Kreindler vs......

[Lordstan]

Travis,
My point was not to run down Perez. He is certainly a fine artist. I do realize they each have a different style. My tone is a reflection of my personal comparison of his work to Graig's.
As the appreciation of art is subjective, it is my opinion that the brilliance of Conlon's photos is wasted on Dick Perez. This is not because he can't paint. IMHO, Conlon could somehow capture the soul of the subject. It's difficult for me to explain in a better way. There is an emotional gut response I have to them. Graig's work evokes the same visceral response. He breathes life into the pictures. Perez's work doesn't capture is.
My description of Perez's work as cartoony sounded harsh. I didn't mean it as an insult. What I meant is that they look like someone drew/painted them. They look like illustrations.
Edit to Add: Had I never seen Graig's work to compare, I probably would think that Perez's version of Ty sliding was magnificent. It's just once I compare the two, IMHO, it pales.

Conlon


Perez


Kreindler


Who would you have chosen? Sounds like a good poll question.


Do I think Dick Perez is a bad artist? Absolutely not.
Do I think Graig is a better artist? Absolutely.
Are they both better than most of us here? Of course.

Best,
Mark

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Travis,
My point was not to run down Perez. He is certainly a fine artist. I do realize they each have a different style. My tone is a reflection of my personal comparison of his work to Graig's.
As the appreciation of art is subjective, it is my opinion that the brilliance of Conlon's photos is wasted on Dick Perez. This is not because he can't paint. IMHO, Conlon could somehow capture the soul of the subject. It's difficult for me to explain in a better way. There is an emotional gut response I have to them. Graig's work evokes the same visceral response. He breathes life into the pictures. Perez's work doesn't capture is.
My description of Perez's work as cartoony sounded harsh. I didn't mean it as an insult. What I meant is that they look like someone drew/painted them. They look like illustrations.
Edit to Add: Had I never seen Graig's work to compare, I probably would think that Perez's version of Ty sliding was magnificent. It's just once I compare the two, IMHO, it pales.

Who would you have chosen? Sounds like a good poll question.


Do I think Dick Perez is a bad artist? Absolutely not.
Do I think Graig is a better artist? Absolutely.
Are they both better than most of us here? Of course.

Best,
Mark

Mark. You should know by now that you can't reason with Travis...

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Travis,
My point was not to run down Perez. He is certainly a fine artist. I do realize they each have a different style. My tone is a reflection of my personal comparison of his work to Graig's.
As the appreciation of art is subjective, it is my opinion that the brilliance of Conlon's photos is wasted on Dick Perez. This is not because he can't paint. IMHO, Conlon could somehow capture the soul of the subject. It's difficult for me to explain in a better way. There is an emotional gut response I have to them. Graig's work evokes the same visceral response. He breathes life into the pictures. Perez's work doesn't capture is.
My description of Perez's work as cartoony sounded harsh. I didn't mean it as an insult. What I meant is that they look like someone drew/painted them. They look like illustrations.
Edit to Add: Had I never seen Graig's work to compare, I probably would think that Perez's version of Ty sliding was magnificent. It's just once I compare the two, IMHO, it pales.

Conlon


Perez


Kreindler


Who would you have chosen? Sounds like a good poll question.


Do I think Dick Perez is a bad artist? Absolutely not.
Do I think Graig is a better artist? Absolutely.
Are they both better than most of us here? Of course.

Best,
Mark

I had a longer diatribe type rant on here, but i took it off, and make it simple.

they are two different styles. i appreciate your personal preference of kreindler. its mine too. i was just saying that saying he is cleary better is trying to cross compare difference styles which isnt really fair. if they were both trying for realism , i would agree, but i dont think perez was trying for that.

van gogh and picasso and dali and monet would fall short to someone trying to paint it as we see it if that was the way we compared everything. a lot of people love realism better than impressionism or cubism and other styles and i dont know what you would call perez style, or rockwell's but i dont think it is exact realism so comparison turns into personal preference because the styles aren't comparable unless you think perez tried for realism only. i just dont think he did. okay i am done.

[perezfan]

How come the umpire isn't more on top of the play? It looks like he is over 15 feet away (whether you look at the Conlon, the Kreindler or the Perez).

Was that the norm back then? Nowadays, he would be much closer to the play, and hopefully have a better angle.

How's that for changing gears? FWIW, I would "kill" to own the Kreindler, but can appreciate both styles.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

How come the umpire isn't more on top of the play? It looks like he is over 15 feet away (whether you look at the Conlon, the Kreindler or the Perez).

Was that the norm back then? Nowadays, he would be much closer to the play, and hopefully have a better angle.

How's that for changing gears? FWIW, I would "kill" to own the Kreindler, but can appreciate both styles.

