Can we be classified as contemporary art collectors?

[worstgamerever]

I know the contemporary art form has changed over time and while it is used to defined any post WWII art, there's so much stuff that falls into that category that its now all very blurred.

Take this our hobby for example, would you classify this art form as contemporary art? And if not what category of art would you say it falls under?

Would love to know everyone's thoughts as I'm writing a paper with a similar theme at university and was just wondering if this hobby falls into that category

 

[rushmore223]

Nope, still "toy collectors", regardless of how you wish to put it.

There can be alot of effort put into a sculpt, but in the end they are really just playthings, even if we don't play with them.

 

[Balsquat]

Post-modern art collectors has a nice ring to it.

 

[LordAzrael]

I certainly consider it art

 

[worstgamerever]

Nope, still "toy collectors", regardless of how you wish to put it.

There can be alot of effort put into a sculpt, but in the end they are really just playthings, even if we don't play with them.

Play things? I'd hate to think the vast majority of us spend our hard-earned money on just play things and I'm not really sure the Hulk, Doom and the other PFs can be classed as playthings. I might be wrong

Does this mean this isn't art? because I think it is... the question is what kind of art is it? It's certainly not modern art as that's pre-WWII. Contemporary includes everything thats been made from that era till date. But there's no real convention for what's classed as contemporary art, which is why I asked the question here...

 

[LycosV]

As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and art is much the same way. If I throw paint at a canvas it's a mess; if an artist throws paint at a canvas it's art, showing raw emotion.
I would argue that since the handpainting that goes into the figures is detailed enough that it qualifies as art as it must've been performed by an artist. If I did the painting, it would just be a toy.

 

[mike14]

I'd say that it's not art collecting, because to me art implies something original and unique. If you have 1000 of the same thing them it doesn't qualify (again that's just my opinion), but to simply call it 'toy collecting' is over simplifying it. Especially when I compare what's on my shelves to what my kid plays with.

 

[ebor]

only those with custom sculpts, repaints should be considered "ART"

everything else is mass produced, IMHO

 

[Mr. Green]

Everything is art. Everything from toys to polystone statue to natural. Heck, even fake art is arts in one form or another since there's an art to faking. Some creatures fake death to avoid being a live prey.
Now post-modern is not contemporary. I took alot of art history, history of architecture, and history in general, and I can tell you modern age isn't so modern anymore. Even post-modern isn't so modern. Contemporary art is known as the now art. And now, we have a huge collection that's hard to classify. It can be retro, art-deco, modernism(less is more or whatever), stylized, abstract, environmental/natural/environmentally friendly, ergonomics, healthy(lead fee, etc), technological, etc.

But to really answer your question: I would say that this is a form of "Contemporary art collectors that falls in the comics genre and/or movie genre(both are likely a sub genre of pop-culture)" You strip the comics out of these items and you don't have much. Even movie related items have some comics background. Not all originated from comics and/or movie of course.

 

[Mesa]

More Pop Culture art than contemporary art

 

[rushmore223]

Everything is art. Everything from toys to polystone statue to natural. Heck, even fake art is arts in one form or another since there's an art to faking. Some creatures fake death to avoid being a live prey.
Now post-modern is not contemporary. I took alot of art history, history of architecture, and history in general, and I can tell you modern age isn't so modern anymore. Even post-modern isn't so modern. Contemporary art is known as the now art. And now, we have a huge collection that's hard to classify. It can be retro, art-deco, modernism(less is more or whatever), stylized, abstract, environmental/natural/environmentally friendly, ergonomics, healthy(lead fee, etc), technological, etc.

But to really answer your question: I would say that this is a form of "Contemporary art collectors that falls in the comics genre and/or movie genre(both are likely a sub genre of pop-culture)" You strip the comics out of these items and you don't have much. Even movie related items have some comics background. Not all originated from comics and/or movie of course.

Not an arguement, but by that definition, anybody that collects just about anything is an art collector.

As another poster said, it's hard really to consider something mass produced art or something that is not original and meant as a reproduction of something else i.e. Iron Man, Predator, or for that matter, a still life bowl of fruit, art.

I might be willing to argue that if you had the original sculpt, you might be able to consider that a piece of art. More appropriately, Pop Art.

I collect Movie Posters, to many they are just expensive pieces of paper, but to me they are POP art as well. But when asked what my hobbies are, I don't say I am an art collector, as that would seem like I am merely trying to add some sort of verbal gravity to my chosen hobby.

The price of something does not make it "not a toy", nor does it preclude it from being a knick knack on someones shelf. If I somehow managed to buy a Picasso for $1, would that make it not a painting or a work of art from one of the masters? No. Price is arbitrary in classification.

If you wish to consider these things you buy (mass produced no less) art, so be it, eye of the beholder and such. But calling yourself an Art collector is a little disingenuous, no offense.

Whether it is art or Toys, your hobby is your hobby, and you shouldn't feel the need to elevate it to others. It is what it is.

EDIT ~ Forgive me if I am all over the place on this one, I am responding to several posts without actually quoting them all, too lazy

 

[quadcent]

where's enigma?? i'm sure he'll have some worth while comments

 

[Mr. Green]

Not an arguement, but by that definition, anybody that collects just about anything is an art collector.

As another poster said, it's hard really to consider something mass produced art or something that is not original and meant as a reproduction of something else i.e. Iron Man, Predator, or for that matter, a still life bowl of fruit, art.

I might be willing to argue that if you had the original sculpt, you might be able to consider that a piece of art. More appropriately, Pop Art.

I collect Movie Posters, to many they are just expensive pieces of paper, but to me they are POP art as well. But when asked what my hobbies are, I don't say I am an art collector, as that would seem like I am merely trying to add some sort of verbal gravity to my chosen hobby.

The price of something does not make it "not a toy", nor does it preclude it from being a knick knack on someones shelf. If I somehow managed to buy a Picasso for $1, would that make it not a painting or a work of art from one of the masters? No. Price is arbitrary in classification.

If you wish to consider these things you buy (mass produced no less) art, so be it, eye of the beholder and such. But calling yourself an Art collector is a little disingenuous, no offense.

Whether it is art or Toys, your hobby is your hobby, and you shouldn't feel the need to elevate it to others. It is what it is.

EDIT ~ Forgive me if I am all over the place on this one, I am responding to several posts without actually quoting them all, too lazy

I am defining art in general and then categorizing it a bit. Originality is another issue. Ford perfected the art of assembly and mass produced his cars in his times. The few that survived are now in museum as art. Mostly in museum I should hope. And mass production is one characteristic of Pop Culture. Andy Warhol shows repetition of his Campbell soup cans, various Marilyn Monrole, etc on his painting. Tons of artist produced repetition of signed edition of their art. Its the norm now as very very few can afford original Picaso, Monet, etc. LOL, its the mass produced, hamburgers n french fries for example, without edition are what we really should be worried about.
Of course, we can categorize/subcategorize/recategorize all we want....in the end, what's important is what we like.

 

[Mr. Green]

where's enigma?? i'm sure he'll have some worth while comments

Yea, where is that guy anyway? LOL

And where is Da Ski? He probably got some Picaso and dwarf giraffe in his closet!

 

[sparkstron73]

I like the term "High end Adult collectables" as taken from the les walker article shown here
https://sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49632&page=172

I agree the mass produced figures would probabley better fit the pop culture art/collectables label, but all the custom figures and sculpts on here, are definately art in their own right for me.

I am not into "art", have not studied and am maybe ignorant to what is art, in the traditional sense, but know what I like.

As said before, beauty is the eye of the beholder and so is art and everyone 's opion is different and valid I think.
Good luck with the paper.

 

[divo]

This art form should be labeled as 'Contemporary Fantasy Art', & in fact has already been recognized as such. If anyone is familiar with the excellent book series 'Spectrum, The Best in Contemporary Fantasy Art', by Kathy Fenner, which showcases a wide variety of fantasy art styles, & mediums, & is published annually. They often showcase comic art in many forms, & I believe that Martin Canale (Gore Group) has already graced it's pages, along with many others. Truly a remarkable book series, which I would recommend to all, including all comic freaks. I believe this series of publications are now into their 17th year!

 

[King Darkness]

Not an arguement, but by that definition, anybody that collects just about anything is an art collector.

As another poster said, it's hard really to consider something mass produced art or something that is not original and meant as a reproduction of something else i.e. Iron Man, Predator, or for that matter, a still life bowl of fruit, art.

I might be willing to argue that if you had the original sculpt, you might be able to consider that a piece of art. More appropriately, Pop Art.

I collect Movie Posters, to many they are just expensive pieces of paper, but to me they are POP art as well. But when asked what my hobbies are, I don't say I am an art collector, as that would seem like I am merely trying to add some sort of verbal gravity to my chosen hobby.

The price of something does not make it "not a toy", nor does it preclude it from being a knick knack on someones shelf. If I somehow managed to buy a Picasso for $1, would that make it not a painting or a work of art from one of the masters? No. Price is arbitrary in classification.

If you wish to consider these things you buy (mass produced no less) art, so be it, eye of the beholder and such. But calling yourself an Art collector is a little disingenuous, no offense.

Whether it is art or Toys, your hobby is your hobby, and you shouldn't feel the need to elevate it to others. It is what it is.

EDIT ~ Forgive me if I am all over the place on this one, I am responding to several posts without actually quoting them all, too lazy

I agree with this guy, he uses words like: preclude, arbitrary and disingenuous. He must be smart

 

[devilof76]

You shouldn't trust people who use big words.

The 'art' of work, or the 'art' of nature are completely different from the fine arts. Two attributes differentiate art from the rest of the things humans produce, and the things that happen in nature.

The first is that it is a recreation of reality, according to the artist's interpretation. It's not a photographic reproduction, but specifically, a reproduction based on what elements of the subject that the artist considers important.

The second is that the only purpose it serves is contemplation. It has no utilitarian function, other than to give the observer a direct experience of the perspective which the artist wishes to convey.

Mass production doesn't change anything, unless there was no artist involvement in the process of generating the original. Otherwise, I can't think of anything that would disqualify most of the collectible market as art.

Is it fine art, per se, on the level of painting, sculpture, literature and music? Again, I'm not sure what would disqualify it.

 

[thenammagazine]

As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and art is much the same way. If I throw paint at a canvas it's a mess; if an artist throws paint at a canvas it's art, showing raw emotion.
I would argue that since the handpainting that goes into the figures is detailed enough that it qualifies as art as it must've been performed by an artist. If I did the painting, it would just be a toy.

These collectibles are painted by employees on an assembly line in china, not by artists. Of course, if you own an A/P or a Prototype, that's an entirely different story.

More Pop Culture art than contemporary art

This is more accurate.

 

[Tony Stark]

In response to the thread topic, I say 'yes'.

Art is what you want it to be, and don't let any high-minded, bourgeois pr*ck tell you otherwise.