There's probably some sphere of knowledge that you've put time into yourself, so that you can appreciate people who have contributed to the field and done really well in it.  Perhaps painting or photography or optics just aren't that sphere for you?

I don't know, in this kind of case, it depends on how the image grabs me. The turning comic page doesn't do much for me because I can't read the story. The Sharpe books had covers like the images Kirby101 has above, which look like found objects gathered together; but, I could see the story elements in them.

Lichtenstein's stuff always looked like somebody who made fun of comics because he was incapable of doing them; yet, there was always something I really liked about Patrick Nagel's prints. He's looked at now as sort of the seminal 80s artist, whose posters sold to adolescent and arrested adolescent males. Maybe that is true and maybe that fit me; but, there was always something that grabbed me about some of the gazes of the women in his paintings (other than the sunglass wearing ones, which were big). Some of it was the art deco touches, some of it was the almost Japanese linework; but, a lot of it was the mystery of the women. I had this print until we moved, recently...



To me, it always seemed like something out of a spy movie. I never got that connection with anything by Lichtenstein or Warhol. I had more of a connection to the commercial art of JC Leyendecker or the fashion illustration of Rene Gruau.