Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

The "lie" appears to be this:
The "Art World" asserts Pollocks works to have great value. Gawdzilla Sama, representing the average citizen with random art experience but no formal education in art history, analysis or interpretation, does not see or "get" the value. Thus, the assertion of value both artistic and economic is a lie, in his subjective, untrained analysis.

Pollock's paintings were discussed in a film class once, because his pattern of drunken dribbles can be thought of as a documentary record of Pollock drinking and dancing around the studio listening to Miles Davis.

The Art value of Pollock's works (you have no idea how it pains me to defend his crap) comes almost exclusively from the novelty of the techniques and the presentation of said works in conflict with expectations. His works didn't happen in a vacuum, he was influenced and inspired by other works of all-over composition, other artists working in abstract manner, other artists using Expressionism and the revolutionary mindset of artists he knew from Eastern Europe and Mexico.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

"nobody does" refers to those who care whether Gawdzilla likes Pollock.

Personally it isn't my thing, but I know people do like Pollock.

I prefer Kandinsky, although I don't suggest liking one or the other is an either/or. They were both working on expressionism and abstract art, after all.
 
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...

People seem to care enough to give me hell for not caring about Pollock. This religious fervor is amusing considering the participants. :p
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
People seem to care enough to give me hell for not caring about Pollock. This religious fervor is amusing considering the participants. :p
Click to expand...

We're giving you hell not because you don't care for Pollock but why. If you and I went to a gallery together we'd probably both spend the same amount of time looking at his stuff - but skip past it for different reasons. Mine are informed by an art education, so I can express in art-world appropriate terms what I don't like about it and why. I can understand the value others place on his work, but for my money, something else would hang on the wall of my personal collection.
 
hgc said:
I don't really care that the unwashed masses don't get abstract art and don't care for it.
Click to expand...

That's very close to calling other posters stupid, there.

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...

Good for you. Personally I look at them and think "this one could be nice in a living room somewhere." but that's it. I don't see what's "powerful" about any of them. (ETA: I would appreciate an explanation, however, in order to better 'get' it.)
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Sorry, poor choice of word--what i was getting at was one cannot 'denounce' art as some here have done (calling it crap etc) without the prerequisites i mentioned. By critique I meant 'criticize'. Although, I still maintain that for a decent meaningful critique you need some background. I would agree that anyone can give their two cents! I certainly do all the time on subjects i no nadda about.
Click to expand...

I'll echo MikeG's response to you. A very reasonable adjustment to your original stance. We need more of that, here.

Bikewer said:
Slathering a canvas with red paint and using terms like "It's not about the image, it's about the paint".....
Doesn't work for me.....
Click to expand...

Imagine if the David was just a mess of nonsense and people said "it's not about the sculpture, but about the marble..."

nota said:
is found art ie the pigeon work
any less valid then created art
Click to expand...

I think the definition of art should perhaps include intent of the author. If you find a pile of rocks that looks good and evokes an emotional reaction, is it art ? Is a sunset art ?
 
lionking said:
Picasso and Van Gogh were both considered to produce rubbish back in the day.....
Click to expand...

Picasso is still rubbish today. Van Gogh, depends on the painting.

It's art, though.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I hope so. Why wouldn't someone want to be a snob? Whether it's art or music or beer, I only want the best.
Click to expand...

The issue is that 'best' for you doesn't make it 'best' for others and if they don't agree they're idiots.

Skeptics, remember ?

GlennB said:
Is opera art?
Click to expand...

Given that it's produced to entertain and that it requires quite a bit of talent to produce and perform, yes.

Aepervius said:
Art is subjective. But requiring us to have "qualification" in art is ... Well beyond pale. We may have *taste* and reason behind those, but pretending those taste would change if we knew a bit more about art is laughable.
Click to expand...

Same thing about movies. Apparently if you know about camera work and lighting you suddenly dump the cool movies and start loving the boring ones.
 
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Belz... said:
That's very close to calling other posters stupid, there.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the context, which if I remember correctly, was in response to the simpering charge of "elitism." Stupid's not the word I would use. But I did say philistine at some point, and I'll stand by that. What I mean to say is that I wouldn't expect more than a smallish portion of the populace to appreciate conceptually challenging art such as Pollack's as recognizable as art anyway. It's certainly no judgment on intelligence.
 
hgc said:
I think you missed the context, which if I remember correctly, was in response to the simpering charge of "elitism." Stupid's not the word I would use. But I did say philistine at some point, and I'll stand by that. What I mean to say is that I wouldn't expect more than a smallish portion of the populace to appreciate conceptually challenging art such as Pollack's as recognizable as art anyway. It's certainly no judgment on intelligence.
Click to expand...

Nice elitism.
 
hgc said:
I think you missed the context, which if I remember correctly, was in response to the simpering charge of "elitism." Stupid's not the word I would use. But I did say philistine at some point, and I'll stand by that. What I mean to say is that I wouldn't expect more than a smallish portion of the populace to appreciate conceptually challenging art such as Pollack's as recognizable as art anyway. It's certainly no judgment on intelligence.
Click to expand...

Sorry for being dense, but how is saying that the vast unwashed masses can't appreciate conceptually challenging art (unlike, I suspect, yourself) not a judgment on intelligence ?
 
Belz... said:
Sorry for being dense, but how is saying that the vast unwashed masses can't appreciate conceptually challenging art (unlike, I suspect, yourself) not a judgment on intelligence ?
Click to expand...


I don't equate art appreciation with intelligence.
 
I think that for some individuals, there does exist a species of snob-ism in such things. "So, you don't appreciate (insert artwork here) ? Well, I suppose that's understandable..."

Not that this is necessarily the case, of course. I'm sure there are folks who find something meaningful in say, Cage's minimalist music or that red canvas I mentioned. I would not try to deny them this. I feel a strong emotional response from varieties of things that I'm sure other folks do not, and I understand that though I don't like hip-hop or metal music....Millions do.

Boils down to taste, I fear.

We went to an exhibit of political art some years back. There were some great pieces, including Warhol's depiction of Nixon as the Wicked Witch, and Terry Allen's sculpture of "The great American Pastime"...A bust of an individual with a baseball bat fetched up against his head.....

But there were other works that were utterly obscure and without the nice little handout from the exhibit folks it would not have been possible to discern the "political" comment. One was a section of wall (they had literally saved a whole chunk of wall.....) with a red dot and a line. This was supposed to be a comment on some New York subway dispute. Maybe it made sense to someone at some point...Certainly didn't to us.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
The "lie" appears to be this:
The "Art World" asserts Pollocks works to have great value. Gawdzilla Sama, representing the average citizen with random art experience but no formal education in art history, analysis or interpretation, does not see or "get" the value. Thus, the assertion of value both artistic and economic is a lie, in his subjective, untrained analysis.
Click to expand...

I, on the other hand, do have formal education in Art - history, analysis/interpretation, and creation (drawing and photography).

Speaking as such, Pollock's work is crap. Yes, it's Art. No, it's not good Art.

There are a couple of standards I like to use when critiquing art. One is the "drunken chimpanzee" standard - aka, could a drunken chimpanzee achieve something of a similar style and skill level. The other is the art work:vision statement ratio of effort - aka is the effort needed to create the actual work of art substantially greater than the effort needed to create the artist's "vision statement" about the work. (The fact that a "vision statement" exists at all is already a significant strike against the work being any good.)

What a lot of people outside the art world don't often realize is that many of these sorts of things were originally created as hoaxes, or as attacks on a particular artistic or critical school. Often times this gets lost as the critics fail to recognize the original purpose, holding them up as profound works of art in their own right. Occasionally, the artists themselves lose sight of that fact, and start to "believe their own press" as it were. The DaDa movement is a classic example of a protest/hoax turned into an actual artistic movement.

One of the best examples of the problems with this type of art is the Disumbrationist school. A blatant hoax that was nevertheless almost universally praised by critics. Fortunately, and atypically, Disumbrationism remains a hoax, and has spawned a movement that remains completely tongue-in-cheek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom