From "Sam Butcher, Who Gave the World Precious Moments, Dies at 85/His childlike porcelain characters thrilled and inspired generations of collectors. They also made him a millionaire" (NYT).
६ जून, २०२४
"He’d been to Rome and seen the Sistine Chapel, and that was his inspiration for the 9,000-square-foot shrine he built..."
"... which he covered with 84 murals, along with bronze panels and stained-glass windows. It took four years to build; Mr. Butcher often worked, as Michelangelo had, flat on his back, suspended on scaffolding, painting the stories of the Bible from the creation to the resurrection. But unlike Michelangelo, who was known for his muscular figures, Mr. Butcher peopled his chapel with his signature sprites. And he allowed himself some creative leeway. For his depiction of the first day of creation, from the Book of Genesis — the part where God said, 'Let there be light' — Mr. Butcher painted three angels armed with flashlights. For Day Four, when God made the heavens, Mr. Butcher painted an angelic basketball team he called the Shooting Stars...."
From "Sam Butcher, Who Gave the World Precious Moments, Dies at 85/His childlike porcelain characters thrilled and inspired generations of collectors. They also made him a millionaire" (NYT).
From "Sam Butcher, Who Gave the World Precious Moments, Dies at 85/His childlike porcelain characters thrilled and inspired generations of collectors. They also made him a millionaire" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
Not to be confused with Sam the Butcher, who also brought precious moments into our lives.
Great collection of tags you applied. WOW, what a monument… .
My grandmother (bless her soul) was a precious moments fanatic. She had an entire room of filled-to-the-brim display cases and was told when she passed that she also had the precious moments village...thing was worth $10,000 when she passed in the 90s. I can only imagine what it's worth now.
Tourists from Japan who stumble into this place will wonder:
This is nice, but where are the tentacles?
You may not care for it, but it certainly isn't "bad art".
What hath Disney wrought?
It's . . . it's . . . McKuen!
"You may not care for it, but it certainly isn't "bad art"."
1. My tag, my opinion
2. How can *you* be "certain" it's not bad? If it's all a matter of taste — who "cares" for what — then how can you announce that it's "not bad"? You're contradicting yourself.
3. Anyway... sorry... .but this is in the range that is, objectively, bad. Some things really are bad, and it's good to say so. It's campy and it reaches some people's sincere feelings about children and religion. That's all interesting, but as art, I don't know why anyone would withhold agreement that it's quite simply bad — really bad.
Give me those heirloom Hummels any day.
Althouse, I'd call it kitsch. The trouble with art labels these days is it's so manipulated and contrived what is celebrated and what is dismissed. I've been to art shows and much is objectively bad art but has a really clever pseudo-sophisticated card next to it providing pseudo-intellectual excuses for it. Butcher just appealed to an unfashionable audience with no accompanying claptrap. But grandmas like mine, many of whom had hard lives, loved it.
So it did for them what art claims to do, carrying emotional impact. But emotions of sentiment and joy not the celebrated deconstruction of bougie neo-conformists playing creatives.
But precious moments is (are?) bad art even still, just not worse than a lot of what museums and those currying favor with politicians these days promote. And I say this as someone who can successfully argue the worth of much modern art so am not against simply new forms.
I am curious how you would define good art in our era.
The shape of the chapel from the outside (which I think I recognize from some of the figurines) is lovely. The ceiling (in my opinion) could have done without the little angels flying about - they remind me of flies. The figures look better small rather than jumbo sized.
“some people’s sincere feelings about children and religion”
As a kid Disney’s It’s a Small World never impressed me. My mom loved it.
As a kid, attending mass in Catholic Churches, I loved all the depictions of the Holy Family. It was an after world of kind and caring adults. I don’t know if scenes of a bunch of little kids would have comforted me. In fact as a kid, I had no illusions how mean and cruel little kids could be. But as an adult, I look back at childhood differently. “Aww, they’re so sweet” says the adult. “Not bloody likely” thinks the kid.
"And he allowed himself some creative leeway."
"creative leeway" is doing some really heavy lifting when talking about angels playing basketball.
My daughter, growing up, was a big Precious Moments fan. I agree that it is kitschy but I also like it. I also think it is fine art.
Far superior to much of what passes for art, and what a commenter here characterized as "phart" (Phoney art)
John Henry
The key to what is considered good art these days is more the clever academicese writing that describes it not the skill or composition.
Butcher wasn't clever or cynical or conniving enough to write such descriptions but it wouldn't take much effort to write a page describing precious moments as good art using the fashionable intellectualized cues to shift it from kitsch to subversive commentary on infantalized romantic escapism.
Oy vey.
The apotheosis of schlock.
That's all interesting, but as art, I don't know why anyone would withhold agreement that it's quite simply bad — really bad.
I do. I withhold agreement that it is "simply bad - really bad" or anything less than good.
Art is supposed to make us think and feel, right? That is what the deep thinkers who claim the right to say what is good and bad tell us.
Precious Moments does that for tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of people. Including me. Most of those feelings are uplifting, optimistic, hopeful, loving, inspiring, charitable and more. Kind of the opposite of most of what we are told is "art"
How can that be anything other than good - really good?
How much pronounced "art" of the past 100-150 years does that? A lot, yes. But as a percentage of the dreck that sells as "art" or "great art" not very much.
John Henry
The 'Show Me' State ! 'Murica !
And that is not for a single moment being sarcastic or critical of anybody else's honestly-felt beliefs.
People like the devotees of 'Precious Moments' have put me and friends up for the night as complete strangers, in the middle of winter, in the middle of nowhere. Absolute bedrock people.
For me, it's cringe. I don't know if I admire or abhor him for using the Sistine Chapel as the basis for his lucrative and beloved industry.
Either way, may he RIP.
What John Henry said. And I'll add that I think in our era "uplifting, optimistic, hopeful, loving, inspiring, charitable and more" are considered unsophisticated emotions. Is there recognized "good art" out there that pursues these as emotional impact?
These certainly characterized much of art through the centuries.
Once we remove the insistance on artistic skill from the equation, which was done in the 20th century and continues, then the only justification for what is called good art or bad art is the privileging of one emotional perch over others. For no other reason than the human tendency to always privilege our own emotions and perspectives over others, which seems very reflective of the neocolonial impulse! My emotional needs good, yours bad.
And I think Michelangelo's work could be considered kitschy too. His comic book style characters and white-supremacy oriented idealism seem very dangerous to me, let alone his trying to evoke forms of Christian globalism and manipulated emotional excess.
But, it is Pride month...
Yeah, kitsch is best. I can't stand the stuff but then I've lived pretty much in the middle of it for it's entire existence. It's somewhat omnipresent.
Ann Althouse:
3. Anyway... sorry... .but this is in the range that is, objectively, bad. Some things really are bad, and it's good to say so. It's campy and it reaches some people's sincere feelings about children and religion. That's all interesting, but as art, I don't know why anyone would withhold agreement that it's quite simply bad — really bad.
Just to insert my 'judgements' on art, anything I can crank out in a short time frame for a given medium isn't art - it's more graphic design.
Paddy O:
And I think Michelangelo's work could be considered kitschy too. His comic book style characters and white-supremacy oriented idealism seem very dangerous to me, let alone his trying to evoke forms of Christian globalism and manipulated emotional excess.
Funny.
Darkisland:
Art is supposed to make us think and feel, right?
No.
That is what the deep thinkers who claim the right to say what is good and bad tell us.
I'm a 'deep thinker' and I say it isn't. Now what?
Those to whom you refer have vested interests in ginning up money transfers or promoting their 'expertise'.
I understand that some children with terminal diseases were taken to his chapel and found solace there. Can art that brings comfort to dying children properly be described as bad......Some art that is described as kitsch is, in reality, pro human propaganda.
In regards to your 3 points: I think art is a matter of talent, not taste. The man had a tremendous mount of talent to create what he did (not to mention drive and perseverance).You obviously are not "objective" because you don't like it. "Bad art" would be taping a banana to the wall in an "art" gallery.
William:
I understand that some children with terminal diseases were taken to his chapel and found solace there.
Same can be said of petting zoos.
Can art that brings comfort to dying children properly be described as bad.
In terms of art? Sure.
"kitsch" ... "pro human propaganda" Those are not mutually exclusive terms.
Just because there's a religious aspect to it doesn't mean it isn't bad. Look up "Ecce Homo" or Bartolomé Esteban Murillo's "Immaculate Conception" and tell me either restoration is good art.
