|
Pollock was amazing. He expressed himself in a way that no one else ever had before and he did it at a time that society was already going trough growing pains and evolving. To say that Pollock did something "easy" or that anyone else could do what he did is ignorant. If it's so amazingly easy to entirely shift the societal view of art then why do we bother looking at anyone else's contributions at all? Why is "art" a thing if we can literally discount a persons entire artistic style and view as "so easy a child could do it". Pollock's work may not be everyone's cup of tea, but his work was extremely in depth and actually much more difficult than the haters give him credit for. Even more interesting, he worked on them in such a way that pieces of himself and his life are captured in his works. Look closely enough and you'll find ashes from his cigarettes, or the treads of his shoes as he walked over the paintings. Sometimes you'll find pieces of whatever tool he used to splatter and spread the paint around. Mixing the paints so that they could be manipulated with the methods he used are extremely difficult. He didn't just dunk a paintbrush in a can of house paint and throw it around in a tantrum (though I'm sure he did do this on occasion). Not everyone is going to look at Pollock's work and be as captivated as me, but the same could be said for Monet, or Dali, or Rothko. But to be so ignorant about art and expression that one literally says Pollock's work is worthless or that he "trolled" the art community and discounts everything about a particular style just because they don't like it is obnoxious. If everyone else likes something and you sit there saying you hate it and it's not worth anyone's time, the problem is with you -- not the thing you dislike or the person that created it. lemonsaresour fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Aug 7, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:29 |
|