Mark, I think it's because they had fewer umpires, so he might have been out near the outfield watching other base-runners.

[perezfan]

Ahhh... interesting.... thanks Scott!

Just curious now - how many umps patrolled the field back then (and when did it change to its present form?)

[Runscott]

From: http://www.sdabu.com/history_main.htm

"The size of umpiring staffs was also increased. The two-umpire system was the norm during the 1920s, but it became common practice to assign one of the reserve umpires to critical games or series; by 1933 three umpires were assigned routinely to regular-season games. The four-man crew was instituted in 1952. In the World Series the two-man crew, one umpire from each league, was used until 1908, when a pair of two-man teams alternated games. In the third game of the 1909 Series, all four umpires were on the field at the same time, thus establishing the four-umpire tradition that continued through 1946; in 1947 an "alternate" umpire from each league was stationed along a foul line in the outfield, thus creating the current six-umpire crew. Four umpires worked the All-Star Game from 1933 to 1948; the following year it conformed to the World Series format in putting the alternates on the field."

[murphusa]

the Perez is my choice

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I had a longer diatribe type rant on here, but i took it off, and make it simple.

they are two different styles. i appreciate your personal preference of kreindler. its mine too. i was just saying that saying he is cleary better is trying to cross compare difference styles which isnt really fair. if they were both trying for realism , i would agree, but i dont think perez was trying for that.

van gogh and picasso and dali and monet would fall short to someone trying to paint it as we see it if that was the way we compared everything. a lot of people love realism better than impressionism or cubism and other styles and i dont know what you would call perez style, or rockwell's but i dont think it is exact realism so comparison turns into personal preference because the styles aren't comparable unless you think perez tried for realism only. i just dont think he did. okay i am done.

Travis,
I did read your original answer as well as this one.

I don't think we should all have to spell out in each of our answers that the contents of that answer represents our opinion. I would think it is a given. Despite that, I did acknowledge in my answer to your initial post that art appreciation is subjective.

For me, art is about my emotional response to the item. This goes for music, painting, sculpture, written words, movies, and everything else. Does the art speak to me or move me in some way.

While realism in painting is my preference, I'm not knocking others(Perez) because they aren't realistic. I may be critical or think less of their art because they don't move me in any meaningful way. IMHO, Van Gogh, Monet, and a whole host of other artists, while not realistic, still evoke a powerful emotional response. I don't care for Dali or Picasso because they really don't make me feel anything.

As I said previously, to me,and many others, Conlon's pictures really bring to the forefront an emotional response. Graig's artwork art does the same thing. If Conlon's pictures capture the soul of the subject then I would say Graig's painting breathes life into it.

To me, Perez's work, while attractive and colorful, doesn't really bring any emotion to the table. This is why I stated what I did in my original post.

Along the same lines, Kadir Nelson's paintings are fantastic. I agree with both Scotts that they are very beautiful. I think Scott F's description was perfect. They are very soulful. Thanks for posting them Mike.

Best,
Mark

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Travis,
I did read your original answer as well as this one.

I don't think we should all have to spell out in each of our answers that the contents of that answer represents our opinion. I would think it is a given. Despite that, I did acknowledge in my answer to your initial post that art appreciation is subjective.

For me, art is about my emotional response to the item. This goes for music, painting, sculpture, written words, movies, and everything else. Does the art speak to me or move me in some way.

While realism in painting is my preference, I'm not knocking others(Perez) because they aren't realistic. I may be critical or think less of their art because they don't move me in any meaningful way. IMHO, Van Gogh, Monet, and a whole host of other artists, while not realistic, still evoke a powerful emotional response. I don't care for Dali or Picasso because they really don't make me feel anything.

As I said previously, to me,and many others, Conlon's pictures really bring to the forefront an emotional response. Graig's artwork art does the same thing. If Conlon's pictures capture the soul of the subject then I would say Graig's painting breathes life into it.

To me, Perez's work, while attractive and colorful, doesn't really bring any emotion to the table. This is why I stated what I did in my original post.

Along the same lines, Kadir Nelson's paintings are fantastic. I agree with both Scotts that they are very beautiful. I think Scott F's description was perfect. They are very soulful. Thanks for posting them Mike.

Best,
Mark

Mark. I tried telling you...

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Mark. I tried telling you...

Jimmy,
It's OK. I have no problem with honest discussion and debate. I like hearing others opinions. It helps me understand them better and sometimes learn something new.
It's really unfortunate when things get heated. I don't like it when disagreement turns into personal attacks. Once that happens, all hope of exchanging meaningful information becomes lost.
Best,
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

If Conlon's pictures capture the soul of the subject then I would say Graig's painting breathes life into it.

Well said! I think this is my favorite Net54 quote in recent memory!