Marvel, Frank Miller, & Degenerate Art
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Thomas Valiant second chance is @
www.indiegogo....
A disgraced superhero brings together a new team in an attempt to reclaim the title of Hero.
“The Valiant Heroes” is available at www.indiegogo....
And the early-bird sign-up page for your Free poster with “CROM: The Destroyer” is at www.indiegogo....
CROM Promo Trailers are @
• CROM: The Destroyer - ...
• CROM: The Destroyer - ...
You can find me on Twitter @rjoftheisland
Thomas Valiant second chance is @
www.indiegogo.com/projects/thomas-valiant-second-chance--2#/
A disgraced superhero brings together a new team in an attempt to reclaim the title of Hero.
“The Valiant Heroes” is available at www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-valiant-heroes#/
And the early-bird sign-up page for your Free poster with “CROM: The Destroyer” is at www.indiegogo.com/projects/crom-the-destroyer/coming_soon/x/18949801
CROM Promo Trailers are @
ua-cam.com/video/nINChl1lv8g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bPtm0rGXhjE/v-deo.html
You can find me on Twitter @rjoftheisland
Boycott "universes" wherein the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn't one of the cast of characters, and banish all fans and tolerators and toleratrices thereof.
Listen to Prem Rawat!
I like your videos. You've given me a lot to think about. But, I'm still not convinced that deviancy is communist. It seems to me that communists very early on excised them from their movements, but they flourish in liberalists countries. Isn't this proof that it is much more liberalist? (not just liberal, but for conservatives now too)
@@trukeesey8715 You are clinically insane.
@@Arnaere Deviancy/degeneracy is a tool of socialism, used to destabilize a flourishing society to pave the way for the "revolution". As soon as they've served their purpose, they are lined against a wall and shot because we don't want our socialist totalitarian state to be destabilized, now do we?
This is why public school teachers are showing children pornography and doctors are chopping up children's genitals. The children are then damaged and will grow up pushing for a socialist state, just like the "normal" homosexuals before them who became said teachers.
Please too many horned fiends, and pagan cultures references. There is enough of that, there are enough serpent seekers. Read the Bible and come back to G-d or we are in the serpent spiral and going in circles.
You really have to read the book "Degeneration" by Max Nordau. One of the best books I've ever read. The book analyses the problemof degeneration not only in art but also in philosophy (the author regards Nietzsche as the most degenerate philosopher). I don't agree with its content 100% but the book is great nonetheless.
That's why many cultures have religions that have strong stances against Degeneracy. In fact, in the west the worst degenerate behaviors started in the 1960s thanks to the Hippies, Feminists and rainbow riders.
I've only ever thought of degeneracy from a moral standpoint, and never thought about hownit applies to art; thank you for teaching me something new, RJ.
Have a Triumphant week, and God Bless you all😇✝️
The moral aspect has been later defined in France based upon the addiction to alcohol and males of losing their ability to work and provide for the family. But it was used always in the meaning of deviation from the archetype or losing or diminishing its primary functionality.
I remember a certain austrian paintor warning us about this around 100 years ago.
@@bathyalgames I never knew that
@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 Name?
@@natoriousthehopeful2786 He is making a joke. The certain infamous painter was an aquarelist that started the WW2 and has the initials A. H. Google : "Entartete Kunst"
My wife wrote her undergrad thesis on truth and beauty, tracing the development of music with those of philosophy from the Middle Ages to the early 20th century. She’s come to the conclusion that the most beautiful music the west has produced was during the Renaissance. I should get her to listen to this since I’ve been taking her through my comicbooks.
Thank you for bringing up the function of art, which, from my experience talking about art on my channel, is a thing people hate. And on the word, normal, my music professors balked at any music having a mass appeal, even if it's good. They wanted to compose music that was appreciated by the select few...(more "sophisticated" that way).
Thanks SG. And Thanks again for the information.
And I bet they scream at the idea that someone could be "excluded," despite the fact they wish to exclude others by crafting music that only appeals to their select group.
@@BladeOfLight16 That's the exact same thing the alphabet mafia is doing to mainstream Western comics: they are writing stories only they want to read, while decrying exclusivity. They want to tear down every wall, except the ones around their house.
@@BladeOfLight16 You're not wrong there!
Last time I saw Miller’s artwork, it was part of a 300 tie-in Xerxes comic (2018 maybe). It was highly stylized, I didn’t particularly like it, but it seemed to fit the story. It reminded me of primitive art you might see on ancient pottery, if that makes sense.
I find Miller’s art frustrating, not only because it’s occasionally so muddy you struggle to tell what’s going on, but it’s also sometimes an example of my favourite form of art: hatch-less chiaroscuro.
This is the art form that got me into comics after Asterix from reading 2000AD compilations in the library. Unfortunately, Miller is wilfully loose to the point where it no longer exaggerates motion but just looks sloppy.
Maybe there’s a magic to it I’m just not seeing, perhaps you had to be there at the time, but it usually looks like early 2000AD art by one of the mid tier artists but ink leaked on the prog in someone’s bag, to me at least.
Simplistic and abstract art often looks better. The recent Miller covers would look great if he just made them black and white. It's clear he just wants to draw in Sin City style, so he should just stick to that convention.
To me, it looks like a quick-and-dirty napkin-sketch that he knew no one would call him out on no matter how bad a job he did. I call this the: "George Lucas Prequel Effect" where during the original trilogy there was a team of people who had no problem telling George "knock it off!" with some of his dumber ideas which made the movies magical, but with the prequels everyone was too busy kissing his ass to tell him how his dumb ideas were dumb, which made the movies considerably less magical ...and then there's the Disney trash which were just whatever.
Professional critique is a necessary "sanity check."
They do look better in black and white.
Lines = Logic/Truth
Angles = Emotions/My Truth (or Symbolic if one wants to be generous)
It saddens me that Frank Miller has fallen so far from what made him great.
And it makes me dread what others like Strazinky who wrote civil war for Marvel Comics and created Babylon 5 has in store for its planned reboot. The Globalist Left Woketard propaganda virus has infected many of them.
Miller has always been like this. You can't read through the whole TDKR without noticing the arts keeping on degrading more and more after each books. And don't get me started on TDKSA.
In my honest opinion whatever was great in Frank Miller was drowned in a vat of Maryland Rye Whiskey sometime in the early 90's. That said I would have his work now over 99% of what is being put out by mainstream comic creators now.
Frank Miller’s line work has gotten worse lately.
His stories have become more grim and violent.
It's pure Gnosticism! "There was a formless utopia where every desire was naturally filled according to people's desires by their innate divinity! But a small cabal created the world with its forms and systems! The others entered the world, subjected to the systems and forms, forgot their divinity, and became trapped! But a few of us have overcome this, and are trying to free ourselves and everyone else by destroying the systems and forms so that everyone can be free of objective reality again!"
Progressives are a materialist movement who metaphorically believe that they can build a Tower of Babel through science to reach an evolved or Godly state of humanity. That's the opposite of Gnosticism. Gnostics are anti-materialist & focus on the development of the 7 Armors of God, which is what Gnosis is. The most known Gnostic was Hitler which is not a good association but I'm pointing out how Traditionalist Gnosticism is. The concept of an Aryan Uber race came from gnosticism via Hitler's interpretation of Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine. Modern Gnostics would be Alex Jones kooks who's site used to be called Prison Planet. That's so on the nose that I don't understand why more people don't piece it together. A shallow comprehension of Gnosticsm can be used as an overlay to visually represent post modernism but it doesn't make them related or similar.
It's as if every Internet Right winger conflates Gnosticism with Kabbalah, a Jewish Hermeticism which is not the same a s actual Hermeticism similar to how Jujitsu & Brazilian Jujitsu are completely different martial art disciplines that began with similar Japanese roots. Gnosticsm ever since its inception was anti-Jewish. That's why it' a heresy. Yes there are some modern Gnostic interpretations which ignore the YHWH question all together but how is that any different from modern Christian faiths that claim Jesus is Black & LGBT? That doesn't automatically make Christianity useless.
These are just Atheist postmodern subversives rewriting tradition but Rightwingers call them stupid superficial labels such as Gnostic or Marxist, which makes all of us look retarded because that's not what they are at all. Words have meaning. A Bicyclist isn't driving a car just because they both have wheels.
Seriously, I thought it was the toll of Frank Miller’s alcoholism was what we were looking at.
It is
If I might bring in science fiction to the discussion, it's precisely how the people and situations reflect reality that makes for a good sci/fi story. If the people and situations in the story are as farfetched and unrelatable as the setting (future, space, different planet, etc.), no one will read it.
I'm typically in agreement with most of your assessments. But the fact is, this is "degenerative art" in that FMs ability to draw has degenerated as he has aged.
ie
He can't draw good no more.
@@Herb_Ush sure
This is so spot on, something I have been on as a video game designer for years, now a writer. The interesting question to ask is; How is it that an idea in immutable but human nature is pliable? Does not this idea actually change over time to be the most effective form of imposition of control (in the 70's, it was the new Ice Age coming, then it was Global Warming, now it is Climate Change for example)? Has not human nature been the imputable factor, so much so that stories, plays from a thousand years ago still ring true, that the aspects of Greek gods still accurately represent human proclivities and conditions?
In short; This is all a system of control with a thousand names imposed on the immutable human spirt, which will always exist despite their best efforts because the most basic fact is they must have a person agree that red is blue to succeed, and red is red. The amount of control and enslavement and policing in order to force everyone to say red is blue is an ever present threat to humanity, but also it's its weakness. It's so fragile one man or woman, brave enough to speak, and lucky enough to survive long enough to be heard, can bring it all down.
I'm sure you could argue any of this points, but I hope this expresses something of what I feel, and it is the underlying subject of a novel I just finished my first draft of. Thanks for this excellent break down.
highly articulated action figures with good proportions work well for rotoscoping images.
To illiteratly merge two idioms (i think that's what they were called) "one man's utopia is another man's dystopia"
Cute, but I would argue that, like art, utopia & dystopia are objective, that we can sketch in outline form what each would look like and most people would arrive at similar descriptions.
Well this does explain the difference between Manga and comics art. One is based around realism and the other is more exaggerated.
I would say they exploit flaws in the human mind to harvest dopamine in a way that is too explotative. The cute factor they go the cutest, sex appeal they go as far as they can, following excess a highschool student at the time. Is it so hard to be more human outside a school.
Millers ability to draw has gone. I could do better than this. The Thing only has 3 fingers also but who's counting. Edit - obviously not Frank
Kirby’s art had deteriorated by the 80s. Kirby had been a professional illustrator for 50 years by that point, and the art was instantly recognizable as Kirby, just not his best work.
I don’t think this is the same thing, Miller is just doing whatever he wants with a “take it or leave it” attitude IMO. I say leave it.
Kirby’s art was still great in the 80s wtf are you taking about hunger dogs still looked good.
@12:43 One caveat and I say this as a chemist/engineer is that the modern sciences, so we're talking like the sciences that came from the mid to late 1700s to now, were originally based on terra firma. The lefties in those days believed you'd prove their world view through the sciences and God would be completely washed away, hence fast forward to Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. If you've kept up with the sciences in the past twenty years we're seeing the opposite problems:
Geology was never able to back up it's claims on the age of the Earth, in fact the guess came before radioactive carbon dating and we set the machines to the guess
Paleontology was never able to prove evolution, leading to punctuated equilibrium (basically a fast change in crisis situations with little to no change most of the time) and Biochemistry and Genetics have shredded the entire concept of how evolution could even occur without causing cancers, abnormalities, or sterility.
Physics has said short of moving through other dimensions space travel is basically impossible beyond short treks to nearby planets
Astronomy has never been able to find any other life intelligent or not (and it's not for lack of looking or funding)
Chemistry was not able to back up the primodial goo or abiogenesis origin of life, destroyed the theory of half lives of atoms being set in stone, and proven fossils are made up mostly of their original components insofar as dinosaur bones allegedly millions of years old are not mostly rock but are the bone AND they still have soft tissue in them.
Biology has basically covered it's eyes on everything and still says nonsense proving beyond DaVinci or the original naturalists that Biology was always just a political mouthpiece. You'd think Richard Dawkins would be fighting the alphabet crowd over gender and instead he's part in parcel with them.
Long story short the modern "Yay science" scientists and liberals you run into are proving that even back in the enlightenment the theories mattered far more than the evidence. They wanted there to be no god, no meaning to existence, and basically move to some sort of Star Trek. Well now that's not true so now it's time to destroy their own creation. It was never an objective search for truth.
Basically unless it's science in a terra firma provable way you need to keep your guard up around it the same as making major life changing decisions based on the advice given from a Psychic.
Miller’s art has detoriated a LOT, I agree! The last good thing that he did was the first Sin City movie .
It seems to me that beauty must be subjective to function. As things that are of the same nature, say two women who both conform equally to the nature that is female are not considered equally beautiful. We don't say that brunettes conform better to the female nature than blonds nor do we say that blonds and brunettes are of a different nature.
Just watched space Jam 2
The art was worse then space jam 1
8:52 -- The only thing that cover demonstrates is ugliness. Miller's work has changed a great deal from the time of the Daredevil covers of 5:47 & 6:15 -- and not for the better.
8:52 shows *Wolverine* That character is *supposed* to look animalistic, not like some idealized human. He's not Superman.
@@deborahcapuano1223 You have a point. However, I don't think I've ever seen an animal that ugly (other than the time I tuned in to coverage of a "pride" festival by mistake).
At first I thought it was some pre-TMNT Peter Laird Wolverine-fanart made in the early 80's.
Miller got PAID money for this?
I'm actually currently reading the DareDevil run that you are taking a lot of that background art from. Pretty good, for the most part. However, I see no reason to look at any modern Marvel art, by Frank Miller or anyone else. So it can be terrible without bothering me too much...
Dove?
Agreed
The Dove woman I keep seeing in connection to that ad campaign looks like she smells bad. Is that what a soap company should be selling?
@@chrisw6164 I presume you are talking about the little collab they're doing with the unreal engine company about obese women and games?
@@chrisw6164 Because unilever owns both dove and ben&jerry. They do that to sell both soap and ice cream to fat women. It was never about muh equality or muh body positivity.
Thank you so much
While I despise Miller and his work, it still is miles better than AI work
No. AI can be trained with true master work and then AI will reproduce the learned patterns. I can make a video about this if you want and show you how AI can produce great work.
This oughtta solve your problems gentlemen:
ua-cam.com/video/QtxW39OQbbc/v-deo.html
@@bathyalgames The problem with judging the quality of AI art is that the modern artists AI is competing against are really, really, super-mediocre, as they got their jobs not though experience, talent, nor skill, but instead by having the right politics and kissing the right asses on twitter.
These no-talent hacks SHOULD BE rightfully terrified of being replaced by AI.
@@Theranthrope Agree. But i have to point out that art and artists are in decline since before the age of internet.And this replacement by the AI can be beneficial for the art itself. Because if we get rid of this hacks then perhaps people with real skills can still survive this purge and shine.
I'm currently installing into the Stable Diffusion the Safetensors (LORA learning) made upon Gustave Dore's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. The good thing is that AI still needs a human supervision, by someone who understand the art.
It is clear when someone wants to be validated for simply existing and provide nothing of no value, i see know why comic creators despite Stan Lee so much he was all of what they tried to be, didn't write, didn't draw just signed the comics and got all the recognition.
This prestige, glory seeking is just a plague to the level that they even know that you have to become a sellout hop in into a trend and do what their vice would let them.
I like that you sell your own stuff. It doesn't seem like a commercial distraction; it seems like a logical consequence. You say that this is degenerate and here's why. You should be willing to say, this is the true standard, and you do.
Frank Miller's big works always looked like shit you can't tell me the Dark Knight Returns is a good looking Batman.
When an artist gets older and his work gets worse, that can be degeneracy or just physical decline. Late Frazetta was still great, but compared to his earlier work his drawings were a bit softer and to most people's taste not quite as good. Zero degeneracy had entered Frank Frazetta's mind; he just had severe health problems, and he was drawing the best he could with his wrong hand. That's a reason to hesitate to condemn older artists who are not doing their best work.
Does beauty exist? Sure.
Are standards of beauty static? No, and they never have been. I get the appeal of argument from archetype, but there is just too much variation across time and culture for there to be a single standard. At the very least considerations of intended use and novelty are going to be involved in the calculation, and those will never yield a consistent answer.
This is profound and well stated.
Bros literally just using Nazi rhetoric for 40 minutes. I’m not even being hyperbolic you’re just describing nazi art theory and using their language. The ones who coined “degenerate art.”
So I take it that’s a “no” to subscribing? LOL!
@@RJStheFourthAge you’re probably the most thinly veiled political and moral fascist I’ve seen on this site. Everything’s dripping in dogwhistles. I’m almost tempted to even ask if your channel name is suppose to be an allusion to the Fourth Reich?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a fascist. I’m on the political right, not the left.
@@RJStheFourthAge YUK YUK! BA-DUM TSSS! GOT EM!!! Ignores accusations and disregards points, just goes “nuh uh no u!” What next you gonna preach about “cUlTuRaL mArXiSm!”
Thanks for the comments. It seems we’ve both gotten a good laugh out if it. (PS. I don’t care about "accusations." If you want a discussion, try presenting an Argument.)
...Lucasfilm...?
Interesting essay and agree with most of what you said, especially about "degenerate art", but deductive or Aristotelian logic is a weaker tool for uncovering "reality". Inductive reasoning is actually much more powerful and the basis of the scientific method. If we stuck with Aristotle, we would still be stuck in the Stoned Age. For instance, Newton used inductive reasoning for his Laws of Motion and of Universal Gravity. Anything "proven" with inductive reasoning can be rationalized with deductive logic which is what he did in his seminal work, the Principia. This is the basis for many mathematical proofs as well and its based more on intuition than deductive, Aristotelian logic. Now, I love deductive, Aristotelian logic and if you read Aquinas' *Summa Theologica* you understand how powerful and at the same time how weak deductive logic can be. It's a magisterial work. Amazing and I love reading it as one of the pinnacles of Aristotelian logic.
If you believe in forms as promulgated by Plato and the Neo-Platonists, then you will understand that we don't see "reality" and we see only "shadows" as stated in Plato's allegory of the cave. In fact, science proves that we don't see reality as it actually is. It's a very much a construct and seen through the perceptual mechanisms of our brain. We can't even access the raw sensory data of our eyes as it is immediately processed. This is why optical illusions can fool us as our brains take many shortcuts to create "reality". Our brains create edges or lines which are high contrast edges which don't exist in "reality", but our brains needed to see lions and hyenas and other apex predators and creating edges or lines was a way to survive even if it doesn't exist in reality.
Very interesting. Asking as a complete neophyte, isn't inductive reasoning basically just guessing? I realize the third step is verification, but it seems like a completely haphazard way of doing science.
Art is functionless. Art is for aesthetics, beauty, entertainment... to elicit an emotion or provoke thoughtfulness. Craft is the creation of something functional. Ship building is a craft.
Inaccurate based on both the terms being proposed here and this used within the artistic community.
There is a reason why “fine” artists use “you have excellent craft” as an insult.
You need to redefine terms if you want to make this argument, I’d be interested to see if you can.
@@anti-wokewarrior1474 I don’t actually need to refute your claim, it is self contradictory: having a statement of the purpose/function of art immediately after the statement “art is functionless” is self negating.
“Craft”, as opposed to your second use of “a craft” also has a separate meaning (skill/excellence or a level thereof) in normal English, so that is also a confusion in the statement.
Finally, you have an incomplete definition, because a well executed anything can elicit aesthetic considerations regardless of whether it can perform a function or is highly ornate, so you’ve not actually closed either category. Does that mean storytelling is an art but not a craft in your definition?
I don’t use “art” to mean anything like what RJ does in general conversation either, but I don’t think that invalidates an argument made with terms defined at the off.
I have no intention of sounding patronising, but I’m genuinely interested to see you lay this out and to see precisely what you are thinking and arguing.
@@anti-wokewarrior1474 Come now, I’d hardly call “using a word with only one common definition to mean that definition” a problem on my part. You’re welcome to find another word. Does that mean then that most historical object d’art, are not in fact art, because they served secondary purposes (urns, tapestries, essentially anything made of textiles) I’m guessing so, given your boat example. Interesting. Is this defined by authorial intent or the end user?
How did you arrive at that definition of “craft”?
I don't think that line is as clear cut as you imply. Building a ship can very well be a work of art, and plenty of art goes into useful things. Example: why is there a recognizable pattern in toilet paper? Why would something as purely functional as toilet paper need art? Aesthetic pleasure, obviously.
@@anti-wokewarrior1474 That is essentially a messy version of the “vision/skill” dichotomy that every art school seems to have settled on in the last few decades. Craft is the skill and ability to actualise something described to you, art being the vision that you ask of your craft. People will pay for your craft/skill because they want a particular vision of something made real
After learning post-structuralism (which did things like including explanations and effing books required to explain what the artist was (presumably) failing to express with the visual component) at school and the general horsepoop of the art criticism world that stems from it (where the critic is essentially adding an author statement based on every other piece of art they’ve ever seen, picking and choosing what to consider therein and judging the art post-Structurally based on that) that I’m sure you did too, I managed to claw together this working definition:
“A craft is any practiced skill that transforms potential from one state to another; treening turns wood into kitchen items, painting turns pigments into a covered something, storytelling turns ideas into something understandable to others etc”
“Art is any piece of craft that expresses a perception of reality or understanding of something.” Essentially an artist would be a craftsman with something he needs to communicate and he would put that hat on and off based on what he’s working on.
Pretty wild and woolly but it’s similar to yours and I’m happy to fine tune the details.
RJ is proposing the older version. In the medieval period, a craftsman could do as he was told, while an artisan could design something to fit your purposes. Hell, RJ is harkening back to when poet meant something like “one who assembles the parts.” A related word, Arete means something like excellence and here art is used to mean the process whereby your perceptions are moved into the real world, either by creating an object representing reality (as you perceive it) or by envisioning a new part of reality and executing it. Perhaps shipwright and shipyard employee are the separation between artist and craftsman there.
But wait!
That’s actually how my suggestion shakes out as well, for in designing the boat, the shipwright has portrayed a view of reality, admittedly the banal one of “this boat will float well.”
Also, most people won’t hire you as an artist because they need someone who can express _their_ thoughts into the world, so they have to ask you to serve as the craft for their art, though Im sure you’re, intentionally or not, slipping some bits of your art in there regardless.
Mega-based
Hey, RJ.
Hey. Thanks for the comment.
Communists and Socialists (also the National Socialists) didn't like degenerate/modern Art at all. From this historical perspective, I can't see the link between Progressivism (with a goal to become an utopian Society) and this Art style.
For me, all these modernistic Art is a try in differenciation by the Artist to become it's own brand and on the reception site it is a try not to be the "Dummy" that cannot understand modern Art. This is the reason why all the modern Art occured only in 19th Century, when Artists had to sell their Artworkes on a free market to a customer base they had to build by their own.
Regarding Frank Miller and Co.. These Artists are riding a horse that was already saddled up in early 20th Century. It's nothing new or any original. Finally, it is all a question of personal preferences.
Wasn't the nihilistic Dadaist art movement communist?
@@mc2studios102 No, the DaDaists might have had sympathized with Communism because it was a kind of a Zeitgeist. But they were not Communists and mostly not even really political.
You're not wrong, but all of the modernists were in fact leftists, and the conservatives didn't like and still don't like abstract art. So to the extent that modern comics lean more towards abstraction and away from realism, they lean leftward as well.
I bet you despise Jack Kirby
spoken like Adolf Hitler.
for gods sake!! one came here expecting to watch and listen about comics and the results is a 40 minutes monologue from and amateur philosopher about forms, estetic, etc... what a waste of my precious time.
Philosophy's too muddy. Turgid through and through.
So mainstream art is in the state of degeneracy, right? Would regeneration be possible? And by regeneration I mean: not to trash, forget or destroy those "progressive" stories and characters, but take them and redeem them. Refurbish them to bring good and beauty into this art. Would it be something that could revitalize Marvel?
Boycott "universes" wherein the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn't one of the cast of characters, and banish all fans and tolerators and toleratrices thereof.
Listen to Prem Rawat!
Really beauty is objective? Then what about the phrase “beauty in the eye of the beholder”. Where does that fracture in?
Composition and craft is objective.
Value and Validation are subjective.
The invention of the porcelain toilet was art because of craft and latter gained a independent value.
Submitting a urinal to a gallery for a laugh is subjective because the guy is trying to stand out against his peers and only holds value because of its context rather than its craft.
@@r.connor9280 I see. Thank you for brooding my horizon on this matter
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is for the most part a platitude at best, and at worst it's part of the subversion of art, beauty and wholesomeness that has been pushed upon the world. The glorification of ugliness, not just in appearance but in behavior. Beauty can be mathematically shown. There are forms, shapes, even human appearances that resonate with nearly all of humanity. The fact that so much of modern society is focused on unlearning these fundamental concepts is indicative of how far things have gotten.
It is a bit of a complex topic. There are certain patterns that we call beautiful. Fibonacci Numbers are beautiful. You may ask your self now: What ?!?
There are two parts to this: objective composition / beauty and subjective perception.
But before i would go down this topic to explain this topic of objective beauty you must first look up golden ratio or golden angle.
So if you want to know more, then do your homework first and then ask me further.
Art (and beauty) is objective. Your experience of that art is what is subjective.
How can you use the phrase "Degenerate Art" without acknowledging it's origin? Degenerate art (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe modern art.
The word degenerate existed for centuries before that. Heck, even your example shows that the Germans didn't use that word, because they had German words in their German language.
And on that, they were correct. Modern art was and still is degenerate. There's no other term to properly describe painting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, or shoving your butt/vagina full of paint bombs and plopping them onto a canvas, or even more benign cases like nailing a banana to a wall.
They were completely wrong on economic issues (as Nazis are a subtype of socialist and _always_ wrong on economy) and numerous other things, but saying "Nazis used this term, therefore it's bad and you're bad for also using it" misses the point by a country mile, possibly intentionally. Nazis also liked chocolate and dogs, and I wouldn't call all dog owners dangerous potential Nazis (even if Nazis weren't objectively a less bad strain of socialism than the Russian and Chinese parties).
Frank Miller's art was always not as good as his writing. But I must say, when compared to how he used to illustrate his comic books back in the 1980s and 1990s, he has really lost his touch. He already didn't have much to begin with, but over the last two decades, he has gotten way worse. You can see that he is a much better writer than he is an artist. He has gotten very rusty in his coloring, inking and penciling. I noticed it back when he had made the comic book Holy Terror. Not only was that story not written very well, it was also drawn in an amateurish kind of way that truly showed how out of his damned mind that he was at that time. Granted, he was drunk on hard liquor and high on cocaine, and paranoid because of 9/11, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that he was just showing a kneejerk reaction to his Islamophobia in comic book form, which still looked like absolute crap.
But now, he is probably more than likely just a bitter old man who has just given up and only does whatever he can to continue his career by trying to remain relevant. Part of that is being a sellout. He was proven to be a sellout when he wrote and illustrated Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again 15 years after the graphic novel Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was first published, which was obviously just a soulless, corporate cash grab. He has been doing nothing but shameless gimmicks that capitalize on his name and reputation just like that ever since. His art now is simply an extension of his degenerated state of absolute apathy.