Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other word you start recognizing the skills attempt , successful or not. But as said above, apparently now some art is not dependent on skill.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well, believe it, because I have. Multiple times. I do not find anything in his work that required any real knowledge of composition, form, colour, or balance. Just the ability to dribble randomly. His paintings have no composition, and nothing to balance. Forms are random, and colours might as well be.

The fact that there are so many fakes and imitations made by people with no artistic training or skill which can only be distinguished from "genuine" Pollocks by fingerprint analysis is sufficient criticism of his work. Even the so-called "experts" are unable to distinguish many of the fakes.

By way of contrast, I would recommend Marchel DuChamp's early Futurist work, Nu descendant un escalier n° 2. Another abstract work; but one that shows great skill, and grasp of form and movement. In it, the artist captures a range of motion in a series of overlapping fragments of time and form, completely divorcing the movement from the physical form that moves; conveying the concept of Motion better than a simple film of a model walking down stairs could.

Pollock's paintings display no similar depiction of any abstract concept, except Randomness.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
Well, believe it, because I have. Multiple times. I do not find anything in his work that required any real knowledge of composition, form, colour, or balance. Just the ability to dribble randomly. His paintings have no composition, and nothing to balance. Forms are random, and colours might as well be.

The fact that there are so many fakes and imitations made by people with no artistic training or skill which can only be distinguished from "genuine" Pollocks by fingerprint analysis is sufficient criticism of his work. Even the so-called "experts" are unable to distinguish many of the fakes.

By way of contrast, I would recommend Marchel DuChamp's early Futurist work, Nu descendant un escalier n° 2. Another abstract work; but one that shows great skill, and grasp of form and movement. In it, the artist captures a range of motion in a series of overlapping fragments of time and form, completely divorcing the movement from the physical form that moves; conveying the concept of Motion better than a simple film of a model walking down stairs could.

Pollock's paintings display no similar depiction of any abstract concept, except Randomness.
Click to expand...

You may be specifically thinking about Pollock's paint texture (aka "splatter/dribble") series?

My observation is that he has a lot of abstract pieces that are conveying clear themes. Hard to discuss Pollock online because so many of his pieces are titled Untitled, but just as an example, "Landscape with Steer" does seem to depict the theme of landscape with an animal.

ETA: a link probably would help: [Landscape with Steer]
 
Last edited:
An album of "sound art" was recorded. Track listing:

1. The contents of the cutlery drawer being tipped on a table.
2. The toilet flushing ...
3. ... and the cistern refilling.
4. The schlaaak and clack of the toaster being pushed down and released.
5. The dishwasher schlurping with only 10 coffee mugs in it, all on the top shelf.
6. The sound of a laptop keyboard, typing these very words.
(etc)

In universe 1, it's released by Ono, Emin, Hirst or some other con-artist similar, is reviewed by all the culture media to critical acclaim, and sells pretty well.

In universe 2, it's released by a nobody, and is reviewed by all the culture media to universal disdain. Only the artist's mum buys a copy, out of love and sympathy.

Exactly the same album, different results. Yet many would happily regard the universe 1 version as "art". It has to go beyond mere opinion. There has to be some substance there somewhere. I have no idea what that substance might be :)
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I, on the other hand, also have formal education in Art History.



No, it isn't.



Absolutely.



Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

That made a pleasing display on my screen, in a provocative, evocative, post-modernist kind of way. Can I nominate you for the Turner Prize?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
If that's the sole criteria, as stated, then I'd say it's wrong. (And I took several cinema classes in grad school.)
Click to expand...

Whoops! Yeah, I read that wrong. You're right, it should not be the only criteria. If someone likes the art/movie and they appreciate it then it can be "good" for them.
 
In theory there is a spectrum of objective v. subjective interpretations of art. Judging a work based purely on its usage of the established elements of art (color, form, composition, line, value, etc.) is an intellectual activity, and therefore an objective analysis. Judging a work based purely on the viewer's aesthetic response to the work is an emotional activity, and therefore a subjective experience.

This dichotomy is complicated, however, by the fact that admiring a work (or its artist) for skillfully employing the elements of art is itself an emotional experience, and therefore subjective. Critiquing a work (or artist) and comparing it/him/her to other works/artists based on aesthetic response is an intellectual pursuit, and therefore objective. To such a degree are these phenomena of the mind interlaced that it's difficult to discern where subjectivity ends and objectivity begins. The spectrum between the two is a bit of a mudpit.
 
blutoski said:
ETA: a link probably would help: [Landscape with Steer]
Click to expand...

Something like that I have a great deal more respect for, since it shows actual skill and ability. The splatter stuff, which I was referencing (could have been a bit more explicit about that, I know), shows neither; and yet its his most well-known work.

Incidentally, not sure if anyone is aware of this; but from what I've read his dribble canvases are actually facing a crisis of conservation right now. Because of the low quality of materials used, many of them are encountering substantial degradation, much faster than typical for artists' oil or acrylic works. Good riddance, I say.
 
luchog said:
Something like that I have a great deal more respect for, since it shows actual skill and ability. The splatter stuff, which I was referencing (could have been a bit more explicit about that, I know), shows neither; and yet its his most well-known work.

Incidentally, not sure if anyone is aware of this; but from what I've read his dribble canvases are actually facing a crisis of conservation right now. Because of the low quality of materials used, many of them are encountering substantial degradation, much faster than typical for artists' oil or acrylic works. Good riddance, I say.
Click to expand...
Someone will build a shrine to them, and others will be waiting for the second coming.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Reading back to the beginning of the thread, I see it was Fudbucker who originally made the comparison to a chimp. As such, I apologise for attributing that to you. However, your subsequent posts in the thread certainly gave me the impression that you would agree with that comparison, so I make no apology for referring to it in my reply to you.

Gawdzilla Sama said:
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...
Who's lying to you?

GlennB said:
An album of "sound art" was recorded. Track listing:

1. The contents of the cutlery drawer being tipped on a table.
2. The toilet flushing ...
3. ... and the cistern refilling.
4. The schlaaak and clack of the toaster being pushed down and released.
5. The dishwasher schlurping with only 10 coffee mugs in it, all on the top shelf.
6. The sound of a laptop keyboard, typing these very words.
(etc)

In universe 1, it's released by Ono, Emin, Hirst or some other con-artist similar, is reviewed by all the culture media to critical acclaim, and sells pretty well.

In universe 2, it's released by a nobody, and is reviewed by all the culture media to universal disdain. Only the artist's mum buys a copy, out of love and sympathy.

Exactly the same album, different results. Yet many would happily regard the universe 1 version as "art". It has to go beyond mere opinion. There has to be some substance there somewhere. I have no idea what that substance might be :)
Click to expand...
Revolution 9.
 
arthwollipot said:
Reading back to the beginning of the thread, I see it was Fudbucker who originally made the comparison to a chimp. As such, I apologise for attributing that to you. However, your subsequent posts in the thread certainly gave me the impression that you would agree with that comparison, so I make no apology for referring to it in my reply to you.
Click to expand...
Your impression is noted. I also note that you jump to conclusions easily.
Who's lying to you?
Click to expand...
The people who hype this garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom