Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

[luchog]

The artist saying it is art.

See, this is I think the biggest failure to come out of the DaDa movement; which is where this particular saw originated.

This was never intended to be meant seriously; it was a protest against stifling cultural, political, and academic conventions. The Anti-Art was intended to ridicule what the artists saw as the degradation of art and culture that lead to the Great War.

The fact that their works were upheld as artistic triumphs shows the extent to which they failed.

 

[Belz...]

A film, just like a piece of music, or a painting, can be a supreme work of technical skill; but still be bad Art if it fails to communicate effectively.

What if it communicates effectively to some but not to others ?

It's far less likely that something can be good Art, but still lack technical skill, though it is certainly possible.

Art is such a vague word (see this thread) that it's hard to say even this with any confidence. I don't consider rap music good art (or even music at all, in fact) but that's my personal opinion.

 

[luchog]

Of course you can have objective standards of good and bad in film making. I gave you examples such as a rushed panned shot that goes out of focus. If it does so, was not meant to, has no useful effect then by any sensible measure it is objectively bad.

Objective standards of filmmaking are good for determining if a particular shot or technique serves the story or mood, contributes to communicating what the filmmaker is trying to communicate, or whether it detracts from said communication. Whether that's by a botched or incompetent use of a technique, or over-use and excessive focus on the technique itself, distracting from the story or mood.

That doesn't, however, address the quality of the story or mood itself; and should only be one of several factors in film critique.

 

[luchog]

What if it communicates effectively to some but not to others ?

Then, depending on the circumstances and context, it's mediocre Art.

Art is such a vague word (see this thread) that it's hard to say even this with any confidence. I don't consider rap music good art (or even music at all, in fact) but that's my personal opinion.

It is clearly music, and therefore part of the Performing Arts, since it abides by the conventions of music. Whether it's good depends on how effectively it communicates, and the nature of the communication. Like anything else, 90% of it is crap. But there is also some very effective and very moving rap music out there.

 

[Belz...]

Then, depending on the circumstances and context, it's mediocre Art.

So you're averaging people's opinions ? That gives you a nice IMDB score but it doesn't say anything about whether it's good or not.

It is clearly music

Barely, and it sure isn't singing.

and therefore part of the Performing Arts

Yes, it's clearly art, though.

 

[luchog]

So you're averaging people's opinions ? That gives you a nice IMDB score but it doesn't say anything about whether it's good or not.

No, I'm basing on effectiveness of the communication, taking the audience and nature of the art into account; which is why I included the phrase "and context".

Barely, and it sure isn't singing.

It's not supposed to be singing, otherwise it wouldn't be Rap.

Spoken-word poetry performed to music fits into ancient bardic and oral-history traditions; which are still maintained by many traditional cultures, such as various First Nations tribes in North America, many African nations, and the Sami peoples of Scandanavia. Rap in the US is a direct outgrowth of a much older Talking Blues tradition.

The fact that most Rap is self-serving, materialist crap just means that's bad art. The same could easily be said about Pop and Rock music ('80s Glam Metal being an obvious case in point). There is good stuff out there if you look hard enough. Not much different from any other artistic medium in that respect.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm basing on effectiveness of the communication, taking the audience and nature of the art into account; which is why I included the phrase "and context".

My point is : which communication ? The one between the artist and person A ? Or B ? Or all of them ? Because even if the vast majority of people agree for one work, person B might still disagree. Is there a different communication for everyone ?

It's not supposed to be singing, otherwise it wouldn't be Rap.

True. But re music, to me it has to have some sort of melody to it, so rap doesn't qualify. Doesn't belittle people to like it, though.

 

[luchog]

My point is : which communication ? The one between the artist and person A ? Or B ? Or all of them ? Because even if the vast majority of people agree for one work, person B might still disagree. Is there a different communication for everyone ?

That depends on the context. If one million people can perceive the same sort of communication as person A, but person B is the only one who doesn't; that would indicate that the communication was effective; but person B lacks the ability to understand it. This can be for any number of reasons, such as lacking cultural context, not speaking the language, being colour-blind or tone-deaf, lacking suitable education, lacking maturity or experience, or just being a thick-headed dolt. The Audience is part of the context; though not necessarily the entirety of the context.

If A is the only person who "gets it", and a million people like B don't; then the communication is not terribly effective.

From there, it's a matter of degrees, and audiences. However, one could say that playing to a small, exclusive audience and not expecting anyone else outside of a narrow elite to appreciate the work is also indicative of bad art.

True. But re music, to me it has to have some sort of melody to it, so rap doesn't qualify.

That's a rather cultural-centric viewpoint, and a fairly narrow one at that. There are many different forms of music that do not have what modern western listeners would describe as a "melody". Some music consist of little more than modulated droning rhythms. Some consist of melodic structures that those raised under Anglo-European equal-tempered diatonic/chromatic scale-based musical traditions would find too dissonant or fail to recognize as melodic at all. In any case, most forms of Rap do, in fact, incorporate melodic phrasing in both vocals and backing tracks. Rap fits in quite well with several historical musical traditions. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

 

[angrysoba]

That makes it objectively out of focus, not objectively bad. I love Ed Wood movies. They're very fun to watch, though for unintentional reasons.



Wrong. I agree with the critics that the only objective measures of a movie is the technical aspects (and the box office success). "Good" has nothing to do with it.

I think it does as with any other technical endeavour. If an architect designed a building that fell down in a light breeze then it is a bad building whereas if another architect built a building which he designed to withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake then he designed a good one.

 

[Retrograde]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10653391#post10653391

What if it communicates effectively to some but not to others ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10653391#post10653391

We all bring different histories and experiences to any work, be it traditional art, modern art, music, writing, or anything else: that influences how we perceive any give piece. And the more one knows, the better one can evaluate a work in context. I understand how the Impressionists were radical for their time, but since they're the artists that get pushed on one in high school art history and dominate calendars, exhibits, etc. I'm thoroughly sick of them. Same with Matisse: the guy was prolific, though.

One of the more interesting exhibits I've seen was a Yoko Ono retrospective about 10 or 12 years ago (she has a new one opening in NYC). I go back and forth on whether she's a good artist, but the show was well put together: in keeping with her philosophy that everyone is an artist, many of the exhibits invited audience participation, like playing chess with all white pieces, or rearranging rocks. A well-curated exhibit does more than just show the pieces: it puts them into some sort of context which ideally leads to some better understanding of what an artist is trying to do.

Pollack's work IMHO does not come across well in reproductions as it loses the three dimensionality of the layers. This makes the underlying patterns more apparent.

 

[barehl]

There is a simple definition. For anything you do for hire, you must be a master at your craft. We don't have shade-tree mechanics fix cars. People who have completed a first aid class don't perform surgery. You don't get someone who has done experiments with static electricity to work on your wiring. If the average person can do it then its value is very low because it is only worth the avoidance of doing it yourself. The best example of this is something like a bake sale. They typically have items that many people could make so they don't bring a very high price. Jackson Pollock paintings look like accidental paint splatter which almost anyone could duplicate. This puts the value of a JP painting at perhaps 3x the cost of the bare canvas.

 

[Belz...]

That depends on the context. If one million people can perceive the same sort of communication as person A, but person B is the only one who doesn't; that would indicate that the communication was effective; but person B lacks the ability to understand it.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "understand", in this context.

That's a rather cultural-centric viewpoint, and a fairly narrow one at that.

It's a lot more narrow than that: it's a personal viewpoint, as I have already explained to you.

 

[Belz...]

I think it does as with any other technical endeavour. If an architect designed a building that fell down in a light breeze then it is a bad building whereas if another architect built a building which he designed to withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake then he designed a good one.

Not necessarily. I may think that the building looked good and had fun times in it, and thus consider it a good building overall even if, architecturally speaking, it was crap.

 

[blutoski]

There is a simple definition. For anything you do for hire, you must be a master at your craft. We don't have shade-tree mechanics fix cars. People who have completed a first aid class don't perform surgery. You don't get someone who has done experiments with static electricity to work on your wiring. If the average person can do it then its value is very low because it is only worth the avoidance of doing it yourself. The best example of this is something like a bake sale. They typically have items that many people could make so they don't bring a very high price. Jackson Pollock paintings look like accidental paint splatter which almost anyone could duplicate. This puts the value of a JP painting at perhaps 3x the cost of the bare canvas.

I think this clarifies why there's differences of opinion. The key phrase there is that those drip paintings (and I think that's the scope of this discussion... we're not talking about his cubist works or sculptures) "look like" accidental paint splatter.

This is where art education creates different audiences. They don't look like accidental paint splatter to me. Many of his most famous works evoke the mood they were designed to, many are nicely balanced in clour and volume, &c. They're very deliberate creations.

 

[luchog]

This is where art education creates different audiences. They don't look like accidental paint splatter to me. Many of his most famous works evoke the mood they were designed to, many are nicely balanced in clour and volume, &c. They're very deliberate creations.

The fact that pretty much anyone with a few pints of paint and a canvas can create something in about an hour that is indistinguishable, even by so-called experts, from a genuine Jackson Pollock without fingerprint analysis pretty much says it all for me.

As for balance, there's nothing there to balance. They're effectively random. Just layers of splattered paint. There are no forms, no interplay of light and shade, nothing but just splatters of paint. They look like random plaint splatter, because they are random paint splatter.

I think to a great extent the popularity of his splatter work is the epitome of pretension. Critics and aficionados displaying how much more knowledgeable, sensitive, or whatever than the hoi polloi. Only those with superior taste and discernment can appreciate the true genius... etc. etc. Spent too much time around people like that, and art like that, when I was still active in the scene. Too many hours spent in galleries reading artists' "vision statements" that were clearly the work of far more though and effort and imagination than anything they stuck up on the wall.

 

[angrysoba]

Not necessarily. I may think that the building looked good and had fun times in it, and thus consider it a good building overall even if, architecturally speaking, it was crap.

And yet I think you are now fully aware of the point being made and we can leave it at that.

 

[arthwollipot]

You really don't like the fact that I have an opinion, do you? I know heresy upset true believers. And that's a shame in this forum.

Answer the question. What, apart from the fact that you don't like it, makes it "garbage"?

 

[Meed]

pretty much anyone with a few pints of paint and a canvas can create something in about an hour that is indistinguishable, even by so-called experts, from a genuine Jackson Pollock

Source?

As for balance, there's nothing there to balance. They're effectively random. Just layers of splattered paint. There are no forms, no interplay of light and shade, nothing but just splatters of paint. They look like random plaint splatter, because they are random paint splatter.

They don't appear like random paint splatter to me.

I think to a great extent the popularity of his splatter work is the epitome of pretension. Critics and aficionados displaying how much more knowledgeable, sensitive, or whatever than the hoi polloi.

You think it's impossible that anyone actually genuinely likes his work? Those who have claimed as much in this thread are lying?

Only those with superior taste and discernment can appreciate the true genius... etc. etc. Spent too much time around people like that, and art like that, when I was still active in the scene. Too many hours spent in galleries reading artists' "vision statements" that were clearly the work of far more though and effort and imagination than anything they stuck up on the wall.

Looking down on people who don't enjoy a particular artist is just as obnoxious as looking down on people who do enjoy a particular artist. To that extent, I share your feelings.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think the debate is partly obscured because Pollock was supposed to be "destroying the image" and whatnot. I've had many people tell me you need to see the complexity of the paint in person. I've had many people tell me the meaning is in the action of Pollock in painting it, not the paint. I've had many people tell me the real story is behind Pollock himself and how he came to paint the pieces. Pollock himself said he wanted the general public to treat the works like music to go into their unconscious and go "oh, that's nice".

And of course, when pushed about what they actually are experiencing I've gotten hogwash like this:

It was Jackson Pollock. The first time I visited the Museum of Modern Art in New York, his paintings hit me like waves of power, truth and revelation. But a revelation of what? The unresolved nature of abstract painting is part of its authority. It intimates secrets that seem both personal and cosmic, but it does not spell everything out. Or anything. Pollock painted romantic landscapes, intense Western scenes and primitivist mythological dramas before he laid his canvases on the floor, threw and flicked and dripped paint on them, and released his stellar webs of colour into the world.

His paintings are of inner and outer space. They intuit a complex reality that cannot be put into words. This makes Pollock one of the most moving artists I know. He spins out some delicate weft of insight, at once mystical, scientific and psychological.

Linky.

I'd say "random" is an inaccurate word, because one of the few things we can determine is that he aimed for equal paint distribution. The kind of "pseudo-random" people draw if you ask them to draw "random" (dots evenly distributed vs. dots in clumps). The other obvious hints of intelligence are that the paint doesn't merge and mix into brown muck, the color choices themselves, and the drips themselves, on some works more than others.

However I will say I have never had any of these things transmit anything to me other than "this is paint".

If people are gleaning any meaning, it would be interesting to put them in a room and see if there is any consensus. That is, of course, if they can put the revelations into mere human tongue.

 

[Meed]

However I will say I have never had any of these things transmit anything to me other than "this is paint".

If people are gleaning any meaning, it would be interesting to put them in a room and see if there is any consensus. That is, of course, if they can put the revelations into mere human tongue.

A third option would be that some people simply find them aesthetically pleasing. No meaning is necessary. I'm not a fan or anything, but I like the look of some of Pollock's paintings. I'd rather look at a Pollock than a Rembrant or a Manet.