Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw a video someone made to poke fun at art snobs like yourself. They gave some paint to a chimp. He played with the paint on a canvase. When the paint dried, they framed the painting and put it in an art museum. The critics raved about the painting and it's expression. Then they introduced the snobbish critics to the artist.
LOL I am far from an art snob. art that isn't a depiction of something everyone can recognize straight away is a personal preference as to if you like it or not. I do agree there are many famous painters when you see the work you wonder WTF and I can paint that. but I ask you to try it! art critics...please who cares, again to like art is a personal impression. if the monkey's work was good then it was good. we can also program a computer to produce a great picture, doesn't mean it isn't appealing to someone. art in the 20th century is also about marketing and politics as much, if not more than it is about talent. style is another thing all together.
What I don't "get" is how people can be convinced that the works like that are anything other than random crap. It does not take a talent or a skill to throw a bunch of paint onto a canvas when there is absolutely nothing represented by it. Just like there's a difference between real jazz music (the stuff played in New Orleans) and the crap that passes as Jazz on a local PBS station. Just blurting out notes on a trumpet with no rhyme or reason does not take talent.
For all we know, Pollack was simply plastered when painting these "works of art" and he had no idea what he was painting. He even began numbering them instead of naming them because they didn't really have any meaning.
At the same time that Pollock was making his "works of art", MC Escher was actually creating something that would last and that would fascinate art lovers and those who know nothing about art alike. Pollock was overrated when he was alive and he's overrated now. Plenty of artists existed in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s who created things that were more beautiful, more unique and took far more artistic talent to create. All Pollock did was drip house paint onto a canvas.
again I would challenge you to create some drips on paint and post them, side by side with a pollack.
again I would challenge you to create some drips on paint and post them, side by side with a pollack.
I draw cartoon pigs and they are hugely popular :-) I get requests for my pigs to be drawn all the time.
I never claimed to be an artist, my artistic talents are more expressed through fiction writing and poetry (published in both) and through creativity in my athletic exploits like in the way I am creative as a goal scorer in hockey or in my 1-on-1 moves in basketball.
All I am saying is that Pollock's work is hugely overrated and that anyone who paid $1 million was basically duped into doing so until it somehow took on a life of its own. To me, Pollock's fame comes from the insane marketing hype he had when he was alive and then his resurgence came when Ed Harris portrayed him in film. When I see all of the incredibly talented artists making nothing on the streets of Florence or Santa Fe, it saddens me that so much money could be spent and dedicated to stuff like Pollock's. That whole style of modern "art" is a joke.
I
All I am saying is that Pollock's work is hugely overrated and that anyone who paid $1 million was basically duped into doing so until it somehow took on a life of its own. To me, Pollock's fame comes from the insane marketing hype he had when he was alive and then his resurgence came when Ed Harris portrayed him in film. When I see all of the incredibly talented artists making nothing on the streets of Florence or Santa Fe, it saddens me that so much money could be spent and dedicated to stuff like Pollock's.
But couldn't we say that about a lot of "modern" (or pop) art ? Not just visual.
Think about it; First Violin in the Boston Symphony Orchestra should earn a lot more per year than say, Brittney Spears. Based solely on talent and skill. But, alas, that is not the way our society works. It's allllll about hype and marketing ( See: "reality TV" if you really want to toss your cookies).
So perhaps, a way to look at it is this: the hype and marketing IS the art. Kind of like a performance piece. I'm afraid to say that in today's digital marketplace that's not going to go away. Best "tweeter" wins.
It never hurts to die young either. People love that. The tragedy and the angst and all that.
Quote:
That whole style of modern "art" is a joke.
I'd be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Much of what those early modern artists did was to turn convention on it's ear and pave the way for future experimentation. For that I am thankful. I can't imagine living in a world with a million Monet wanna-be's and nothing else to look at.
But couldn't we say that about a lot of "modern" (or pop) art ? Not just visual.
Think about it; First Violin in the Boston Symphony Orchestra should earn a lot more per year than say, Brittney Spears. Based solely on talent and skill. But, alas, that is not the way our society works. It's allllll about hype and marketing ( See: "reality TV" if you really want to toss your cookies).
Yes, but find me one legitimate critic who would refer to Spears as "Art". Robert Bradley or Little Walter are "art", but their sales are nothing compared to hers.
Quote:
So perhaps, a way to look at it is this: the hype and marketing IS the art. Kind of like a performance piece. I'm afraid to say that in today's digital marketplace that's not going to go away. Best "tweeter" wins.
It never hurts to die young either. People love that. The tragedy and the angst and all that.
If marketing makes something "art", is GI Joe "art'?
Quote:
'd be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Much of what those early modern artists did was to turn convention on it's ear and pave the way for future experimentation. For that I am thankful. I can't imagine living in a world with a million Monet wanna-be's and nothing else to look at.
Monet and Van Gogh created new ways to look at things and they did it in a way that took an incredible amount of skill and training to master. Pollock stood above a canvas and simply dripped paint onto it without any plan or result. Escher came along at about the same time as Pollock and he created a whole new style of art.
MOST people who lack a true education in the arts would find it difficult to accept anything other than Thos. Kincaid style paintings for their living rooms. In order to understand why COLLECTORS will pay what they pay for a work of art, one needs to be educated in the field. No one is "duping" those collectors into purchasing anything.
People who make claims such as "my kid could do better" are only showing their ignorance of the larger World of Art. Same goes for those who would compare Escher to Pollock!
If marketing makes something "art", is GI Joe "art'?
I suppose I misunderstood you. I thought your problem was with the amount of money Pollock made from his work.
Interestingly enough, you keep mentioning Escher. Escher is definitely more "popular" than Pollack. I would say his work is more accessible to the masses (ironically, much like a Spears). I like his work, don't get me wrong, but in my mind he will always be more of a mathematician and graphic artist than a fine painter. That does not diminish, in any way shape or form, his life's work. It's just different.
It's a bit like comparing Frank Lloyd Wright to Gaudi. Know what I mean?
Your post reminds me of a saying my dad had about food. "If I have to aquire the taste for something, then it isn't good". If you have to get educated to like a painting, then you aren't educated, you're brainwashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxart
MOST people who lack a true education in the arts would find it difficult to accept anything other than Thos. Kincaid style paintings for their living rooms. In order to understand why COLLECTORS will pay what they pay for a work of art, one needs to be educated in the field. No one is "duping" those collectors into purchasing anything.
People who make claims such as "my kid could do better" are only showing their ignorance of the larger World of Art. Same goes for those who would compare Escher to Pollock!
Your post reminds me of a saying my dad had about food. "If I have to aquire the taste for something, then it isn't good". If you have to get educated to like a painting, then you aren't educated, you're brainwashed.
MOST people who lack a true education in the arts would find it difficult to accept anything other than Thos. Kincaid style paintings for their living rooms. In order to understand why COLLECTORS will pay what they pay for a work of art, one needs to be educated in the field. No one is "duping" those collectors into purchasing anything.
People who make claims such as "my kid could do better" are only showing their ignorance of the larger World of Art. Same goes for those who would compare Escher to Pollock!
I'm hardly uneducated. I've been to hundreds of art museums, including dozens you've never been to, and I took art history classes in college.
I'm more educated on the subject of art than you are and I know what I'm talking about here. Plenty of people could replicate a Rothko or make something equivalent to Pollock, but how many could create what Monet or El Greco or Dali or Picasso did?
Pollock was an alcoholic who probably painted most of his "masterpieces" in such a stupor that he couldn't even see what he was painting. A marketing machine is what made him, not talent. Art does not have to be pretty, but it has to take some kind of skill to be considered art. Pollock does not qualify.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? Not just visual.
