|
axolotl farmer posted:I'm nthing that Pollock paintings look like nothing much on a computer screen or in a book. n+1ing. Seriously, if you have the chance, go check out MOMA and the Guggenheim in DC, and come back after seeing a bunch of modern art in person. I never really "got" modern art when we studied it in school, or really even when I went on a school field trip to MOMA. What it took was going to the Guggenheim in DC the day after doing a bunch of drugs at a concert and then driving for 7 hours straight from NY -> DC to drive my friends home. I'd been slamming 8hr energy shots to stay awake for the drive back to DC, and figured since I was wide awake, I took the metro in, and did the museums in DC. The National Gallery of Art is nice, but I spent like 3-4 hours in the Guggenheim/Smithsonian just blown away by how awe-inspiring these works (especially Rothko.) are in person. Like Pollock just has this raw energy that pops off the canvas. Plus there is something about Pollock about finding beauty in chaos and disorder. They're not random, but they are chaotic, they are disordered, and there is still this underlying sense of beauty and dynamics within the works. There is balance there - they are well thought out works, and he balances light and dark and color and monochrome with every skein of color he adds to a painting, and it winds up being a unified work of, well, art.
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:43 |
|