Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
Pollock fans, you've been snookered, lead by the nose, conned. "It's art because I've been told it's art." Really, that's too bad.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty ignorant characterization of the situation. I sincerely doubt genuine Pollock fans think it's art just because someone told them it is.

Is this music?



Some would say "definitely not!" To them, it's "just noise". This is one of my favorites. But some who would agree with me and like that bit of industrial thrash would dislike the following for not having anything going on in it:



But there are subtle changes in it. There are depths of beauty in this work, and I love it just as much.

It would serve you well to learn that your perception of what is and is not art is subjective, and other people can experience things in ways you may not understand. My experience with vastly disparate styles of music have helped me to understand this.

Personally, I don't like Pollock's work. The drip paintings strike me as no more than the idea of dripping paint on large canvases, and then adjusting the density, color, and specific techniques for different works. But I recognize that just because they don't do anything for me doesn't make them not art.
 
Foolmewunz said:
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".
Click to expand...

I didn't like Rothko either. Until I stood in front of one. I say this without sarcasm, the guy is a genius. If I were to try to buy a really expensive piece from a real artist to hang in my house, it would probably be a Rothko.
 
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...

Is it the water, or is it the glass which is the art? Or is it the relationship between the two? Did the artist intend that the water should be maintained at the same level, or that it would be allowed to evaporate away? Is the work still the possession of the artist once he/she has sold it to a gallery or museum? Therefore, should the artist's instructions be fulfilled? The artist didn't make the glass. Does this mean that the glassware manufacturer is actually an artist? Is every glass of water a work of art? Is everything in an art gallery automatically art? In which case, why isn't the viewer art? Why isn't the lost property box behind the reception desk to be considered art?

This is why I have a very low threshold, the craft/ skill question, as a filter.
 
MikeG said:
Is it the water, or is it the glass which is the art? Or is it the relationship between the two? Did the artist intend that the water should be maintained at the same level, or that it would be allowed to evaporate away? Is the work still the possession of the artist once he/she has sold it to a gallery or museum? Therefore, should the artist's instructions be fulfilled? The artist didn't make the glass. Does this mean that the glassware manufacturer is actually an artist? Is every glass of water a work of art? Is everything in an art gallery automatically art? In which case, why isn't the viewer art? Why isn't the lost property box behind the reception desk to be considered art?

This is why I have a very low threshold, the craft/ skill question, as a filter.
Click to expand...

Art is anything that its creator says is art.
 
MG1962 said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't think its quite as good a return on your tax dollars as you might think.

Any financial value that the painting has is only relevant if the government/gallery is planning on selling the painting. If the plan is to hold on to the painting indefinitely (as you would expect with a public gallery), then its value can increase exponentially, but neither the government nor its taxpayers will see any additional benefit from its increased value.
 
Last edited:
fromdownunder said:
I think that the posts in this thread prove the point that what Pollock did IS art, otherwise it would not have attracted such emotion (positive and negative).

Isn't that what art is supposed to do?
Click to expand...
I think the emotion that comes from art should come directly from the piece itself... looking at a piece (possibly knowing nothing about it prior to that point) and thinking either "wow", or "that's disturbing", or "that makes me sad".

On the other hand, the emotions that come from much modern art (such as Jackson Pollocks') has nothing to do from the piece itself. We're not looking at a Pollock painting and thinking "this piece evokes emotion"; in fact, the piece probably evokes absolutely no emotion.

Instead any emotions are more, well, second hand... the same type of emotion that results from hearing "the government wasted a million dollars on pork barrel projects" or "Bankers who caused the 2009 crash are unpunished". We're not necessarily exhibiting emotion because we're directly impacted, but because we see something that is a sort of injustice (i.e. praise for something that doesn't deserve praise).
 
Segnosaur said:
I think the emotion that comes from art should come directly from the piece itself... looking at a piece (possibly knowing nothing about it prior to that point) and thinking either "wow", or "that's disturbing", or "that makes me sad".

On the other hand, the emotions that come from much modern art (such as Jackson Pollocks') has nothing to do from the piece itself. We're not looking at a Pollock painting and thinking "this piece evokes emotion"; in fact, the piece probably evokes absolutely no emotion.

Instead any emotions are more, well, second hand... the same type of emotion that results from hearing "the government wasted a million dollars on pork barrel projects" or "Bankers who caused the 2009 crash are unpunished". We're not necessarily exhibiting emotion because we're directly impacted, but because we see something that is a sort of injustice (i.e. praise for something that doesn't deserve praise).
Click to expand...

Why do you start out with the assumption that one isn't moved by Pollock's paintings. I find them forceful, very powerful pieces.

I mentioned Morris Louis above. (Rothko's having his rounds already.) He's an artist who lends himself to art book reproductions because of his choice of colors. I always liked what I'd seen in art books but I was absolutely stunned when I got to see some up close.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Why do you start out with the assumption that one isn't moved by Pollock's paintings. I find them forceful, very powerful pieces.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are people who are "moved" by Pollock's paintings. (I'm sure there are also people who feel compelled to eat lead paint chips...)

However, the previous poster was suggesting that Pollack's paintings are art in part because people are "complaining" that its characterized as art. They had negative emotions (i.e. "Why is this art?") and because negative emotions are still emotions, then just questioning why its art makes it art.
 
what a ridiculous question. I get a good laugh out of some the responses, they're like first graders criticizing some Phd's equations related to string throry. But I can somewhat understand their ignorance--I painted for a number of years and didn't really 'get' a lot of abstract art, wasn't until I studied under some master artists that I figured it out. JP stuff is pure genious. Now, I don't care for all abstract artists, some of it truly is garbage, and the examples where they trick some art critics into thinking a monkey or bayby's 'art' as the work of some genious artist are classic examples of the faux importance in the art world. Personal taste is fine. But until you actually DO art and STUDY it for a few decades, and LEARN everything about composition, color, geometry, vision--then you really have no place critiquing it. End o story.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
what a ridiculous question. I get a good laugh out of some the responses, they're like first graders criticizing some Phd's equations related to string throry.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is, string theory is part of science, and actually has right and wrong answers. Equations have to be mathematically correct, and things can be proven or disproven through experiments.

However, art has no such "right or wrong". In part its personal; I can't tell whether you will find it emotionally satisfying for you to stare at a blank canvas; I can only point out how such a piece requires absolutely no talent to create.

But I can somewhat understand their ignorance--I painted for a number of years and didn't really 'get' a lot of abstract art, wasn't until I studied under some master artists that I figured it out. JP stuff is pure genious. Now, I don't care for all abstract artists, some of it truly is garbage, and the examples where they trick some art critics into thinking a monkey or bayby's 'art' as the work of some genious artist are classic examples of the faux importance in the art world. Personal taste is fine. But until you actually DO art and STUDY it for a few decades, and LEARN everything about composition, color, geometry, vision--then you really have no place critiquing it. End o story.
Click to expand...
That seems like an incredibly high bar to set.... you can't criticize something unless you've studied it for decades? And this is for something that, as other posters have suggested, is supposed to evoke "emotion" (i.e. something that should be largely visceral rather than acedemic).

Does seem rather... cliquish.

And how do you know the "masters" who you were learning from were really great artists themselves? You suggested some abstract art is "garbage"... how do you know that the ones who did that "garbage" weren't the true masters and you were learning from incompetent people?
 
The Central Scrutinizer 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)
Click to expand...
According to homeopaths, diluting something makes it more powerful...

So, by adding water to the glass, the art now becomes super-powerful art.
 
stanfr said:
........until you actually DO art and STUDY it for a few decades, and LEARN everything about composition, color, geometry, vision--then you really have no place critiquing it. End o story.
Click to expand...

No, sorry........you're wrong. Unless, that is, art is only aimed at other trained artists. To say that only trained artists could critique art is like saying only trained engineers could critique a Ferrari, or trained architects could critique le Ville Savoir. It's grossly arrogant.
 
Segnosaur said:
I think the emotion that comes from art should come directly from the piece itself... looking at a piece (possibly knowing nothing about it prior to that point) and thinking either "wow", or "that's disturbing", or "that makes me sad".

On the other hand, the emotions that come from much modern art (such as Jackson Pollocks') has nothing to do from the piece itself. We're not looking at a Pollock painting and thinking "this piece evokes emotion"; in fact, the piece probably evokes absolutely no emotion.

Instead any emotions are more, well, second hand... the same type of emotion that results from hearing "the government wasted a million dollars on pork barrel projects" or "Bankers who caused the 2009 crash are unpunished". We're not necessarily exhibiting emotion because we're directly impacted, but because we see something that is a sort of injustice (i.e. praise for something that doesn't deserve praise).
Click to expand...

"That's beautiful" isn't an emotion?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
**** stinks. That produces a reaction.

Pollock fans, you've been snookered, lead by the nose, conned. "It's art because I've been told it's art." Really, that's too bad.
Click to expand...

Dude. Why are you stomping your feet like a petulant child?
We get it. You think Pollack's work is not good.
Now go away and let the adults talk.

Nevermind. You're a non-issue for me at this point.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I think the emotion that comes from art should come directly from the piece itself... looking at a piece (possibly knowing nothing about it prior to that point) and thinking either "wow", or "that's disturbing", or "that makes me sad".

On the other hand, the emotions that come from much modern art (such as Jackson Pollocks') has nothing to do from the piece itself. We're not looking at a Pollock painting and thinking "this piece evokes emotion"; in fact, the piece probably evokes absolutely no emotion.
Click to expand...
"That's beautiful" isn't an emotion?
Click to expand...
Uh, no, never claimed that.

Once again:

The original poster made a statement suggesting he does not find Pollack's paintings to have artistic merit. Others concurred. They were not saying his paintings were "beautiful", or made them "happy", or "sad". It sounded like an emotional detachment.

Another poster came in and said (to paraphrase) "Art is supposed to convey emotion, good or bad". I'm assuming he was suggesting the criticism Pollack's work (i.e. saying "this has no merit") was an example of "bad" emotion... thus was an example of negative emotions.

I was pointing out that statements about his art having no merit did not mean the art piece itself was evoking those emotions (i.e. the characteristic of "art"), but any emotions were secondary.
 
If you think his stuff is art then that's all you need. I do too as it happens. It is creative, original, mostly very appealing in an aesthetic sense and part of a creative story you can follow over the years as he got more deeply unstable and alcoholic.

A true modern artist!
 
Varanid said:
Dude. Why are you stomping your feet like a petulant child?
We get it. You think Pollack's work is not good.
Now go away and let the adults talk.
Click to expand...
First of all, keep in mind that it was not just one poster who said Pollack's work is not good... multiple people in this thread have.

And your suggestion to "let adults talk" (suggesting that "smart" people like his work) is no more valid than the claims that those liking his work are falling for some con job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom