• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Fudbucker

Philosopher
F
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
8,537
I don't understand the appeal of Pollock's paintings. Is there a technique on how to view them so they actually resemble an artistic endeavor?
 
I love them. They include an element of skill or craft, which is part of my own personal definition of art, and so my answer is yes.
 
MikeG said:
I love them. They include an element of skill or craft, which is part of my own personal definition of art, and so my answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Where do you see evidence of the skill and craft?

I'm not trying to argue. There's obviously a reason his paintings are very valuable. I'm just curious what people are seeing that I'm missing.
 
I said skill OR craft :)

Craft in actually physically making the images. Laying out the canvas and applying the paint. A lot of so-called art these days doesn't even involve that basic.
 
Dude's a genius! To sucker enough people into believing what he created was art and made a living off of those suckers. The "art" itself sucked ass.
 
They are works for meditation and philosophical reflection. You are supposed to trace each line beginning to end.
 
Have those calling Pollock's work rubbish seen his paintings, rather than photos of them? Because seeing them in front of you can be a completely different experience.
 
Actually, I really have no idea but I generally don't dismiss things as "not art" just because it isn't my cup of tea. While some stuff passed off as art could indeed be some kind of practical joke there is a lot of contemporary, modern or conceptual art which means nothing to me but which other people profess to like and that's also true of music which may be the best analogy for something like modern art. For example, while I don't really like Pollock, I do like Kandinsky although I think I would be unable to give a rational explanation for why I like his work. I actually have seen an exhibition of his work where some of his "theory" for his work was put forward. He explained that his paintings were as abstract as music. While we might be used to thinking that paintings ought to have some kind of resemblance to things we see in the real world we generally don't make the same kind of demands for music. So, he argued, the same can be true of visual art if we just apply the same principles of abstract expression towards that medium as we do for music.
 
The answer to the question in the thread title is a most definite "Yes!"

...and the answer to the OP's second question is that one should try to view Pollock's paintings as one would view a child's finger paintings - which are also officially "art" - but while remembering, of course, that art does not have to be good nor impressive as long as the little struggling artist was trying his very best.

I will also add what others may have alluded to, though, that even very pathetic and unimpressive art can be quite lucrative when it is coupled with the art of the con.
 
Abstract (meaning non-representational of objective reality) art can be appreciated for color, form, and composition. It can also be admired, as MikeG has expressed, for the degree of craftsmanship, ie work, put into the creation of the piece. It also might evoke emotions unbidden if you gaze at it while allowing your critical, intellectual faculties to recede.

You're under no obligation to appreciate the work on these or any other bases. But please don't let that lead to the conclusion that those who do appreciate it are somehow insane, or stupid, or wrong. Aesthetics are subjective.
 
Agreed. They are art, and great art at that. Incredibly inventive and highly impactful to view in person. Pretty good viewing in book or on the web too.

I don't really care that the unwashed masses don't get abstract art and don't care for it. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment in the least.
 
Vortigern99 said:
You're under no obligation to appreciate the work on these or any other bases. But please don't let that lead to the conclusion that those who do appreciate it are somehow insane, or stupid, or wrong. Aesthetics are subjective.
Click to expand...

Yep, bad taste is still taste.

While it's true that a tornado can't hit a junk yard and produce a 747, it's quite possible that a twister could hit a greasy spoon diner, a paint store, and a brothel in quick succession and produce what could be passed off as an "undiscovered Jackson Pollock."
 
hgc said:
Agreed. They are art, and great art at that. Incredibly inventive and highly impactful to view in person. Pretty good viewing in book or on the web too.

I don't really care that the unwashed masses don't get abstract art and don't care for it. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment in the least.
Click to expand...

My reply would be that you've been conned.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
My reply would be that you've been conned.
Click to expand...


Yes, I knew you would think so. If there's such as thing as Dunning-Kruger Effect for aesthetics, then one of us is exhibiting it. But then, there's no accounting for taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom