R.I.P. Interesting read. While I always considered him more of an illustrator and designer than a fine artist, I always really liked his/the style, and what he did with that is truly impressive.
I disagree with the label of "surrealist artist". He was a commercial artist for a particular genre. His work was never innovative and he never really went away from his one note. He had a solid eye for design (makes sense given his ID training) and his commercial work is solid but I would not call him an artist and don't like the surrealist label even though there are a few psychoanalytical similarities as well as the use of fragmented bodies and an obsession with vaginas (penises for Giger, too, but the original surrelalists were only interested in breaking down and boxing up and performing violence on female bodies).
