Someone explain to me why THIS is considered a great work of art...

[LynneSin]

Yes I know, this is an offshoot of WillPitt's vomit comment but seriously that's pretty much my opinion of Jackson POllock's work - at least this drip stuff.

I've very challenged when art is something that I could probably make myself. Mind you I have the artistic skills of a kindergardener but this is NOT art to me. Someone please explain why I am wrong, because personally I am not.

[Rhythm]

1. I don't get Pollock... at all.

I'm sure that makes me somehow low-brow, but i don't understand (other than the use of contrasting colors) what it's really supposed to mean...

[HopeHoops]

2. By "great", I think they are referencing the size of the canvas rather than the artistic value.

[leftyclimber]

3. Back when I was at Pleistocene High

it was explained to me in art history class that the technical difficulty in doing a piece like that is in keeping the colors from getting muddy.

Personally, I kinda like the stories about Pollock wandering around on a giant canvas, smoking cigarettes and splattering paint all over the place, then cutting out the part with no cigarette butts in it and putting that part up for sale.

Doesn't do a lot for me aesthetically, though.

[Heidi]

4. In the context of its time, Pollock's work was extremely original,

and some artists (and many buyers) prize originality.

Pollock also was among the first Abstract Expressionists; that is to say, his work (if it is to really be understood, and as far as I know, he didn't really care too much whether his work was truly understood) has to be lookied at in the context of art history and his journey as an artist. Pollock's later work was in large part self-referential in terms of how he used the materials together (there's some chemistry involved in this -- it's not just throwing paint around) and how he used them to express his own ideas. Like it or not, there's much to appreciate about Pollock's place in art history.

Would I hang this piece in my home or studio? No, not this particular piece.

[3.14158675309]

24. Exactly. The piece is "great" because of its place in the history of art, not by merit

of its intrinsic value as a work of art. :hi:

[old mark]

5. Well, I love it, but then again I really like much of the 1950's work

that came befoe and after it, too.

If you hate this, you will really hate my painting as well.

Enjoy yourself.

mark

[Heidi]

7. I very much like

the painting you're holding on the entry page of your website. I'm a huge fan of Rothko, Cy Twombly, Motherwell and Rauschenberg. :thumbsup:

[old mark]

9. Thank you. I am a Franz Kline fan myself. nt

[Flaxbee]

49. Helen Frankenthaler?

I like her too, in addition to your list...

[Heidi]

50. Absolutely.

Hi, Flaxbee! :hug: :hug:

[Flaxbee]

53. hi Heidi!

:hug: :hug: back at ya! I looove Helen Franthenthaler; I've been thinking about her a lot lately, for some reason. I saw several of her pieces in the Desert Museum in Palm Springs and the Museum of Contemporary Art in LA - I'd sneak out of work and go sit in the galleries for as long as I could get away with it. :D

[Manifestor_of_Light]

62. No wonder Rothko shot himself.

I went to the Rothko Chapel and that was my first thought. If I painted gloomy dark paintings like that, I would be fucking depressed too!!!

I don't get those abstractionists. I think Twombly is nothing but scribbles.

[Heidi]

65. Well, aren't _you_ the arbiter of art and picture of sensitivity.

Do you paint at _all_? I'm sure we'd all _love_ to see your work. Really. :hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

90. Yes, I do, in fact.

And yes, I am sensitive.
I don't go to horror movies, violent movies or scary movies. I will have nightmares if I do.
I don't listen to country music because it is whiny and depressing. I am not going to feed my mind depressing stuff.

You couldn't pay me to look at those gloomy Rothko pictures.

And I was an art major at one time in college.

[sohndrsmith]

75. Rothko is amazing... (in my view) n/t

[hippywife]

100. You definitely would have loved my art teacher.

She loved all of them and was also a huge Louise Nevelson fan. She also liked Lichtenstein. :hi:

[lazyriver]

6. To me it looks like a drop cloth from the floor of a studio where,

perhaps, real art might actually have been created.

I don't get Pollock at all.

[Heidi]

8. What is "real art"?

:hi:

[Lost in CT]

15. Well real art would be something a person with talent would do.

Honestly I get Pollack... And can see the differance between his work and paint splatter... I'm not a fan mind you but I get him.

But don't get me wrong much of so called modern art does leave me scratching my head in dismay.

[Heidi]

16. You think Pollock had no talent?

Have you never seen his early, representational work? Have you ever seen any of his work in person? :hi:

[Lost in CT]

28. Yes I have. I never said he didn't have talent I said I'm not a fan.

I think James Joyce has talent but good lord I wouldn't voluntarily sit down and read the Dubliners again.

[Lautremont]

140. You wouldn't read The Dubliners again?

A book of perfect, heartbreaking short stories, climaxing in that all-time heart-wrencher, The Dead? I agree that Ulysses is a hard read, but the stories in The Dubliners are sublime.

[harmonicon]

106. "talent" is a horrible fraud foisted upon us

It doesn't exist - plane and simple. People are good at things, not because of some mystical quasi-genetic power, but because of care and preparation put into their work. This may involve finding a unique way to understand problems associated with the field in which they work and come to terms with them, but there is no such thing as "talent". We as humans are who we are because of the way we were brought up. If there was, for instance, such a thing as talent for playing classical music, for instance, or easel painting, wouldn't it be quite wasted by existing within the majority of the world where these things don't exist? Furthermore, if this mysterious thing of "talent" were real - that is, an intrinsic ability to excel at a particular field/task - it would have to be for insanely simple and general things, due to the time that it would take for genetic selection to make these "talents" recognizable things - culture simply changes too quickly, and the human race hasn't been around for long enough for this to happen anyway.

No, people are people. We are all created more-or-less equal and become what we become due to outside forces for the most part.

[lazyriver]

22. Honestly, I'm not sure. Perhaps "real" is a poor adjective to use.

Pollock looks "accidental" or "incidental" to me much as the accumulation of paint on a drop cloth from an intended project being worked on above. Hey, maybe that's point, but I still don't get it.

That said, who the hell am I to criticize. I can't draw a straight line with a ruler and am an embarrassment with a paintbrush in my hand no matter what the project.;-)

[tigereye]

87. huzzah!

:thumbsup:

[Numba6]

10. .

[Numba6]

11. But dem dogs playin poker -- DAT'S ART!

The one passing an ace -- PRICELESS! & so true!

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. How about Dem Presidents playing poker?

Democratic Presidents playing poker. THAT'S ART!
("True Blues" by Andy Thomas. www.andythomas.com or at fine art stores everywhere)

[ghostsofgiants]

45. Screw dogs, presidents and poker. Christopher Walken building a robot...

http://www.brandonbird.com/lazysunday.html

Now THAT is real art.

[harmonicon]

108. fuck, that's awesome!

I may actually buy a print of that.

[ghostsofgiants]

116. Check out the rest of his work.

Bea Arthur wrasslin' a raptor is badass also.

[trof]

12. Aerial photo of Tokyo?

;-)

[sammythecat]

14. We were thinking the same thing

:thumbsup:

[sammythecat]

13. It makes me think of Google Earth at 12mi.

I've seen this before and I'm looking at it again. It just doesn't inspire a single thought in my head. That might say more about me than the painting. I don't hate it, but if I knew nothing of Jackson Pollack and saw this on sale for $25 dollars, I'd keep looking. But then, if someone gave me a glass of wine and I didn't know it cost a thousand dollars a bottle, I'd probably say, "Oh, that tastes nice. Could I have a Diet 7-UP too?"

[tekisui]

17. It is great, IMO.

There is a method to his madness. Studies have found that what appears to be randomness is similar to fractal design. It is pleasing to look at because it mimics patterns found in nature.

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

It really is an amazing work:

[Heidi]

20. Pollock knew this, too.

"My concern is with the rhythms of nature... I work inside out, like nature."
Quoted in Leonhard Emmerling, Jackson Pollock: 1912-1956 (Taschen, 2003, ISBN 3-822-82132-2), p. 48

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Ah, but there's the hitch - you probably couldn't do it.

Throwing and spilling and dropping paint might seem an easy, childish thing to do - but to do it with purpose takes artistry.

And Pollock had it in spades.

Interestingly enough, studies have been done on Pollock's work and attempts to make Pollock-like works, and it's almost impossible. Pollock has a pretty consistent fractal geometry in the 2.2 to 2.4 range (if memory serves), which is damned near impossible to consistently do for anyone else. Which neither the ir-repeatability nor the fractal dimension themselves make it great, but the fact that there is a consistent vision and method makes it great.

And the beauty of abstract expressionism, which a lot of people have a difficult time, especially people who think that "art" means "realistic", is that it is not about representing anything physical - we have cameras for that now - but expression mood, emotion, and whatnot. It is an attempt to do in visual art what music does in aural art: to speak of life in the language of the abstract and non-concrete.

Why should a melody in A-major conjure up images of pastoral fields in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony? We don't know, but it does.

Same with Pollock and other abstract expressionists, as well as the brutalists, minimalists, suprematists, fauvists, and so on.

[tigereye]

89. you can get lost in his work - it's incredible, really.

I love the Fauvists.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. I never got Pollock either until...

I was at the Guggenheim and saw a piece on the wall way over on the other side-- it suddenly came together and made sense. Maybe Pollock was putting us all on, but he was still on to something. (Or on something.)

And, no, it's doubtful you or I or most people could do what Pollock did and come up with something anyone would think of putting on a wall, even though this graphic does have a vagure resemblance to a floor tile.

I have tried, btw, and failed mightily, as have others I have known.

(And yes, I have heard that story about the monkey with the brush and the art critics. And the one about a brush tied to a donkey's tail.)

[ogneopasno]

21. Because it looks cool and is evocative. It reminds me of a snowstorm in a big city. I'd have it on

my wall if I could.

[Blue_Tires]

23. looks like a close-up of a deer hunter's camo pattern...

[ipfilter]

25. Looks like every counter top on HGTV.

[kentauros]

26. Here's what I said to a friend that has a Masters in Fine Art and also didn't "get" Pollack:

It's a visual representation of the sensation of texture.

That seemed to make some kind of sense to her and she looked upon his art in a new light after that :)


My art background?
I have a BA in Graphic Arts & Visual Design and an AAS in Drafting Technology.

Maybe I just 'see' things differently than most to begin with...

[Maeryanne]

123. That rings a bell!

or rather musical note! ;) I {briefly} studied this very painting for a Humanities paper {oh, was it Humanities???} anyway, it is about the layering of the paint. How much like musical chords must build upon each other for their synergistic value {Phew! ThankYou Spirit ~ posting number 16 and counting :) }

I guess that correlates with your texture comment :)

And, yes, I would say your vision is unique ;)

[kentauros]

147. That's cool! At what pitch does it ring?

:P

You're going to have to tell me more about this paper you wrote, once I get my sleep-cycle worked out right ;)

[Maeryanne]

148. Oh, you mean as in overtoning ... ???

Nothing nearly so grand, I do assure you, and reading some of the posts here, there certainly are some expert opinions, for both sides. And, I do agree that proper study then somehow legetimises that opinion, whether it is yay or nay. However, I am leaning more towards its brilliance belonging to all those things, including context, and the Artist as an individual who is courageous enough to offer such expression.

How's the circadian rhythmn coming along, then? :boring: {Those are sleepzzzzs for the purposes of this post ;) }

:popcorn:

[AlCzervik]

29. I like Pollock's work and seeing it at The Tate was one of the highlights of my

first trip to London.

[Heidi]

32. Agree. I think a lot of people (probably most) haven't seen the original work, in person,

and have no concept of the tremendous scale or the original colors and many layers involved.

I'm not a fan of all of Pollock's work, but as an artist, I do know that it takes an enormous amount of courage to go against the grain -- and the grain almost always favors strictly representational work.

[AlCzervik]

33. I have a couple of art books that feature his work but finally seeing the pieces

in person was really wonderful. I felt the same way about Renoir, i'd seen prints and such for years but when the Boston museum of fine arts had his exhibit and my sister and i went to see it i was just blown away.

[LynneSin]

34. There's another Pollack at the MOMA

wasn't impressed seeing it up close either

[AlCzervik]

35. well different artists don't appeal to everyone.

[Heidi]

37. It's really a matter of personal taste, LynneSin.

Everything in life is subjective: shades of vibrant color, including shades of gray, but very little true black and white. You've received a lot of great feedback in this thread, including valid reasons for respecting/liking, disliking and being ambivalent toward the Pollock piece you posted. Jackson Pollock is dead and not here to defend his work -- and he probably wouldn't, given the opportunity. If you don't like it, what else is there to say?

[AlCzervik]

38. it really is, my daughter really like Picasso, me, not so much.

[Fran Kubelik]

112. excecllent

:thumbsup:

[bettyellen]

107. not enouh cowbell, i guess.

[Shell Beau]

30. I am not a fan of the splatter paint style art. I really just don't get it either.

[Swede]

31. Some paint what they see,others paint what they feel.

And some people can feel that,in the painting.

[AlCzervik]

36. That's spot on.

some work you just connect with.

[Dangerously Amused]

39. I used to feel exactly the same way about Pollack.

And Rothko. And others like them. To see their works hanging in prestigious galleries and being told that they were great works of art worth millions always felt like a big inside joke the "art experts" were playing on me.

It took me getting a four year degree in fine art to understand and appreciate this type of work. It took me being forced (ha ha) to learn about the men, their lives, their art, how they did what they did and especially WHY they did what they did, and WHY what they did in the overall context of art history was important, to "get it."

Now I am a big fan of most of this type of work and if I don't like it, the worst I can say is that I don't understand it (yet) with an immediate acknowledgment of my own ignorance of the genre or the artist, because I don't think there are any artists - famous ones, anyway - whose work I still don't like or appreciate after I have made a concerted effort to study them and understand their work. I expect the same would be true for you.

If someone challenges a work like this as "bad art," my first response is to challenge how much that person knows about the artist, the genre and the medium.

It's funny you posted this thread today because I was speaking at a seminar yesterday and used this very painting in one of my slides to demonstrate how artists in one discipline can and should draw inspiration from artists in other disciplines. And, knowing that my audience (photographers) would probably not appreciate this Pollack work, I made the point that even though you might not understand or appreciate a work like Pollack's right now, you at least have to admit that there is something about it that others who are experts in the subject value highly, so it is still worth the effort to try to emulate or adapt what is working for the masters in your own work.

I used the following two slides to demonstrate; the first is a photo of snow on tree limbs, I showed it to the audience first before I mentioned the Pollack work and they all liked the photo. Then I showed the Pollack right next to it and made my argument above. One of the participants came up to me afterward and said that for the first time, she felt like she was finally beginning to "get it" re: the Pollack, and abstract art in general. That made my day.




edit: grammar

[Heidi]

40. :thumbsup:

Beautiful, beautiful side-by-side illustration. :hug:

[Dangerously Amused]

42. Heya Heidi!

I love your answers in this thread as well. I have long appreciated your talent for explaining an amorphous concept like "art" with clarity and precision. You would make a most fantastically excellent art teacher.

:hug:

[Heidi]

44. I would NEVER have the patience

to deal with art students like myself. :rofl:

Supah to see you, gf! You need to haul you arse over to the DU Artists' Group, m'dear. I know you have much to offer in terms of commentary and art love. :hug:

:*

[redqueen]

47. That's exactly what I thought of when I saw the pic in the OP.

It looks like a natural setting... he was obviously very skilled at evoking that impression.

[BarenakedLady]

66. Awesome!

:thumbsup:

[enigmatic]

81. great post

:thumbsup:

[tigereye]

91. very nicely said!

Often you have to spend a lot of time looking at and thinking about art before it's beauty and complexity can grasp you and vice versa...

[Fran Kubelik]

111. excellent post, DA

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[Demoiselle]

127. Bingo! And thank you.

I was trying to find the words to say that looking at the particular painting that started this thread reminded me of growing up in the country and peering through thickets of branches and brush...And, here you are with a perfect example. I really really like that painting. And I had no idea until this moment that I was a Pollack fan! The painting goes on forever, doesn't it!

[progressoid]

136. When I was a sophomore art student I spent about 2 hours lost in the first ROTHKO I saw in person.

Changed me for life.

We were supposed to be studying the Etruscan exhibit but I spent most of my time in the 20th century rooms.

[Maeryanne]

149. Love your photograph

and concept! I love to take pictures of exposed tree limbs in Winter, how the light allows a glimpse of otherwise hidden structures. :applause:

:popcorn:

[BurtWorm]

41. It's called action painting, but when I look at that, I feel very relaxed and peaceful.

It reminds me of drop cloths my father used when painting the rooms of the house I grew up in. It also reminds me of cave painting--which actually displayed much more technical proficiency. In any case it pulls me in and holds me under its spell as any good painting would.

I think of Walt Whitman's free verse, which, on first viewing, looks disorganized and random. But a careful reading shows the patterns and rules--the meter and scansion--that Whitman set for each one, possibly subconsciously but more likely because, being a thoughtful, well read and talented poet, he had the rules in his bones. Pollock's painting, similarly, shows a sensitivity to color, shape, balance... all the things painters study when learning how to make "good" painting.

[Heidi]

43. Your cave painting recollection is absolutely on point.

Before Pollock gained fame for "action painting," he experimented a lot with glyphs reminiscent of his travels through the southwest. There's a rhythm that some artists touch with some of us some of the time, and it's amazing to me that something such an inexplicable event can arise (as it did with Pollock's most "frenetic" work) within the limitations of sound studio practices (knowing what materials work with which other materials, the order of the layers in order to prevent delamination, cracking, etc.)

Further, I do consider Pollock's work highly gestural; it is uniquely his and cannot be accurately reproduced as some would suggest, and it highly attuned to the natural rhythms of nature. It has originality, along with many of the marks of "automatic painting" but also many of the marks of sound studio practice.

[bbernardini]

46. I find that this relates to my taste in music, in a way.

For the record, I really like "modern" stuff like this and Rothko (to name two people I saw mentioned in this thread). A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and they had a wonderful wing dedicated to the work of folks like Pollack, Rothko, Stuart Davis, etc. (as well as their predecessors like Picasso, so you could trace the development as you went through).

To me, the appeal of a painting like the one you posted comes in the "chance" element of it. Much in the same way Ornette Coleman or John Coltrane threw out the usual "head-solo-solo-solo-head" format of jazz performance for free improvisation (including exploring the extremes of their instruments), or in the way Frank Zappa combined completely different improvisations into new compositions in the studio, or in the way artists like John Cage or Negativland do their particular methods of sound collage, Pollack was leaving the final result up to chance, and that fascinates me. The emphasis wasn't so much on whether or not the result made any sense (in the traditional manner), but how the chance combinations and explorations of color and "paint distribution methods" turned out.

Certain Rothko works remind me of Robert Fripp's "Soundscape" explorations and improvisations. Fripp's goal is to explore different textures and tones, combined with the chance elements created by his various effects boxes. I think you could also draw parallels between Rothko's work and the work of "drone" artists, such as Bass Communion (a side project of Porcupine Tree's Steven Wilson). The point is not to create a recognizable picture ("Boy With Bucket" or "Kitten On Fire"), but to explore color and texture.

Could it be done by anybody? I can't say, as I haven't seen everybody do it yet. :)

[kentauros]

61. Y'all should come to Houston and visit the Rothko Chapel

:)

Talk about peaceful! It's a great place to comtemplate or meditate.
Then you can go next door to the DeMenil Museum :)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

118. Uh, noo....

I grew up in Houston.

Yes, it's peaceful. But I think it's very depressing. Gloomy, even.

And I don't want somebody telling me it's a positive place when by my perceptions, it's not positive. Not for me.

[kentauros]

137. Okay, to itch their own :)

I loved the place and have always felt good around it. We're all different and sensitive to different things :)

What about those huge live oaks in the area around the De Menil, then? :D

[Manifestor_of_Light]

139. Yeah the live oaks are cool.

The oldest live oaks in Harris County are at the Beck's Prime on the corner of Westheimer and August, west of the Galleria.

It's not that I don't like abstraction; it's just that I don't get it. One of my college art teachers (who was an old hippie) said that Rothko failed at expressing abstract concepts in his work. Whatever.

I need a sign next to it that says, "This artist is trying to represent spirituality" or something.

?????

[kentauros]

143. There are plenty of large live oaks in that area, too.

It's just a real expensive part of town to live ;)

I used to work in that pink granite office building next to Becks, though I only ate there once. Not much vegetarian fare, though they do have a veggie plate. I didn't ask, but suspect it was likely cooked on the same grill as the meats. They did allow anyone to eat under the trees, though, and it was cool just cutting through there to Westheimer. I'm glad Beck's protected them :D

I won't comment anymore on Rothko, but it brings up a memory of writing an essay in one of my later art history classes. We had to go to the MFA and choose one of the abstracts on the list. I don't recall the one I picked, only that I found one that evoked some deep emotions in my reaction and subsequent admiration. Later, I got my essay back saying I was "wrong" in my assessment, including whatever emotions I was "supposed" to have received. I learned then that there truly are elitist "lovers" of art, and the only "right" answer is theirs :eyes:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

144. Yeah.

That's like the bad art teachers we had in grade school who insist there is only one way to do things, and they beat the life and creativity out of their students.

I'm not gonna tell anybody else what they should think about art. As I said, sometimes I wish artists would explain what they are trying to say.

I've been a musician and artist all my life.

[kentauros]

145. I agree with you now that I understand what you really meant about the sign

;)

That's great you can make music and art. I could play an instrument in Band, but I was never a musician. I just need to get my writing skills to take off :)

[tigereye]

93. we saw E Sharp recently and a quartet playing some works by Fred Frith -

evoking similar ideas.

Excellent comparison.

[harmonicon]

109. Fred Frith uses visual images - photos - in many of his scores

I am a member of an ensemble that did a concert of his work, with him and under his direction, a few years ago. The images aren't to be drawn from directly, but to serve as inspiration or visual corollary to the music. What is interesting about these works is that the related image is static and set, but functions as an example of something larger. One is a bit of slate roof tile (the piece, I think, is called 'roof'), and one a picture of a section of a dry stone wall (the piece is 'dry stone'). He and I didn't discuss this directly, but it seems that by choosing one example of something with some rules to the general process of construction, but that will always be different in every example (he's just given one example, but the sense is that it could have been any), he is instilling the idea that each performance of the piece which follows his rules will be equally valid as another, in the way that every dry stone wall is just as good as another dry stone wall.

[tigereye]

131. that's quite interesting! Sharp did guitar pieces with visual-computer

generated/multi-media usage at the performance that we saw. I really like the idea of visual corollaries (in whatever form) to music.


We were disappointed to see that Frith wasn't there in person, having never seen him and always admired and enjoyed his work. It was a great pleasure, though, to see Sharp as well as cellist Dave Eggar (wow, is he a great performer to watch!) as well as the other members of the string quartet. What a cool thing for you to be involved in performing his work!


:hi:

[harmonicon]

132. playing with FF was great

I'm not so into his thing now, but was quite a fan of his stuff when I was younger. Some of what he does is fantastic, and some - like the quartet I saw him play with last year - is not so great (it was almost bad - like a middle-aged, no energy Henry Cow).

I've never heard of Dave Eggar - I'll have to keep an eye out for him.

Elliot Sharp is someone who I don't know a load about, but I'm likely to meet him at a festival this summer, and it's good to know that he's done this Frith stuff - something to talk about, and possibly useful for my PhD research (thanks, DU for completely unexpected usefulness!). I'd be interested in the visuals that Sharp uses - in my experience combining visual image and music directly is next to impossible (the only really good example I can think of is the work of Andre Vida), but it is something worth exploring because so many people are drawn to it. I wonder why.

[tigereye]

133. here is a link to a page that might elucidate Sharp's methods and intent -

not sure I could explain exactly how he blends music and image. I'm not the computer geek in the family. ;) I have to be honest that I liked some of Frith's and the Sirius String Quartet better - although I feel that I am open to cerebral composing, some of it seems to lack passion and engagement in it's quest for early? Braxton-type complexity, if that makes sense.

http://www.repple.se/datacide/recs.html


Eggar seems to be the consummate musician blending serious classical chops (Harvard and Julliard) with broad interests in collaboration with many types of artists with a very human openness and earthiness, ie, he shook our hands while Sharp displayed more NYC reserve. Although it says "New Age" pianist on Amazon., I saw him play cello, and New Age is not how I would characterize him. http://cdbaby.com/cd/daveeggar


I have a number of friends from the post-punk scene (I was a drummer in some indie-eclectic bands but I had some classical piano and choral training when younger and have always played some type of instrument/ been involved in music in some way) who loves avant/squonking/challenging jazz and all types of music and that's why I love checking out these artists.


I would be curious to hear more about what you are studying and what you play, if you like.

[harmonicon]

142. thanks for the links

I'll send you a pm about the other stuff.

[blogslut]

48. Read "Breakfast of Champions"

...by Vonnegut.

The book has a subplot wherein the protagonist in search of an artist that has painted a work composed of a single orange stripe on a green background.

[Heidi]

51. See Vonnegut's "sphincter" paintings.

Genius. :thumbsup:

[blogslut]

54. Actually, that is my second favorite work of art

The simplest, most awesomest drawing ever created by a human being:



My first favorite is this thing:



While I'm no big Picasso fan, to me, this piece symbolizes the very meaning of art. Most people look at a pile of rusty junk and see a pile of rusty junk. It takes an artist to see something else.

[Heidi]

55. I love that! Thank you. Check this:

Call Me Wesley's uncle is a Swiss sculptor working primarily in iron with an emphasis on talismen. Heinz is one of my first art mentors and gave me my first gallery exhibit a few years ago. Here's a link: http://www.galeriezumschluessel.ch/heinz_misteli.html

[blogslut]

56. Cool

Metal artists fascinate me.

My uncle was a sculptor. Towards the end of his life he worked with a secret sand/concrete/pigment concoction and made these wonderful bas-relief type dealies with embedded stones and thingies. He did a lot of metal work. Here's a small piece of his that I inherited:

[Heidi]

58. I hope you have some small idea of how fortunate you are, blogslut.

More than a year ago, I wanted to begin experimenting with assemblage, and learned that here in Switzerland, it's nearly impossible to find:

1. Junk shops like we have in the US.
2. Salvage yards that will a) help an artisan retrieve rusty stuff, b) even help when cash is offered for time and hauling
3. Garage sales
4. Anyone who _isn't_ recycling/repurposing aged metal.

This gift from your uncle is beautiful and precious. In my opion: the rustier, the better. I'm so glad to have found your kindred spirit in this thread. :hug:

[blogslut]

64. I used to know a lovely couple

They had a jewelry line called "Nervousware". They would make necklaces, belts and earrings out of stuff they got from the hardware store and junkyards. I felt a kinship with them because at the time, I was creating jewelry out of melted plastic like bar straws and stage lighting gels. It's really hard to find the clear, glassy rich colored bar straws anymore. The opaque ones don't melt/adhere to each other like those glassy ones did.

My uncle was huge influence on me. I spent many an hour at his feet, absorbing the vibe. My mother was his biggest fan and hung his pieces proudly in our home. After my mother passed, I inherited my favorite of his works:



Sorry for the crappy cellphone photo. It's Plaster of Paris and the background is a mix of carved geometric shapes and that Pollack-type paint spatters. The musicians are wonderful and whimsical. I think he made it in the late 50's or early 60's. My sister has one of his pieces where he took a large piece of tree bark, flattened it out and painted it black. Then he attached a male figure he made out of Plaster of Paris, sitting on top of a tree branch.

He was a brilliant artist and I am extremely lucky to have known him. I dabble in art but my uncle was the real thing.

[Call Me Wesley]

78. Awww! Someone who's getting my sigline!

Yay! I couldn't include the two paintings because it would be against the sigline rules so I had to go with the '*'

[Flaxbee]

52. but LynneSin, you couldn't probably make this yourself...

unless you have as yet uncovered artistic abilities. People say that, and really it isn't that easy. Yes, monkeys or kindergarten kids have been given paint to splatter, but it never comes close to the layers and depth and rhythm of these paintings - Pollock did tend to paint in fractals, so to speak; to paint the rhythm of nature.

Pollock's work tends to lose its appeal unless you can see it up close. Then if you really look, you can see how intricate it is.

You probably don't think all art has to be representative, like a picket fence with a doggie and a house, or a portrait by Rembrandt. Abstraction can be beautiful, and Pollock's work, when seen in person, can be really cool.

You don't have to like it at all. But you do need to realize it wasn't an easy thing to do, there was a method to his work, and that it was an incredible break with previous art, which in and of itself is unique and creative and in a way, revolutionary.

[LynneSin]

71. I've seen it in person (not this one but another one) and was bored silly

And it's not that I have an issue with Abstract art I just fine nothing artistic about that picture. Sure you may buy into all the halocky they sold you but just not buying it here.

[blogslut]

72. I think one has to view Pollack in an historical context

He wanted to change the way we look at art. It's not necessary to like Pollack in order to appreciate his contribution.

I have mentioned my uncle the artist in this thread. I once ranted to him about guys like Pollack. I said that I thought the stuff they produced took no talent and they weren't "real" artists.

My uncle just smiled at me and asked:

"What is art?"

I had no answer.

SIDE NOTE: There's a rich fellow (Stanley March III) that lives in my hometown. He's responsible for commissioning the infamous http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2220">Cadillac Ranch. He's installed many works of art on his land. My favorite was a sculpture comprised of bean-bag alphabet letters in red, blue and yellow, spelling the word: A.R.T.

According to Stanley, whenever anyone would ask him "What is art?", he would point to his land sculpture.

[harmonicon]

113. what 'art' is may be derived from a simple arithmetic equation:

hair - science = art

[harmonicon]

110. it's not a picture, it's a painting

two totally different things. Some painters paint pictures, some don't. Some painters paint garden fences, walls in your house, etc., but those aren't pictures, are they?

[Orrex]

57. Pollock's work doesn't photograph well

His pieces are quite large, and it's hard to get a handle on them when you're looking at a comparatively tiny image on a monitor.

I was only lukewarm to him before I saw a few pieces in person. After that I found them much more impressive.


YMMV, though.

