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.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "artistic genius" BS in the Jackson Pollock craze. There is not a single person on the planet who couldn't "paint" like he did. What talent did he have?
I simply don't get it.
Monet, Van Gogh, Munch, Manet, Delacroix, Cézanne, Dali, even Picasso had artistic abilities that others cannot dream of, Pollock simply threw paint onto a canvas.
do you paint? so many artists have paintings that look easy. try it, you will see it really isn't as easy as it seems. the works of Pollack may seem like dribbles but any attempt to copy will show most of us lack the balance and the artistry to bring the colors and lines together in any real artistic way. he also painted non drip paintings perhaps you just don't like his style. the same things could be said of Mark Rothko's work. try looking at the style for what it is and you may start to like it. many people do not like Picasso either but the more you look the more you can understand and appreciate it
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "artistic genius" BS in the Jackson Pollock craze. There is not a single person on the planet who couldn't "paint" like he did. What talent did he have?
I simply don't get it.
Monet, Van Gogh, Munch, Manet, Delacroix, Cézanne, Dali, even Picasso had artistic abilities that others cannot dream of, Pollock simply threw paint onto a canvas.
do you paint? so many artists have paintings that look easy. try it, you will see it really isn't as easy as it seems. the works of Pollack may seem like dribbles but any attempt to copy will show most of us lack the balance and the artistry to bring the colors and lines together in any real artistic way. he also painted non drip paintings perhaps you just don't like his style. the same things could be said of Mark Rothko's work. try looking at the style for what it is and you may start to like it. many people do not like Picasso either but the more you look the more you can understand and appreciate it
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.
do you paint? so many artists have paintings that look easy. try it, you will see it really isn't as easy as it seems. the works of Pollack may seem like dribbles but any attempt to copy will show most of us lack the balance and the artistry to bring the colors and lines together in any real artistic way. he also painted non drip paintings perhaps you just don't like his style. the same things could be said of Mark Rothko's work. try looking at the style for what it is and you may start to like it. many people do not like Picasso either but the more you look the more you can understand and appreciate it
I cannot paint like Monet, Manet, Bruegel, Rembrant, Picasso, Dali or any of those truly great artists, but I can certainly paint like Rothko and Pollock. That's the point! I CAN paint like those guys. Anyone can. Toddlers can. It takes no skill or talent to paint three lines of solid colors or to stand over a canvas with a wet paint brush. I'm pointing out that the entire genre of "art" that Pollock and Rothko represent is utter trash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
Have you ever seen a Pollack in person?
I guarantee you would get it if you have, amazing!
I've been to more art museums than you can even think of. The Hermitage, The Neue Pinakothek, The Louvre, The MoMA and the SFMoMA, The Rijksmuseum, the Austrian National Gallery, every art museum in the Smithsonian, and many others. I've seen thousands of paintings and I'm always shocked at how much worse that genre of "art" is than everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaveGal
I could never call an artist work trash...even if I don't really agree with it
Art is a way of expression & sometimes we may not agree with it
Why not? What makes one an artist? Everyone is an artist and when their work is given monetary value, it has to be evaluated for its worth. I just don't see how something an untrained Monkey could do is somehow equivalent to something that only one person in history was ever able to truly master (Van Gogh, Monet, Dali, Escher, etc.), that's the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxart
Considering that Pollock's "least known" works probably sell in the $million+ range means you don't have to like the work - just own it if you can!
Duh. My point is that if society vanished for 50 years and everyone forgot about his work, that same painting would be thrown away into the trash while the amazing works of the artists I've been naming would still be considered masterpieces.
Nothing gets people more upset than pointing out how overrated something is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaughnwilliams
I like the "even Picasso had artistic abilities".
Gotta love how you take my words out of context. "that others cannot dream of" is a pretty important modifier. I am amazed by Picasso (some claim he's not talented and that his paintings are ugly) and it was pretty clear from that context. But you decided to chop up my words to change it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
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.
Exactly. These people want to seem like they are so special, but they simply try to find meaning in things that have none. I've seen more paintings (I even took art history classes in college) than most people in this world and I know what I like and what I don't like, but I also know what is good and what isn't. I personally don't like religious artwork because it all looks the same, plus their depiction of Jesus as a anglo-white guy is highly inaccurate, but I respect the talent necessary to create it. I don't like most Picasso works, but I recognize his talent. The difference is that any monkey could paint a Pollock, but if a Monkey could paint a Manet or Monet, that would be something amazing.
While I can understand the O.P.'s comment, what he doesn't "get" is the translation of "motion" onto a fixed surface. . . .not dissimilar to John Cage, musician, in an artistic sense. . ..
but there is also an element of "intellectual understanding" necessary for appreciation, and that is not an essentially visual process. . . .
remember the little kid (can't remember her name) whose "paintings" were selling for millions, and proved to be a "scam". . ..see the Movie "My kid could do that". . . ..
While I can understand the O.P.'s comment, what he doesn't "get" is the translation of "motion" onto a fixed surface. . . .not dissimilar to John Cage, musician, in an artistic sense. . ..
but there is also an element of "intellectual understanding" necessary for appreciation, and that is not an essentially visual process. . . .
remember the little kid (can't remember her name) whose "paintings" were selling for millions, and proved to be a "scam". . ..see the Movie "My kid could do that". . . ..
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.
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.
