Comments on: Peter Max http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:04:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: sara http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149928 sara Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:57:47 +0000 http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149928 Ok, so I was a Monkees fan too. I guess reading the book about Max (The Art of Peter Max, you mentioned) took him up a notch in my estimation. As you said, Charley, there is something about the blended whole of his work that pleases me and a few pieces of his early work--the ones with the monks--have a sophisticated simplicity that I find especially appealing. Ok, so I was a Monkees fan too. I guess reading the book about Max (The Art of Peter Max, you mentioned) took him up a notch in my estimation. As you said, Charley, there is something about the blended whole of his work that pleases me and a few pieces of his early work–the ones with the monks–have a sophisticated simplicity that I find especially appealing.

]]> By: Charley Parker http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149865 Charley Parker Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:29:20 +0000 http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149865 The Madonna of pop art, eh, Daniel? I agree that much of is is formulaic, and he really cranked it out to make money,and stopped at nothing to find news ways to sell it; but in some of his better pieces he managed to distill that Edleman/Griffin op art psychedelic buzz, and some kind of art deco design sense that they often didn't have, into a blended whole that worked. Not often, but enough to please the designer, artist, cartoonist (and countercultural freakazoid) in me. But I do very much prefer the more original progenetors of that style that I mentioned in the article. Max was the Monkees to their Beatles, but even the Monkees had talent (at least one of them.) The Madonna of pop art, eh, Daniel?

I agree that much of is is formulaic, and he really cranked it out to make money,and stopped at nothing to find news ways to sell it; but in some of his better pieces he managed to distill that Edleman/Griffin op art psychedelic buzz, and some kind of art deco design sense that they often didn’t have, into a blended whole that worked. Not often, but enough to please the designer, artist, cartoonist (and countercultural freakazoid) in me. But I do very much prefer the more original progenetors of that style that I mentioned in the article. Max was the Monkees to their Beatles, but even the Monkees had talent (at least one of them.)

]]> By: Dan van Benthuysen http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149434 Dan van Benthuysen Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:37:41 +0000 http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-149434 I beg to differ. I find his art numbingly formulaic -- and not from formulas he did much to create, synthesize or refine. I think (as I did 40 years ago) it's as hard to admire Peter Max's minute amount of talent and skill spread so amazingly thin as it is equally difficult to ignore his prodigious, relentless self-promotion and marketing. That, at least, one has to respect. I beg to differ. I find his art numbingly formulaic — and not from formulas he did much to create, synthesize or refine.

I think (as I did 40 years ago) it’s as hard to admire Peter Max’s minute amount of talent and skill spread so amazingly thin as it is equally difficult to ignore his prodigious, relentless self-promotion and marketing.

That, at least, one has to respect.

]]> By: sara http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-148799 sara Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:15:22 +0000 http://www.linesandcolors.com/2007/09/10/peter-max/#comment-148799 Thanks for this article. I've always liked Max's work and never could understand why it was sneered at in some circles while Warhol's soup cans and Lichtenstein's comic books were considered "fine art". I remain convinced that commercial success is synonymous with not being taken seriously in some sectors of the art world. Anyway, Peter Max manages to capture a cheerful and yet thoughtful aesthetic in his work. Looking forward to the future articles on those "pioneers" of this style. Thanks for this article. I’ve always liked Max’s work and never could understand why it was sneered at in some circles while Warhol’s soup cans and Lichtenstein’s comic books were considered “fine art”. I remain convinced that commercial success is synonymous with not being taken seriously in some sectors of the art world. Anyway, Peter Max manages to capture a cheerful and yet thoughtful aesthetic in his work. Looking forward to the future articles on those “pioneers” of this style.

]]>