Art is communication. There are 2 components to the communication of art: the creator of the art and the recipient (viewer, reader). The more sensitive, knowledgeable the recipient is, the more they can appreciate the work. When a child makes a crayon drawing, the parent (attuned to their child) appreciates that drawing as no other person can. Another example would be the back of a cereal box. The more knowledgeable the recipient is of the derivation of popular imagery, font history, the more they can read into the back of the cereal box and the graphic designer’s choices. On the other hand, an extremely sophisticated artist (Shakespeare) can reach over centuries and speak to even the less informed, knowledgeable recipients. Then there are artists who are particularly attuned to their own generation. Members of generations that come afterward, shake their heads and say that stuff is so dated. It doesn’t speak to us.
MOfarmer:
You obviously are not "objective" because you don't like it.
You realize that's not an "objective" statement because you cannot mind-read, right?
She may not like it because it's bad art. That entire franchise is cookie cutter in nature.
Don't think I say that because I'm an Althouse fanboi, she and I have had more than one contentious discussion about art in the past.
It just needs a few Kinkade cottages to make everyone vomit.
“ And I think Michelangelo's work could be considered kitschy too. …”
Now this is a matter of opinion that is fun to talk about. The badness of Precious Moments is not worth arguing about. But taking the position that the Sistine Chapel is bad is a great topic. I like it. The topic, I mean. I’ve been to the Sistine Chapel and I’m willing to argue that the portion of it called The Last Judgment is terrible. Not as terrible as the actual last judgment if that’s what it’s going to look like. That’s a shitshow.
Right on queue. :)
I'd say that in judging TLJ one should consider he did it on scaffolding, by candle light to be viewed by candlelight. I would love to see the Chapel lit as it was back then. Like some cave paintings, I'd warrant it would impart some 'life' to the painting.
He was a better sculptor.
I'm a huge fan of Michelangelo, but I find the Sistine Chapel both profound and cartoonish, yet I'm not supposed to say that last part out loud (except in the Renaissance definition of cartoon). I love the subtexts of it (his flayed skin, the condemned cardinal who offended him, etc.), but I'm honestly relieved that I'm not alone in critique, even if my comment was more tongue in cheek (humor opens the door to truth or something like that).
It's the kind of art that would be too garish for a Marvel comic let alone a worshipful chapel. Someone should put word balloons on it.
I honestly don't think it conveys the final judgment accurately either, which I think will be a lot less naked zaftig judgees in various stages of delight/panic and much more "ah, that makes sense" to it. But I do like that it shows the Jesus as Mighty view that is so often missing from our Jesus as nonjudgmental friend or Jesus as unyielding bureaucrat that seems to be the options in our artistic era.
"But I do like that it shows the Jesus as Mighty view that is so often missing from our Jesus as nonjudgmental friend or Jesus as unyielding bureaucrat that seems to be the options in our artistic era."
"Jesus as Mighty" is such a man-slab.
I take both sides on Mikelo.
Like I said, he was a sculptor, not a painter. To whit (from the link following):
The great man was by training a sculptor, and only reluctantly took on the task of decorating the Sistine Chapel when left no other option by Pope Julius II, for whom the artist had originally been engaged to sculpt his funerary monument.
Top that off with frescos are a nightmare. The comic bookish style is pretty much mandated by the medium as the fresh plaster sucks the paint up like a hoover. Tempera is a particularly non-blendy paint anyway.
I created a slide show for a friend of the steps of one of my paintings, an oil. Not the same medium but the process is almost the same.
Michelangelo had to accomplish the following stages in one day per area. Eliminate step 2 as that's an oil wash to lock in graphite, preventing permeation. You can also stop at step 6,6.5 as that's about as far as you'll get in a day because of the area (Creation of Adam is 9x18.5') and deadlines. Add detail next day? No. Tempera won't bond on painted fresco (article) so any detail past 6 is too bad, so sad (check scarf, 6->7) unless you sacrifice other areas. Minute detail? Not happening.
Imagine standing with your head back and arm up all day. Torture. He hated it enough to write a complaint poem.
Stopped by to see if responses & noticed the "steps" link didn't work. I was not logged into Amazon this time and apparently was before when I snatch the link.
This Flicker link should work.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा