being true, where you can love the subject, say a comic book character, but you can look at an artist's rendition, say, an artist who you prefer, and still go "OMGWTFisgoingonhere?!?"

I'll take a crack at this, is the event that it was directed at or included me. If not, feel free to disregard this.

I wasn't attempting to defend his art, or proffer on opinion on it one way or the other. I lack the exposure to his material to form an objective response, and lack the initiative and inclination to form a subjective opinion.

I was interested in putting forth two notions. Firstly, that I found the commentary in the linked articles more problematic than the art itself was. It's the same fault that I find with things like Mystery Science Theater 3000...that the critique outstrips the critiqued. Toss enough stupid jokes around and if you're lucky, eventually one might warrant a chuckle? By the time that one joke rolls around, I've already become bored and annoyed by the wasted 10 minutes of crap. YMMV.
Secondly, anybody and everybody can feel free to dislike Liefield and his art. It's entirely your prerogative to form and to have your own opinions. There's plenty of art out there that I dislike, or even outright loathe. Some of that is some non-professional level work, some of it is the art of renowned artists, that I happen to dislike. Some of it is within comics, and some of it throughout other artistic mediums.
It is the presenting of these dislikes as anything other than opinion that I disagree with. Dislike it all you like but please don't try to present it as a fact, or as an objective statement when you use words like "sucks" and "lazy."

Own your own opinion.