[Lars39]

59. One of my favorite pieces of "art" I have is a napkin I rescued out

of my son's trash can one day. Seems he used the same napkin over and over and over when he would wipe model paint off his paintbrush. Looks much better than the pic in your OP. :D

[MajorChode]

60. Painting by monkeys is considered to be art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_painting

There are some in the art world that believe that if someone thinks what they are trying to pass off as art is crap, then they must be an idiot. Personally I believe the reverse to be true.

A few years ago I visited a modern art museum in DC and the star attraction was a collection of old boards and piles of dirt that someone had painted all white. If it looks like crap, it probably is.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. I don't get anything out of Jack the Dripper.

I don't like abstractions, generally.

However, I have a pretty cool 1970s Alexander Calder print that my mother HATED. The pissosity factor to the parental unit was the main reason I liked it.

My dad bought it shortly before Calder died in the 1970s.

She said "You don't put red, yellow and blue together in one picture. There are too many primary colors". I said, "Well, it worked for Calder. Braniff Airlines paid him lots of money to paint their airplanes in wild colors".

So there.

[Forkboy]

67. It's art...you can't be right or wrong about it.

Whatever you feel looking at it is valid. You don't like it. Others do. Neither is right or wrong. Might as well ask someone to explain why they like vanilla ice cream or the color blue. :shrug:

[LynneSin]

70. But there is a major flaw in your theory

whatever it is I'm always right

[Forkboy]

95. Ah, well, in that case carry on.

:)

[Tikki]

68. I have seen quite a few mid-century modern homes where.....

that particular art piece would look fantastic.


Tikki

[RandomThoughts]

69. Thats easy

Because the upper right is a Daschunds with a puffy saddle and a very small storm trooper riding on it

And in the bottom left is a Ewok leaning back looking up at the guy.

and between them is the forest of Endor


It should be noted that many scholars believe the upper right is actually a Storm Trooper Walker, with a single gunner on top, but that interpretation is still controversial.

[unpossibles]

73. I think you have to look at it in the greater context of art history

and when it was made.

[RandomThoughts]

86. .

[baldguy]

74. You fool! You've got it upside down!

[Deja Q]

76. I once did a macro camera shot of a birch tree. Same thing.

Maybe it's the color and texture that appeals to some.

It'd be more useful as a carpet pattern than a picture to hang on a wall, however.

[sohndrsmith]

77. I didn't "get" it either, until I studied art history/theory/aesthetics,

and I think there is some art that is a challenge to accept without such study. Which is bothersome but I think it's a reality.

I learned about the theories and movements and while I respect their validity, I felt (after studying and understanding them) equally justified to throw them out/ignore them.

I took my (then) 5 year old daughter to MassMoCa (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art) and realized that her opinions and responses (and theories) to the art she saw and experienced was as valid to me as the supposed "formal" ones.

As far as I'm concerned, abstract art is one of the most difficult painting styles of all. I am pretty adept at representational stuff, but abstract is way too hard for me. So many people say "anyone could do that" - but have they ever actually tried? And yes, it does have a lot to do with statement and doing it first, but still - try to replicate some of this stuff - it's not as "easy" as it looks... : )

[sohndrsmith]

79. Someone explain why this is a great work of art...

(I happen to think it is - but - that's not the point).

[enigmatic]

80. I don't care whether you think it's art or not

I barely got up enough interest to post this, but I just had a double-shot of espresso and needed to do something before washing the dishes.

If you don't think it's art hey, that's cool.

[Call Me Wesley]

83. .

:hug: Hey bro, how goes?

[enigmatic]

84. Hey bro!

:hug:

I'm good, Mrs. E is going to advanced Italian class after work so I'm being house-husband and trying to figure out whether to tackle the mountain of dishes or laundry first. I'm trying to teach the E kitty to work the washer, but she seems uninterested in learning...:D

[Call Me Wesley]

88. Nah, kitty is just teh smarts!

Washers are for stupid humans. ;)

We're good here, too. Great to see you! :hug:

[Call Me Wesley]

82. Yes, I guess

some can always count on 'my kid can do this' or 'my dog vomited last night and it looked like this, if I only can sell it!' So, show me ... Do it, post a pic! Since it's soo easy.

I consider Jackson Pollock one of the greatest influences of my art life when I was very young. The impact he had on the art in his time was tremendous, and how raw his work might seem to some, it was, and is, still pure expression; brutal, honest and direct. There's no sweetness in it; there's life and action, there's a story.

So, this is great work of art. I wish I'd have it.

[tigereye]

85. you have to remember how representational most (not all) art was up to that

point. It was an amazing shot across the bow... And a lot of his stuff is so beautiful. I say this as someone who now thinks that a lot of abstract art lacks depth. His is alive with it.


and no, an 8 year old couldn't have done it.


I suspect there are art history folks here who could explain it better than I.

[Mike 03]

92. Sorry to say I adore Pollock's work. I don't have the ability to defend it

on aesthetic grounds, as I'm not an art critic. But I can tell you that I have spent literally hours staring at his work and even tried to get a film made about him in the early 90s.

His work fascinates me. You should check out his earlier work as well. You might find it more appealing and comprehensible. It's really good and extremely spiritual.

On Edit:

I can rec a few great books on his life and work for anyone interested:

Jackson Pollock: An American Saga by Naifeh and White-Smith
Jackson Pollock, by the Museum of Modern Art, edited by Kirk Varnedoe and Pepe Karmel
Jackson Pollock, edited by Ellen Landau and published by Abrams (This is my favorite)

[Mike 03]

94. One Afterthought: You chose one of his greatest paintings to mock. If you want to mock Pollock's

work, there are much better paintings to use: Go to his so called "black and white" phase. Some of them are ridiculous.

This painting you picked is "Lavender Mist," isn't it? Or is it "Autumn Rythm"? It's been a while since I brushed up on my Pollock, so to speak.

[NashVegas]

96. If I'd Never Stood In Front Of It, I Might Agree With You

But I've been in enough modern art museums to feel the difference between Pollock and his imitators, and IMO, there's an underlying geometry in all those squiggles that's incredibly powerful.

[timtom]

97. This is clearly a satellite photo of Detroit.

How is that art?

[hippywife]

98. I love that painting.

Pollock was all about the process and the energy that went into the creation of his work. And it's not as simple as it looks. He definitely had a method.

[GOPisEvil]

99. I used to think Pollock was a hack until I saw his work up close.

There's a real power there that is absent when viewed in photos.

[Dr Fate]

101. This is true with almost all modern art- including "Pop" art.

You really have to see it at the museum to "get it."

[Deja Q]

105. Well, it looked like he hacked it up...

:puke:

[LynneSin]

128. Yeah but I've been that close to a Pollack too

he's got a big one at the MOMA and well just didn't feel it.

And i can feel really great art

[Heidi]

134. What art do you really enjoy?

I'm not a huge fan of Pollock; he's certainly not my favorite Abstract Expressionist.

What are some examples of what you consider really great art? (This isn't a snarky question, I promise. I'm interested in knowing. This has become a very good discussion. :thumbsup: )

[begin_within]

102. I think the "art" about it is the process used in creating it, rather than the finished product

That's the explanation I once heard about Pollock, anyway.

[Brother Buzz]

103. If I could put it in an aresol can I could sell the hell out of it...

Offer other Earth tone shades, too.

And I'm not talking Zolatone or that industrial wrinkle paint.

[Sheets of Easter]

104. Here is something more your speed:

[harmonicon]

114. what is art then?

Tell me.

As far as whether or not you could do it yourself.... umm.... who cares? Yeah, you probably could. You could also paint like any other painter if you legitimately dedicated decades of life to doing so. You could also learn to perform open heart surgery, be a trial lawyer, an auto mechanic, etc. However, Pollock was not just this metaphorical auto mechanic (which you could be), but also the inventor of the car (which takes far more insight and dedication than most would ever be capable of).

[Vanje]

115. beacause

I love it!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

117. I like it when artists explain what they are trying to say.

It helps.

[Lil Missy]

119. I may not be easy to paint vomit. I see some art in there, but it's, well, ugly.

And it does look like vomit.

[cherish44]

120. I used to be an art teacher

K through 8th grade, a job I just LOVED! Someone said earlier that a lot of art is a process not a product. If you have ever seen a film of Pollack doing his splatter painting you can see that it isn't just random paint throwing, there's a method and a pattern to it. Abstract art isn't everyone's cup of tea but ya know whatever...Anyway, I "get it"

[EstimatedProphet]

121. As soon as you explain why Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever.

[fudge stripe cookays]

135. .

:thumbsup:

[underpants]

122. Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487092/

[woo me with science]

124. There actually is art here. Did you see the animal art quiz posted here recently?

You had to identify which works were made by animals and which by artists. It was actually a very easy test, if you use your aesthetic eye.

An animal could not have done this. Neither could you or I, I daresay.

[Midlodemocrat]

125. I don't like Pollock's work at all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

126. art isnt necessarily meant to be beautiful or pretty but to make you think

about the art and to a degree about yourself and the world.

i am not a big pollock fan but i was just talking about modern art in general

[zanne]

129. I don't get abstract art either, but this one I like because....

Whenever I look at it, I see Aspens in the Fall. (Tree branches and yellow leaves).

[Lethe]

130. i like that one

i'm not a fan of all of Pollock's work but i like this one

[progressoid]

138. Maybe watching the movie about him would help. POLLOCK

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi92340505/

Ed Harris ... Jackson Pollock

Marcia Gay Harden ... Lee Krasner

Tom Bower ... Dan Miller

Jennifer Connelly ... Ruth Kligman

Bud Cort ... Howard Putzel

John Heard ... Tony Smith

Val Kilmer ... Willem DeKooning

Robert Knott ... Sande Pollock

David Leary ... Charles Pollock

Amy Madigan ... Peggy Guggenheim

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183659/

[Odin2005]

141. IMO most abstract "art" is BS that lets pretentious snobs invent some nonexistent profound...

..."meaning" that only "they fine, cultured people" understand and "us philistines" can never comprehend. Screw that crap, give me a nice landscape paining or a boldly colored city-scape.

[billyoc]

146. I hate art.

I also hate whatever THAT is.

[GreenTea]

150. google earth

[BikeWriter]

151. I've seen that, and brush hogged it with my tractor.

[struggle4progress]

152. I'd be happy to hang it on my wall -- but I like stuff like that