Home > Letters to CR

Eddie Campbell on David Apatoff
posted March 4, 2006
 

I don't know why you're all arguing about this.

Apatoff is an example, and not a notable one by any means, of a conservative, 'grumpy old man' attitude abroad in the world toward art. Elsewhere on his site he 'proves' that Norman Rockwell was a greater artist than Claude Monet (the 'let's you and him fight' school of art criticism).

"The real subject of Rockwell's painting, like Monet's, is the magic of the changing light. If you're looking for a commodity to invest in, pick the Monet. If you're ready to learn something about light, pick the Rockwell."

It is not necessary to take points from Monet in order to make Rockwell look good, and only a moron would think it is. I love both Rockwell and Monet, but I know I should loathe to spend ten minutes in the company of one so smug and narrow sighted as Apatoff, who cannot talk about art without using it to air his grievances against the modern world (much like my 80 year old father-in-law, though for other reasons I'm quite happy to debate with him all night). Furthermore, to argue against Apatoff on his own terms, as Kim Thompson starts to do, is to extend the foolishness ad infinitum. What's Leonard Starr got to do with the matter at hand except that Apatoff champions him in a separate article? Starr influenced me a great deal in my own work and I am open to the idea that he is a significantly underrated figure in the history of comics, and if I were to choose to attempt to make a case for this in print I would like to think my argument would not be so summarily dismissed.