Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
TFB if you find it to be a problem. Projectile vomiting produces art according to some people. They can't stretch that far enough to claim it's good art or even worth the time spent on it.
Click to expand...

I don't find it a problem. I find it entertaining. You don't like Rothko, Pollock, Morris Louis, et al.... gotcha. It's taste. It has nothing to do with whether something is "art".

Stay tuned fans. After the break, we'll have the poster who cites the famous story of the upside down abstract in the museum. And later in the show, discussions of Piss Christ, the urinals in the gallery exhibition, and Dung Madonna.

(We've been this route a dozen times already.)
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...


I would have to agree. I was rather dismissive of Pollock until I stood in front of one of his canvasses at MOMA. It was incredibly captivating and affected me in a way I wouldn't have expected. So for that I'll put down my vote for yes it's art.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fudbucker said:
Where is the creative skill and imagination in Pollock's work?
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question?

Fudbucker said:
How is it any different than what a chimp might produce, if you gave it a bunch of paint and brushes?
Click to expand...

There's only one way to find out.

Fudbucker said:
If I did train a chimp to imitate Pollock's style are you sure you could tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Fudbucker said:
What if I programmed a computer to use an RNG to drip and drizzle a bunch of paint around in the manner Pollack did? Would that be art?
Click to expand...

Only you can answer that question.

Fudbucker said:
Again, do you think you could tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Again, irrelevant.
 
I used to think Pollock produced art after I saw Summertime 9A at the Tate. Fortunately I have been corrected by others in this thread. Thank you for correcting my slack and idle ways.
 
CJW said:
I would have to agree. I was rather dismissive of Pollock until I stood in front of one of his canvasses at MOMA. It was incredibly captivating and affected me in a way I wouldn't have expected. So for that I'll put down my vote for yes it's art.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks. My experience as well when I saw Blue Poles.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have seen Blue Poles and was singularly unimpressed. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and given what Australia paid for the painting and what it is valued at now I think there is potential for a good return on my tax dollars
 
It's hard to deny that some kinds of abstract art appear to be practical jokes played on the community, but it is also absurd to place Pollock in the category. He put an incredible amount of work into developing the techniques required to create his paintings, and they are certainly not random splotches of paint, as some might imply. They were carefully made out of a sincere desire to realize an artistic expression, and, by any account, succeeded at it.
 
Vortigern99 said:
.......It can also be admired, as MikeG has expressed, for the degree of craftsmanship, ie work, put into the creation of the piece.......
Click to expand...

Let me nuance that a little if I may.

My claim was that my (own personal) definition of what art is includes, amongst other things, the requirement that it must contain skill and/ or craft. This is merely a threshold for determining it to be art in the first place. I wasn't necessarily admiring Pollock for his skill or craft.....merely saying that using skill or craft to produce his pieces means that, in my eyes, it counts as art. Add your judgement as to whether it is good art or bad art after that, but at least it qualifies for consideration.

That skill/ craft threshold removes a lot of conceptual stuff from the description "art"......again............my own personal definition/ view. I saw a glass of water on display in an art gallery once, with a label under it calling it "apple tree". That was to challenge our concept of art, apparently. Well.......no craft, no skill, therefore not art, and so it didn't warrant me wasting my life considering. I stress again, this is my own personal view, and I wouldn't challenge anyone who held an entirely different one.
 
I haven't been to MoMA in quite a while. Now, I'm inspired to head over this Friday after work, and do some Pollack gazing.

Let's not get the lowbrows started on Ad Reinhardt, because then we'll really go tumbling across the rooftops.

picture.php
 
MikeG said:
I saw a glass of water on display in an art gallery once, with a label under it calling it "apple tree".
Click to expand...

That would be a conservators nightmare, because you'd have to always be replenishing the water as it evaporated. At some point, none of the original water would still be there. When that happens, is it still the same work of art? (See: Marcel Duchamp) Or is it meant to be an ephemeral work, ala some of Andy Goldsworthy's art? (one of my favorite artists)
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
That would be a conservators nightmare, because you'd have to always be replenishing the water as it evaporated. At some point, none of the original water would still be there. When that happens, is it still the same work of art? (See: Marcel Duchamp) Or is it meant to be an ephemeral work, ala some of Andy Goldsworthy's art? (one of my favorite artists)
Click to expand...


Speaking of Goldsworthy, guess where I was on Saturday.

picture.php


Hint: Storm King Art Center

It's more on the permanent side than some of his work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom