Kreindler vs......

[Forever Young]

I stumbled upon two images the day of cobb's death 51 years ago. I know the second artist is very accomplished and probably a great fella but man..
I know now, without of shadow of a doubt, who the best sports artist alive is on this day.
This was very eye opening to me. GK .. you are the shiznit!! Just leaps and bounds beyond everyone else sir.. VERY IMPRESSIVE. RIP TYRUS


http://www.graigkreindler.com/paintings/cobb1910.html


http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...ece-in-%22The-

[docpatlv]

Agreed. The detail in Graig's is incredible. Almost photo-like.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

Agreed. The detail in Graig's is incredible. Almost photo-like.

Not to mention accurate as far as colors, shadowing, weather, ect.
Simply the best in talent, research and being small in stature. A TRUE TRIPLE THREAT!

[PhilNap]

I'd have to agree. Legendary dropped the ball and partnered with the wrong artist on this project. The Conlon's Graig has done to date are just spectacular.

This is coming from someone who owns several Dick Perez originals.

[Jay Wolt]

I like Graig's piece better too!
And like that Graig pictured an outfielder, when Dick chose not to

[Lordstan]

It's too bad they decide to waste Conlon's artistic brilliance on Perez!
I've never really thought much of Perez's art. I've always thought it had a cartoony quality to it. This painting is no different.
What I mean s that this one looks like a painting of a picture rather than a real life image. Most of Graig's work is so realistic it is simply incredible.
It's just a shame. Conlon deserves better.

Best,
Mark

[travrosty]

Let's not kill perez, he has his own style. two different artists. They're not trying to paint it the same way. They are both better than me.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

It's too bad they decide to waste Conlon's artistic brilliance on Perez!
I've never really thought much of Perez's art. I've always thought it had a cartoony quality to it. This painting is no different.
What I mean s that this one looks like a painting of a picture rather than a real life image. Most of Graig's work is so realistic it is simply incredible.
It's just a shame. Conlon deserves better.

Best,
Mark

like

[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...

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Let's not kill perez, he has his own style. two different artists. They're not trying to paint it the same way. They are both better than me.

I agree with Travis although I prefer Graig's more realistic approach versus Perez's more colorful approach. That being said I would buy the Perez if I could afford it. Still a very nice painting.

[CW]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

like

Okay, I don't mean any offense by this, but what is the purpose of these "like" posts? We get it -- you like it, but what did you really add to the discussion?

Is this Facebook, or a sportscard forum? Nothing personal, but these "like" posts and "+1" posts offer nothing of interest to other readers, and they just clog up threads with useless posts of affirmation.

Great. Now I'm becoming part of the "get off my lawn" crowd.

[Wymers Auction]

I actually like the +1 and likes because that gives a person the opportunity to agree with something without taking the time to do a bunch of typing. Just a counterpoint you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[baseballart]

delete

[slidekellyslide]

I've never thought of art as a competition...I think both are amazing, but Graig brings a painting to life like I've never seen before.

[danc]

When you think of quality collectibles, you think of Legendary (I guess) and while Perez has had his day in the sun, you would think that an auction outfit as big as them would recognize the Mike Trout of sports art, not the Manny Ramirez.

I'm not taking away anything from Perez (I own one and I'm happy with it), but a lot of his post-early Perez Steele art (IMO) is "cartoonish", not realistic and doesn't compare.

While this Dick Perez Ty Cobb shown isn't the worst thing in the world, when you put it side by side with the Kreindler, there is no comparison at all.

That Kreindler is off the hook, and he is one little talented bastard.

DanC

[baseballart]

I originally posted this, thinking it was Cobb sliding and a vintage comparison to the two paintings. It's from the dust jacket of the 1933 Who's Who in Major League Baseball. However, while the fielder is clearly from the image, the sliding player isn't Cobb, the umpire is in a different spot and the stands are different.

[CW]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

I actually like the +1 and likes because that gives a person the opportunity to agree with something without taking the time to do a bunch of typing. Just a counterpoint you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Yeah, to each their own. I'm definitely not going to lose sleep over it, and didn't intend to single out thekingofclout -- those types of posts just leave me perplexed, I suppose, and I had to ask the purpose.

Life goes on....

...and Kreindler is still the best sports artist out there.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by CW

Okay, I don't mean any offense by this, but what is the purpose of these "like" posts? We get it -- you like it, but what did you really add to the discussion?

Is this Facebook, or a sportscard forum? Nothing personal, but these "like" posts and "+1" posts offer nothing of interest to other readers, and they just clog up threads with useless posts of affirmation.

Great. Now I'm becoming part of the "get off my lawn" crowd.

Originally Posted by CW

Yeah, to each their own. I'm definitely not going to lose sleep over it, and didn't intend to single out thekingofclout -- those types of posts just leave me perplexed, I suppose, and I had to ask the purpose.

Life goes on....

...and Kreindler is still the best sports artist out there.

I'll tell you what Chuck. Before you say that I "offer nothing of interest to other readers" why don't you check all of the threads that I've started over the last 3+ years.

And although you claim that you "didn't intend to single out the kingofclout" that is exactly what you did.

[GrayGhost]

Mr. Kreindler's work is AMAZING, as has been said in MANY threads over the time..

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by CW

Okay, I don't mean any offense by this, but what is the purpose of these "like" posts? We get it -- you like it, but what did you really add to the discussion?

Is this Facebook, or a sportscard forum? Nothing personal, but these "like" posts and "+1" posts offer nothing of interest to other readers, and they just clog up threads with useless posts of affirmation.

Great. Now I'm becoming part of the "get off my lawn" crowd.

-1

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

I'll tell you what Chuck. Before you say that I "offer nothing of interest to other readers" why don't you check all of the threads that I've started over the last 3+ years.

And although you claim that you "didn't intend to single out the kingofclout" that is exactly what you did.

I just checked them, and all I can say is...

Like

[CW]

PM was sent to thekingofclout a couple days ago with an apology. I should've started a separate thread asking about the real purpose of "like" posts, rather than clogging up this thread and singling him out. My bad.

And I never doubted or called into question theking's contributions or place on this board. My comment was specifically about his, or anyone's, "like" posts. I'll just skip over those posts and not let them bug me so much.

[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

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by murphusa

the Perez is my choice

Interesting .. What do you like about the Perez?

[Scott Garner]

Even though there are some tremendous sport artists out there, when it comes to baseball, I firmly believe that Graig is the most talented artist painting today.

What he brings as far as pure talent, as well as the research that he injects into his work, makes him tops in my book.

Keep 'em coming, Graig!

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Even though there are some tremendous sport artists out there, when it comes to baseball, I firmly believe that Graig is the most talented artist painting today.

What he brings as far as pure talent, as well as the research that he injects into his work, makes him tops in my book.

Keep 'em coming, Graig!

I love Graigs work as well. However, the beauty of all things is in the eye of the beholder. I could not afford the work of Kriedler or Perez. However, if I could I would buy an original Kadir Nelson.

[Runscott]

Mike, those are amazing. Realism and style aside, this guy really captures the 'soul'. In the end, art preference is a personal thing.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Mike, those are amazing. Realism and style aside, this guy really captures the 'soul'. In the end, art preference is a personal thing.

I agree, Scott. Mike, these paintings are a thing of beauty.

[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...

[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!

[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

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I love Graigs work as well. However, the beauty of all things is in the eye of the beholder. I could not afford the work of Kriedler or Perez. However, if I could I would buy an original Kadir Nelson.

For realism I still put Mr. Kriedler at the top of my list but the Kadir Nelson's you posted are beyond exceptional.

[GKreindler]

Hey all,

I REALLY appreciate all of the nice things said about me on this thread, but I have to leave it at that in regards to me.

What I really wanted to say is that if you haven't done so, Kadir Nelson's work is DEFINITELY worth seeing. He does some beautiful stuff.

I remember when I first got to art school, he was graduating from Pratt I think, as I saw one of his paintings in the annual Society of Illustrators student competition. Since then, he's just matured into an absolute monster. His book We Are the Ship is also a absolute must for ALL baseball fans:

http://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Ship-Le.../dp/0786808322

I learned last year that one of his teachers at Pratt was one that I had (and still remain very close with) at the School of Visual Arts as well, so I think we tend to think about some aspects of our subjects pretty similarly. It's all VERY much about light.

Check out this Babe Ruth painting he did for Sports Illustrated a decade ago (sorry, I didn't have a proper JPEG):



The man's a mutant. Definitely look him up.

Graig

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

The man's a mutant. Definitely look him up.

Graig

As is his depiction of the Babe!

[Woundedduck]

I just wish I could get a professional print of some of Greg's paintings. I can't afford an original right now, but I'd be all over a print of the Cobb sliding as well as several others if they were available.