|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I like Pollock, but I don't really know why. His work is just kind of satisfying to look at, and same with a lot of other modern artists. There's never a clear indication of a) what I'm looking at and b) what exactly I'm meant to feel, so it sort of becomes a personal thing. I wish I could say more about it other than that I like what I like, but that seems like a legitimate thing to say anyways. I'd like to see a Pollock in person some day, or a Rothko or a Turrell, just to get the full experience. Art being experienced subjectively is the most important thing, regardless of the artist's intent or the opinions of everybody else. Personally I may not like the work of Warhol or Dali, but I can appreciate that they are important artists. And a lot of this art is best experienced in the flesh, just as one can't really get the same feeling looking at a photo of some amazing landscape versus being there. That is why looking at somebody else's holiday photos is relatively boring for you and exciting for them. Pollock is important as his work (and others of the era) was partly funded by the government in a response to Socialist Realism from the East, which would have helped raise public awareness in the first place. He was also one of the first to do Abstract Expressionism in that particular style, which could be considered controversial due to the apparent ease of painting 'a Pollock'. Although if you have ever attempted to paint in such a way you'd find it's much more difficult than it looks to create a piece that has the same energy and presence as a work by Jackson Pollock. You can look at plenty of examples to see how hard it is to create an Abstract Expressionist work well. Not to slander these attempts, as they are good for any amateur to do in order to learn about the properties of paint and to interact with a canvas using the body rather than the hand, but a majority of spatter paintings don't have the same impact as seeing one done by a professional. There's also a little bit of Mathematics that are involved in case you're a big nerd. Pollock's paintings have been analysed by dudes who've found them to contain fractals and so on. quote:When Taylor surveyed 120 people to see which patterns they preferred, 113 chose the fractal patterns. Two recent studies in perceptual psychology had also found that people clearly prefer fractal dimensions similar to those found in nature. But the studies disagreed on the exact value of that dimension: In one study, subjects preferred a dimension of 1.3; in the other, 1.8. Which is fun. Just as Leonardo Da Vinci involved the Golden Ratio in his works, I think it's fitting that Jackson Pollock employed non-euclidean geometry in his. Perhaps the great works of the 21st century will involve quantum mechanics and ting.
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:16 |
|