- killaer
- Aug 4, 2007
-
|
People who like him are essentially just replacing the parents he never had that didn't appreciate his "art" of randomly splattering paint onto a canvas with no thought at all. He was basically a huge goon/manchild/'troll' who got the douche art community to fork over 500 mils for a canvas at which a babyman chucked paint at randomly. There is no compositional element at all. Some splatters of paint he would chuck with his hands, others with his bare rear end in a top hat. Sometimes he would wet a paintbrush in paint and splatter the canvas by shaking his arms randomly with a wet paintbrush. If the paint marks were arranged in some way by sheer random chance that they appealed to some haughty urbanite's conception of "compositional balance," he was able to suck out an inflated artistic 'impression/opinion' and managed to somehow support his gallery's traditional technique of splattering paint onto a canvas like a baby. Notice that he does not draw cars, or shapes, or airplanes, or people, but simply splatters paint on a canvas like a babby. It is incredibly important, in understanding pollock's "contribution" to "art," to objectively view his paintings as a baby's poo poo garbage, because that is what they are, and featuring him as an inspirational artist is kind of like an "inside joke" or "troll" or "we have so much money that we will spend 300 million on a baby's poo poo" by the art community.
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 06:07
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2024 15:23
|
|
- killaer
- Aug 4, 2007
-
|
Pollock paintings are actually fun to look at though, which redeems them as "fart." I always hated Matisse paintings, that poo poo I can never swallow down for some reason. I don't understand his fame or the appeal. I appreciate a masterpeice landscape or even a mediocre portrait but drat I just don't get his place in art can someone explain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 17:01
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 06:07
