Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

rustypouch said:
I'm a little curious. If say a barn was discovered to hold hundreds of previously undiscovered Pollock paintings and twelve graphically talented citizens were given a week to study these paintings and try to emulate those paintings without direct copying. Could anyone tell the difference between the Pollock and the amateurs. I say probably not. What does this mean, if true, for the afficianados of this artist?
Click to expand...
Yes. With about a 93% success rate.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/ip-wia021015.php

Edit: another article, with a link to the paper. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210133210.htm
Click to expand...
A couple of points:

- The articles are talking about a "machine vision" approach to detecting fake Pollocks... I'm assuming that means some sort of computer processing. That does not mean that humans comparing the paintings will have the same success. In fact, it even states that "experts" often have trouble telling the difference. (Of course, it brings up the question... if a human can't tell the difference between a Pollack and non-Pollack but a computer can, does that actually differentiate his work enough?)

- It states that they compared his paintings to "others drip-style paintings"... but, no information is given on how talented those other painters were, or whether they were trying to mimic a particular piece or not.
 
Senex said:
I've only seen one Pollock in person so I can only judge by that and pictures but I don't get it. That doesn't mean I believe there is nothing to get. But an intelligent description of what to look for would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume there has to be something to "get"?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Why was he (Pollock) "trolling the art world" while Renior (for example) was not?
Click to expand...

Who said Renoir wasn't trolling the Academy? We're just applying locally appropriate lingo to an actual point of academic discussion. The Dutch masters were darn fine craftsmen, but it's hard to get caught up in one and stare at it until you grock the artist. You look, yep, pretty nice, and most of us just move on. They and the French Academy system were part and parcel of an establishment that needed trolling to make room for new ideas.

Art, big A, as a public communication medium has a lot of different modes and channels. Not all have equal appeal to every consumer of the medium. But Fine Art has a limited audience, by definition and by design. I can't afford to hang out at gallery openings and snag nice stuff because none of it is in my price range. I can appreciate an occassional opening downtown at local little galleries.
 
Interesting thread. Lots of concepts and ideas that I am not familiar with. The level of emotion, both pro and con, shown here is fascinating. I suppose I could refer to myself as "art-blind". Paintings, sculpture, etc that I have seen in books, tv, the web, etc. just do not "excite" me or inspire me to want to see the real thing. Sometimes I think I can appreciate the talent involved in their creation, and some items look nice enough that I wouldn't mind having them in my home (I quite like the expensive Picasso shown up-thread), but I have no interest in going out of my way to see any of them.

I have been to an art exhibit once - M C Escher about 40 years ago at a local university with a girl I wanted to impress. I came away thinking that the Escher book one of my friends owned was a much more convenient way to look at them (and the relationship never really went anywhere). I have also seen paintings displayed during tours of historical sites in Britain - Hampton Court etc. I paid very little attention to these. There were much more interesting things to see in these buildings.

So, nothing really to contribute to this thread as I have no opinion on Jackson Pollock's work. Just thought I would give an art perspective that has not been mentioned yet - one of almost complete indifference :).

Now, music on the other hand......
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I agree. You get nothing from his work.
Click to expand...



No, you get nothing from his work!


Your insistence that everyone who does get something is an idiot, a fool, or a troll or a conman, is arrogant bullying.

You made your point that you think it's all a con.

It's boring seeing how you dismiss everyone else. It's like a thread with a creationist refusing to even read what others have written. :rolleyes:

If you don't like a party, just bugger off, why don't you?

Or, since this is a discussion forum, actually say something new instead of just repeating your insulting pronouncements over and over and over nd over andover and over andover andover…

You know, typing that mindlessly was more fun than reading virtually everything you've said in here.

Once was enough. Get it?
 
Last edited:
Well, all I can tell you is that his paint splatters weren't completely random. He did attempt to control them in his own way. I'm not entirely sure what he thought was a "good" paint splatter as opposed to a "bad" one though. It is an example of media controlled by human intent, in any case... it wasn't ever pure randomness.

That old meme that "well anyone could have done that" actually applies better to Dadaism (ready-mades, etc.) than to what Pollock did.

That said, I've never been particularly impressed with his end result.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Bald assertions? Is that "art" too?
Click to expand...
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Evidently it upsets people when I state my opinion. Shows the fragility of their own opinions.
Click to expand...
Your opinion seems to be that a chimp randomly throwing paint about would be indistinguishable from a Pollock painting.

I think that if you put the one next to the other, you would be able to see very clearly that you are wrong. Very clearly.

Have you ever actually looked at any Pollock? I mean an actual Pollock in an actual gallery, as opposed to looking at images on the interwebs?
 
Steve said:
Interesting thread. Lots of concepts and ideas that I am not familiar with. The level of emotion, both pro and con, shown here is fascinating. I suppose I could refer to myself as "art-blind". Paintings, sculpture, etc that I have seen in books, tv, the web, etc. just do not "excite" me or inspire me to want to see the real thing. Sometimes I think I can appreciate the talent involved in their creation, and some items look nice enough that I wouldn't mind having them in my home (I quite like the expensive Picasso shown up-thread), but I have no interest in going out of my way to see any of them.

I have been to an art exhibit once - M C Escher about 40 years ago at a local university with a girl I wanted to impress. I came away thinking that the Escher book one of my friends owned was a much more convenient way to look at them (and the relationship never really went anywhere). I have also seen paintings displayed during tours of historical sites in Britain - Hampton Court etc. I paid very little attention to these. There were much more interesting things to see in these buildings.

So, nothing really to contribute to this thread as I have no opinion on Jackson Pollock's work. Just thought I would give an art perspective that has not been mentioned yet - one of almost complete indifference :).

Now, music on the other hand......
Click to expand...


… is just like abstract painting, in that one is free to interact (without conceptual baggage beyond pure emotion and bodily resonance) with its melodies and rhythms of colour and "movement" throughout the sweep of the canvas, or the field, or the floor or the wall or the air in the room… as in artists of light and space, such as Robert irwin, one of my favourite artists of the 20th C., who eschewed objects in favour of the ambience in the room/mood evoked in the user of the gallery or venue.

Before anyone tries to call that Muzak, remember that the user of the art enters the space not knowing what to expect, and so it is an adventure every time… the very opposite of muzak.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Your opinion seems to be that a chimp randomly throwing paint about would be indistinguishable from a Pollock painting.
Click to expand...
Your opinion seems to be that you can create an opinion for me to hold.
I think that if you put the one next to the other, you would be able to see very clearly that you are wrong. Very clearly.
Click to expand...
In that case I would apologize to the monkey.
Have you ever actually looked at any Pollock? I mean an actual Pollock in an actual gallery, as opposed to looking at images on the interwebs?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've seen Pollock's bollocks. I'm not a knuckle-dragging moron as some of you would assert, I've visited art museums and collections on five continents. I like art. Even the failures can be amusing/interesting. I just don't like be lied to.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Your opinion seems to be that you can create an opinion for me to hold.
In that case I would apologize to the monkey.

Yes, I've seen Pollock's bollocks. I'm not a knuckle-dragging moron as some of you would assert, I've visited art museums and collections on five continents. I like art. Even the failures can be amusing/interesting. I just don't like be lied to.
Click to expand...

6 pages now and you still haven't explained that statement. What is the "lie"??
That it is "art"? That is "good"? That it requires "talent"?? All of these are subjective statements, so where exactly is this "lie" you speak of?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Your opinion seems to be that you can create an opinion for me to hold.
In that case I would apologize to the monkey.

Yes, I've seen Pollock's bollocks. I'm not a knuckle-dragging moron as some of you would assert, I've visited art museums and collections on five continents. I like art. Even the failures can be amusing/interesting. I just don't like be lied to.
Click to expand...

The question is whether it is art, not whether or not you personally like it.

If you don't like it, who really cares? As far as I can see, nobody does.

But whether you like it or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is art.

So far, you seem not to have addressed that in a meaningful way.
 
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had about two years ago when the new East Wing of the St. Louis Art Museum opened. They had a favorite piece of mine on display (see photo), which they only bring out every 3-5 years or so. So I'm standing there looking at it, and I see this older lady (we'll call her LB) circling it for a minute or so, then she makes her way over to me...

LB: (points at art, then asks in a dismissive voice) What is that?
Me: I don't know the name of the work
LB: It's nothing but a pile of rocks
Me: Well, I suppose you could say that, but it's really more of a circle of rocks
LB: You and I could do that
Me: Well, I don't know about you, but I know I couldn't do that, and to be honest, I really doubt you could

And with that, she got this disgusted look on her face, then wandered around to the other side of the work and started the same act all over again with someone else. I guess she was looking for a fellow lowbrow and didn't like that I wasn't one of them.
 

Attachments

  • Artist_Richard_Long's_Mississippi_Circle_in_the_new_East_Building_of_the_Saint_Louis_Art_Museum_.jpg
    Artist_Richard_Long's_Mississippi_Circle_in_the_new_East_Building_of_the_Saint_Louis_Art_Museum_.jpg
    107.3 KB · Views: 16
angrysoba said:
The question is whether it is art, not whether or not you personally like it.

If you don't like it, who really cares? As far as I can see, nobody does.But whether you like it or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is art.

So far, you seem not to have addressed that in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's brilliant. Kandinsky and Pollock are two of my favorite abstract artists; they've had a big influence on my own art and photography.
I have trouble believing that the naysayers have seen his work on the web, let alone in person. Go to a site like Jackson-Pollock.org, and scroll through the 'best' of images. I really can't imagine anyone saying with a straight face that these pieces could be produced by the skill-less, or animals, or whatever. It's downright laughable. It demonstrates a complete absence of knowledge of composition, form, color, balance--everything you would learn in a 101 art course but which generally takes years of hard work, experience, knowledge, training, emotion, commitment to perfect. That's why the 'it's crap' retorts are offensive. You can dislike something all you want, but until you understand the distinction between "I don't care for it" and "It's crap", there's not much hope for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom