|
No art history lesson, but I've seen a number of his pieces in person, in rooms full of other great art - they stand out in the room every time, I always end up looking at and thinking about them for a while, and I enjoy looking at them just as much as I enjoy looking at other art I like. I don't know very much about him, but that's why I like Jackson Pollock. E: That isn't meant to be an "I like it because I like it" - I meant more that I think he actually has compositional elements that are still extremely distinctive in a room full of modern art. I'm not trying to be anti-intellectual either.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Is it possible that this may be partly due to how they're arranged in the museum in which you saw them (this is kind of half a rhetorical question, since I'm sure it played at least *some* part)? When I saw some of his work at the MoMA it was obvious that they arranged things such that his work would be a centerpiece. I think this is an inescapable (but not necessarily bad) part of all art - you can't view art without some sort of context, and as much as some artists and curators want to believe that what they create is all physical/visible (and as much as I like to look at it that way, sometimes), I think things like critical reputation and "value" are very difficult to eliminate from the process of displaying a Jackson Pollock painting. We will probably never get to see one buried in a stack of flea-market paintings in a late relative's attic, though that would probably be quite an experience too. This is a pretty interesting thread because everybody's right!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
killaer posted: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. I think this is probably a much more common opinion than any other in this thread. I don't entirely agree with you, but I don't think you're entirely wrong either. I do tend to at least attempt to view the product separately from the process, so it doesn't much matter to me whether a work was difficult or easy to create, or whether the artist was in complete control or had no control at all over the work while they were creating it, that's all background I think about once I've figured out if the work itself makes an impression on me (this is, of course, not the only way to interpret art). Sometimes the stuff people do on purpose is way less interesting than carefully-selected examples of things they do (at least partly) by accident. I also have a lot of respect for people who manage to both make aesthetically interesting (to me) art AND successfully "troll" the art world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 16:22
|
|