What’s the point of skill and talent?
By: E.R. Flynn Comics, Art
Tags: The New Yorker, Artist Opinion, Illustration, Art Criticism, Art

Art, Illustration, Art Criticism

What’s the point of skill and talent?

Did you see the December 21st cover of The New Yorker? Usually the cover art for this magazine is an outstanding example of the best talent in the field of illustration.

However this cover isn’t one of those examples.

In my humble opinion, it’s one of the most poorly conceived and executed pieces of art to ever grace the cover of this fine publication.

Honestly, I’ve seen better work come from sixth grade art classes.

As an illustrator, I have to say that for The New Yorker editors to have chosen this piece of digital crapola as their cover it’s an affront to everything I’ve learned and struggled to attain over the 30 years spent trying to perfect my craft.

It’s an insult. It’s garbage.

It’s… It’s… by DAVID HOCKNEY?????

That’s the thing about this cover that’s extra galling.

Maybe if this cover was created by THE David Hockney and he painted something on par with his works from the 1970s I wouldn’t complain. But let’s be frank, this cover art is total shit.

Come on New Yorker, there are thousands of decent illustrators out there who could use the work, but instead you chose to run a quickly dashed off bunch of pixels made in what looks like MacPaint just because it has the name David Hockney attached to it?

This is a prime example of the kind of pretentious, effete snobbery of selection which has makes most people associate snooty publications, art galleries and art criticism with either suck-ups, con-men or gullible rich assholes. By promoting amateurish rubbish in any forum, be it on a magazine cover, a real world art gallery/museum, or on the internet, a huge disservice is done to the thousands of artists who’ve dedicated years to their talents. Furthermore it calls into question the credibility of the those who’ve selected to promote such work.

This of course brings me to my next point on the overall depreciation of art. Much like how we view fast food, art is now viewed the same way. The inundation of visual stimulus, thanks to all the ways the internet has worked its way into our eyeballs via apps, websites, etc. has led to art being seen as too easily made, to be quickly consumed and disposed of with barely a moment’s thought given to it.

Sure, it’s great that there are so many forums now where one can get their creativity out to the world, but on the flip side of that coin is the fact that this ubiquity of imagery has polluted the value of time and effort spent on art.

It used to be that truly great, innovative art could rise up out of the muck. But over time the muck of mediocrity has become a tsunami in which it’s impossibly difficult to even hope for a single gulp of air to breath life into your creativity. Between the collapse of printed publications, galleries and museums becoming even more cash driven and ridiculously selective, and the internet driving wages into the ground, it’s become pretty damn hard to earn a decent living as an artist.

The New Yorker’s choice of running the Hockney art (If you can call this scribble that.) rubs artists’ respective noses into that fact.

I could expend endless amount of hours writing about this topic but I’ll save my breath and simply suggest you read “The Death of the Artist” by William Deresiewicz. His book is a must read for any artist, photographer or musician. While it shows what a sorry state the world of creativity is in at the moment, on the plus side at least it does help one to cast a cold eye of clarity on how to possibly survive as an artist.

But damn, when I see one of the top publications in the country run a cover like this, it just sucks the wind out of my soul and makes me question why I’ve spent over half my life trying to create anything of aesthetic value. I’m sure every other artist who’s seen this cover likewise feels the same.