Calling something "Art" doesn't make it "good"
929314
The ending makes the entire series completely pointless.

All that time in the trilogy, making the perfect Shepard (and very often several saves to bring forward to the next release) - either perfect hero or perfect bada**. Intending to play through multiple times to try the various skills and Paragon/Renegade options.  And then, in the last few minutes, it all means nothing - and you'll never want to play it again, knowing it's all for naught - all of those hundreds of choices mean NOTHING.  The ending would have been fine if it had matched the rest of the game we were playing, but it's as if the ending was written by someone who had never played or really known the game.  This makes it baffling to me (as obviously the writer had known).

Bioware defends it by merely calling it "art" and that should be enough. If this happened (and it does) in other media (books, movies) those would also be "bad". We aren't required to like bad art, thank you.

There are several excellent web pages and videos describing the precise reasons that the Mass Effect 3 ending is a baffling, ridiculous and utterly epic FAIL (so I won't repeat all of that - I suggest you seek them out and decide for yourself).
150+ hours of pure enjoyment totally blown and soured.  I can't see myself wanting to ever replay any of the ME titles ever again (and I had replayed them a LOT). The ending is that bad.
4783136
I wanted to like this book, but I found it to be somewhat pretentious and hard to follow. Before the modern artists come into play, the book is much better and the author usually puts the art on the same page as the description of it. As the book gets into modern times, the author crams soooooooooooooooo many artists in that it is very difficult to read/understand/stay interested in it. I am a feminist senior with an excellent GPA and I was lost at times. Toward the second half, the art is not near the written descriptions, the author tries to describe art in words without photos and the author spends lots of time describing artists that are not shown in the book at all. I know that there may have been problems obtaining the rights to print some of the art that the author describes, but I found it frustating and distracting. Also, I'm sure that all the modern artists deserve recognition, but I felt that the sheer volume of names was overwhelming, especially when there was no visual to help cement the person in your mind. This is a visually beautiful book and is well written. I am going to keep it for reference. It is a good text book, but could use a little tweaking.
51665
Superman looks like an idiot with his mouth open, I don't what was going on at DC Comics in the late 90' to early 2000's but from what I can see, art suffered. A lot!! (Kingdom Come Excluded) All I know is that a lot of crappy comics were called crappy because of their art. Comics are partly if not completely a visual medium. If this is not respected, then it cannot be appreciated fully.
4316643
I really wanted to like this book but when it finally arrived it just went downhill really fast.

What turned me off was the lame, melodramatic, stereotypical black metal 'speak' that the main two characters talked in. Some of it wasn't that bad but it became overdone and boring and eventually pretentious. It just didn't let up.

But, by far the most annoying thing about this book was the artwork. To me, it seemed like the artist did not enjoy drawing the book and rushed through it. There were really only maybe 3 emotions expressed throughout the whole thing, but most of the expressions are what can be described as a 'metal grimace' which got old really fast. This book doesn't seem like a work of love but instead of monotonous thick lines and flat characters.

The dialogue was juvenile and lame. Really lame. Especially towards the end. Maybe it just wasn't meant for an older audience but I still don't see that as an excuse for crappy artwork and weak dialogue.

As for the story, like I said in my title, it could have been so much more but instead reads like you want to finish it as fast as you can. I wanted to put it down many times but I paid for it so I might as well bear it to the end. Who knows, maybe it picks up and gets better? It didn't and I wouldn't put yourself through this trash if you were tempted by the title as I was.
2678823
This book presents Bells one-sided view of what makes a painting or other art object "Art". I think there is some validity in his assertion that the formal aspect of painting (color and shape)is all important and the content (subject matter)is irrelevant. But this, I would contend, is only from the strictly aesthetic and theoretical perspective. He completely discounts any other aspect of visual art as irrelevant or detrimental to true Art. He claims to be uninfluenced at all by any content in so far as he is moved to a state of aesthetic "ecstasy". I find this difficult to believe  since he also claims to find primitive art and Cezanne so moving and this art has rather strong content; how can we, or he himself, be sure that there is no influence of content there? He does claim to be move to aesthetic ecstasy by Persian carpets and pottery as well, and I imagine that he would soon be swooning over the non-objective art arriving the same year that his book was published, but I can't help doubting that when content is present he is unaffected by it in any way other than negatively. Be that as it may, if he is so completely able to remain abstract in his visual perception I envy his sensitivity but also pity it. He is ignoring the many other riches that come with feeling the content of art intermingling with the abstract form of art.
I suspect that he is not immune to such feelings but rather, like many a critic before and after his time,he is out to defend his taste and his brilliant new theoretical discovery about what constitutes real Art. Like most philosophical writing that is worth reading (with the possible exception of Aristotle?) his book is full of outrageous claims and self-contradictions. Bell presents his theory with much wit and in spite of being a rather narrow definition of Art, he makes a point well worth considering.
1181585
I could not quite decide whether to give this book 2 or 3 stars.  I decided on 2, because of my disappointment with the quality of the reproductions--mediocre reproductions of otherwise beautiful paintings.  That is not to say the book is worthless.  It has considerable value as an illustrated overview of this subject; but you will need to look elsewhere to see a truer depiction of the beauty of these paintings.

This book's reproductions are not necessarily worse than those found in many other (most other?) art books.  I'm just bemoaning that this book, like far too many others, does not display paintings in any way close to true color, depth of color, or brilliance, etc.

There must be valid reasons for such low-quality reproductions (e.g., higher quality might translate into too-high book prices); regardless of the reason, though, it is fair to point out the low quality.  Maybe publishers can find a way to do better.
2480844
I honestly don't know how this book has garnered so many positive reviews here, because for my money this is a typical example of why I don't buy Taschen art books.  Let's begin with the text.  Anyone who is unable to summon up at least a little respect for Puvis de Chavannes has no business writing a book about Symbolist art. Along with Gustave Moreau, Puvis is the fountainhead of Symbolism, or so I always thought, yet Michael Gibson dismisses him as "the official artist of the Third Republic," and then moves on.  This same dismissive and condescending attitude pervades the book like a bad odor.  The author clearly feels he is superior to most of the material he's obliged to cover, as if this book is just another paying job for another  hard-working art historian.  I'd far rather read something that results from curiosity and enthusiasm rather than the profit motive, but, after all, we really only buy art books for the pictures, right? Right, and there are lots of pictures here, by many different artists, at least half of whom are probably not Symbolists at all, but no matter.  The quality of the reproductions is generally poor, and the layout is chaotic and unpleasant.  If you don't already have it, buy Philippe Jullian's 1973 classic, "The Symbolists" instead.
3172050
If only the book was as good as the artwork. Maybe we should all point out how bad it is, laughably bad even. Then have some fun with it...
2642350
The cover illustration and title led me to believe this book treated of "gay" (i.e., "gay male") representation in art. And nothing about Amazon's editorial description made me think differently. Alas, I was disappointed to find, when the book arrived, that at least half of the content (especially the illustrations) depicted lesbian art and female nudity. Since, after all these years of being part of the "community," I typically disassociate the term gay from the term lesbian, this came as a surprise to me. I doubt most lesbian readers would want to buy a coffee table book on "lesbian" art and then find that MANY of the reproductions therein depicted nude men and gay male eroticism.

Don't get me wrong ... I can recognize the beauty of lesbian themed art; it is a very important part of our history and culture. But when I buy a coffee table book, I want it to be devoted to something with which I can identify.

If this had been a scholarly book in the strictest sense, I might have overlooked the rather jarring and unexpected "inclusiveness." But, despite the author's academic bona fides (and the inclusion of a decent bibliography), the book came across to me as being "popularly" written, illustrated and produced.

Further, almost all of the gay male art included here has been reproduced, discussed and critiqued in perhaps a dozen earlier books. I can't speak for the lesbian material but the gay male content all struck me as the same old stuff: the overly familiar paintings, drawings and pieces of ancient pottery which are reproduced and described in virtually every book on the subject. I saw little that was fresh and new to my eyes. Though most of included artworks ARE truly fabulous and important, surely there is a richer and deeper gay artistic heritage than these hundred or so ubiquitous and constantly exhibited examples that we all know so well.

I was disappointed.
124315
This book has a series of drawing and painting projects in different media done by different artists, step by step. These are immensely helpful to me, as I get a lot out of watching other artists work.
The author, however, makes a pretense of "teaching" things about media and art in this book, but really, adds nothing to the learning process at all. He makes sweeping generalizations about art, without explanation. (e.g., "I tell my students to work in terms of the media." What does that mean??) He criticizes the artists' work without offering any analysis or alternatives, which might be helpful. (e.g., "This works well in terms of the color.") And above all, the arrogance in his critiquing tone is offensive.
On the whole, the author could be removed entirely from this book, and it would be more helpful. The photography is lovely. I like the book--I just don't read the text anymore.
1920367
It's on the surface and all over all around you. Mind as well take it in and enjoy it. Play with it. There isn't any escaping it really. I like the idea of taking what is around you, some of which has been spoon fed to you since you were an infant laying on the carpet in front of the TV -just a relentless onslaught of media images, memes, symbols, this American mass culture or popular culture- and regurgitating it. Throw it back up after having processed it a bit and make something interesting, maybe more interesting, out of it. Well, that is what's going on with some of this stuff. And some of it is coming from who knows where and some of it seems to be taken right off a shelf and repackaged.

Much of the art described as "lowbrow" and/or "pop surrealism" at this point has been widely visible and familiar to much of the public. So the surreal or weird becomes regular (as it often does). "Underground" in the title means not in museums or the top art galleries. I guess I don't care for the idea or metaphor of "underground". It doesn't make much sense to me, but anyway. I love some of this art, some of it not so much. If your unfamiliar and curious just check out an issue of "Juxtapoz" at Barnes and Noble or most book stores in the mall.

As far as this book goes, if you got 30 plus bucks to spend, it could make for a good coffee table book I suppose. It contains some essays worth reading if your interested in this art, including one by Robert Williams who is a central figure of the so-called lowbrow art scene. I don't agree with some of what these guys have to say, but they're interesting. There are nice selections from many of the most respected and influential artists of "pop surrealism" which, btw, is more or less refering to most of the art classified as "lowbrow", depending on who you ask.
2139456
It is unfortunate that a large company decides to publish a book / series that mimics a story that has already been written, by a much more talented and creative writer/artist I might add. I am not surprised that they would capitalize on another artist's intellectual property, with such blatancy and disregard. By purchasing this book you are perpetuating big business taking away from the true artists, not unlike pirating music online. All involved with writing and publishing this book should be ashamed of themselves, I am sure the writer found it very easy to be inspired when they had such a constant source of gold coming from the writer / artist of TaraNormal. Trying to justify theft by saying that the demographic is different, doesn't change the fact that there are far too many similarities (far beyond the name) to consider this a title snafu. I feel bad that the writer doesn't have a creative enough mind to come up with their own story, however I feel worse that the Writer/Artist of TaraNormal has to sit back and watch people steal from him and capitalize on it. Don't by this book, don't support intellectual theft.
3694197
One art movement calls for art for art's sake. This documentary, Hairy Who and the Chicago Imagists, accomplishes that goal in its own way, it's own perception of modern art.

What made this documentary directed by Leslie Buchbinder effective was its visual insistence to put more emphasis on the art work rather than on the artist. Even though Chicago Imagist such as Jeff Koons, Jim Nutt, Ed Puschke, and a host of others get, face time interview, this documentary, however, is more about showing their art then the artists' personal history. That history, such as attending the famous Chicago Art Institute, and the painters sharing their feelings about art, is showed and mentioned in this documentary, yet what stands out more than the painters are their artwork in the Chicago galleries.

What I find most annoying about documentary on artists is the video relies more on showing the painter  more than his or her artwork. Not with Hairy Who. The artwork, the paintings, take center stage, not the artists. For that alone, I would bestow, give, five stars to this art documentary. There is very little pretensions, very little we are artists, we are special people, in this production; it's more about the art for art's sake.

In NYC, the art world is highly politicized. Given the fact that many artists in the Big Apple are well known like Andy Warhol, Keith Haring, Jean Michel Basquit, and many others, some still living today, shows how politics play into the equation of great art, some say politics is far more important than talent. This documentary about the Chicago Imagist plays a bit into the politics equation of the art world, but not entirely. It shows the art, and lets the viewer interpret the creation on their own terms, without someone nudging them to ask if they had seen this or that, and were they aware of what the painting sold for.

When I read that a Basquit painting, primitive art, sold for millions of dollars, recently, I was quit impressed. Yet my mind wasn't focused on the art work itself, it was more focused on the price tag. Suddenly the philosophy of art of art's sake, was lost, crumbled, discarded like a candy wrapper in a subway trash can. In the end, it all boils down to the dollar sign.

Not true with Hairy Who. The art is put up front. It takes the center stage in the second city, Chicago, and the dollar signs are never mentioned, it's far from view.

That alone made this documentary worth watching. Did I like the art work shown? Sure, of course, I have HD, and the colors of the paintings stand out in boldness. For so-called imagists' art work, HD is heaven sent to display their quite interesting art work filled with brilliantly colored combined with smooth colors of all shapes and forms.
4415792
With all the phenomenal reviews, was simply disappointed. Of course, art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.  But I simply don't share the artistic sensibilities of the other reviewers.  The illustrations in this book (which is all you can go by - there are no words, which is fine - I very much LOVE everything David Wiesner has done) are highly stylized, and, quite frankly, weird looking.  Again, my subjective opinion.  My kids would not like this book.  It got a good review in the NYT Book Review, I believe, which is why my wife bought it, suggesting that it might be good for our son, who's scared of the "tiles" on the bottom of the municipal pool.  But the child's journey underneath the surface is certainly not comforting - it is again bizarre, surreal, and uncomfortable.  As I said, others might find it beautiful, but not me.  Meh.
4526354
If anything, it is a meta-history of art;  a short history of various writings about the history of art.

Written in first person and filled with parentheticals and references to earlier and later chapters, the book is more a series of dogmatic lecturers than an engaging look at the world of art.

Underpinning these lectures is the authors obvious disapproval of the cannon of Western Art and the status achieved by white male artists. Oddly enough, in later chapters when explaining the ways to read and look at works of art, the author selects examples of art from the very cannon and male artists she seems to disparage in the earlier portions of the book.
4440093
Probably as a result of my Great Depression-molded grandmother, I'm borderline neurotic about not finding a use for something--use it yourself, give it away, donate, something... don't throw anything out unless it's truly just trash. I threw this book out. It's inappropriate for children despite its surface beauty. I won't repeat the better-articulated details from the top 1-star reviews, but I have a slight quibble with some of those reviews insofar as I didn't see the story as Marxist. It's more that resource-endowed creatures (the fish with beautiful scales) can buy whatever they want (friendship of the envious horde), which seems more elite-private-school-as-depicted-by-hollywood to me. Well, left or right, there is a solid case for hating this book.

There's a slew of books about sharing and caring that aren't loaded with horrible messages. Lots of other books with beautiful illustrations. Do your kid a favor and pick something else.
4364287
In a way the book is silly. Leffel is more of an illustrator than fine artist in that he does not grapple with any serious compositional problems and only deals with how light (and color) reveal form. Do not expect to get anything other than tips on how light and color reveal form and some ideas on materials. I gave 3 stars because his tips in these very limited areas are (for the most part) worthy. For instance using one shape for shadow and cast shadow; and some good info on edges.

His still life paintings are acceptable but by no means interesting (they lack any thought on composition and visual arrangement, basically they are showcases for his one narrow skill). I can not be as kind on assessing his portraits, they are silly caricatures with bulbous noses. It is as if he achieved an ability to show form and refused to pursue painting any further, the result is acceptable when depicting fruit or bowls but it is grotesque (in an uninteresting way) when depicting a human.

I know that this sounds harsh but I am really giving it to you straight. This guy has a sort of cult of personality that is undeserved and many neophytes are sucked into overrating this guy. Sure he is good at depicting form, but that is an illustrational skill that is by no means necessary in fine art (though it is a cool trick).
Oh and there is that Rembrandt thing. He seems to think that he is in some way similar to Rembrandt. Both he and Rembrandt depicted form with light and color but there are no other similarities in their work.

Again sorry if this was harsh, but some painters need to read this, some painters have really fallen for this schitck.