Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Art vs. Art, and the winner is...
Do you like this story?
[image, winner artist Amory Abbott]
Art vs. Art's 2007 Grand Champion was painted by Indianapolis-based Amory Abbott who won the title, the belt and $2500! The final round came down to two previous champions, head to head, and Amory came out on top and won the bout.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 Responses to “Art vs. Art, and the winner is...”
September 13, 2007 at 6:18 PM
yeah, cute all the way to the bank!
September 14, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Cute, is exactly why this image sucks. If you want cute buy a teddy bear. What is wrong with you people?
September 16, 2007 at 11:53 PM
The event should be called Illustrator Art vs. Illustrator Art. And cute is right. It is frustrating that people in this city still need a recognizable image to hold on to. I'm not whining but I am frustrated.
September 17, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I wrote "So cute"
I'm so Glad you got it
Thanks to artist and others
that know.
September 17, 2007 at 12:59 PM
You make change by getting involved. In this case scream louder.
September 24, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Looks like a kiddy book page...
"Louie the Timid Lil' Dinosaur"
January 13, 2008 at 7:29 PM
This is art vs. art, not a gallery show. Of course, pieces of illustration would have the advantage. It would be a mistake to frame this as a competition that determines the absolutely best art and artist abstracted from the occasion - (even though Amory Abbott could easily be considered among the best if not the best in Indy). The occasion brings together a presentation of visual art under the commonly agreed upon constraints of time and materials, within the social-psychological atmosphere of a track and field event and meeting of gladiators. Painting the right piece in 4 hrs for this precise occasion for this motley audience is an artwork, an art-happening in itself, but again, it is not the venue for determining the best art or artist in Indy judged by the standards of art critics or historians.
Post a Comment