Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

[angrysoba]

Imagine you're sitting around listening to a brand new Pink Floyd album "somewhere in Georgia", November, 1969, and tripping like a big dog with some friends. "Several Species" come up and everybody just loses it. The upshot was a large and serious battle over the difference between a Celt and a Pict. Luckily nobody had their **** together will enough to do any damage, and all the firearms were safely locked away before we started partying.

And, in reference to the work itself:

"It's not actually anything, it's a bit of concrete poetry. Those were sounds that I made, the voice and the hand slapping were all human generated - no musical instruments."

—Roger Waters , University of Regina Carillon Interview, October 1970

Well, there you go. To me that's pretty interesting. I could agree if they were to say that they were trying to expand the scope of music, and probably your friends who lost it might agree.

Now, other people might disagree with this, but I think that Radiohead are a good example of a band who have tried to further the spirit (if not the sound) of Pink Floyd.

However, the track that my wife declared to be "not music" was this:

 

[asydhouse]

In an era when fast was all the rage, Pink Floyd became the masters of ssslllloooowwwww.

Which in itself was a stroke of genius.


Thanx for the memories… both of you! A nice pair!

 

[xjx388]

I really don't understand these kinds of discussions. I genuinely like Pollock's "splatter" paintings. There's just something about them that appeals to me aesthetically and emotionally. I am not an art major -I'm just a dude who went to MOMA one day and happened across them. Those were the paintings that really jumped out at me.

Why in the world would that make me "pretentious," "deluded," "conned," or any other word that has been bandied about here? I like it, plain and simple. Others don't. Big deal.

I got nothing out of Warhol; my daughter loves his work. I got nothing out of "Lung;" my son found it interesting. We all have different aesthetic attractions and to call each other names because we don't agree is snobbery on all fronts.

Why worry so much about what art is and what other people find to be good or bad art? Why judge others based on their aesthetic preferences? This makes no sense to me . . .

 

[angrysoba]

I really don't understand these kinds of discussions. I genuinely like Pollock's "splatter" paintings. There's just something about them that appeals to me aesthetically and emotionally. I am not an art major -I'm just a dude who went to MOMA one day and happened across them. Those were the paintings that really jumped out at me.

Why in the world would that make me "pretentious," "deluded," "conned," or any other word that has been bandied about here?

It doesn't.

I think there are plenty of kinds of art that I like which I know other people are likely to detest or find strange which nonetheless strike a chord with me. In fact, the metaphor is apt, I think, because a lot of abstract art deliberately assumes that its appeal to the viewer is analogous to the appeal of music to the listener.

There are all kinds of music being developed which are considered awful by certain groups of people, but which are wildly popular with others.

 

[Fudbucker]

After nine pages, I've concluded I shouldn't conclude anything until I see one of Pollock's drip paintings in a museum.

 

[xjx388]

After nine pages, I've concluded I shouldn't conclude anything until I see one of Pollock's drip paintings in a museum.

Two possibilities: You like them or you don't. In either case, your personal opinion would have no bearing on whether or not they are art in other people's eyes.

Why isn't it enough that others consider the work artistic? Why does it even matter?

 

[Belz...]

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

So I can't even disagree ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Agreed. One of my least favourite human traits.

 

[Belz...]

Too bad. Art doesn't fit into narrow definitions.

It transcends definitions ! Which is another way of saying that it means nothing. Too bad for you. I prefer words that mean something.

What I'm saying is that everyone is an artist, if they engage with art

Tautological.

When engaging in art, you are an artist. It's up to you to define it

I define my art as breathing. There, I'm a great artist !

I'll defend my understanding with a couple of quotes from working artists of the 20th Century, but I have to type them up, so I'll be back with those later, after I've had me breakfast.

Please do (both the definitions and the breakfast).

 

[Fudbucker]

Two possibilities: You like them or you don't. In either case, your personal opinion would have no bearing on whether or not they are art in other people's eyes.

Why isn't it enough that others consider the work artistic? Why does it even matter?

I don't mean for the purposes of whether it's art. I would just like to know what other people see in it, and maybe if I saw one up close, it would resonate with me.

 

[angrysoba]

So I can't even disagree ?

I'm not stopping you from "disagreeing". But when you start saying "architecturally speaking, it was crap", but in your world "crap" does not mean "bad", then I think that it is no longer productive to "argue".

Have a nice day, as they say.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not stopping you from "disagreeing". But when you start saying "architecturally speaking, it was crap", but in your world "crap" does not mean "bad"

That's not what I said, but it's very difficult to come up with words that aren't "good" or "bad" when discussing technical stuff, unfortunately. It's interesting that you seem to be looking for ways to dismiss other posters rather than discuss the topic.

 

[asydhouse]

It transcends definitions ! Which is another way of saying that it means nothing. Too bad for you. I prefer words that mean something.



Tautological.



I define my art as breathing. There, I'm a great artist !



Please do (both the definitions and the breakfast).

If you do it as a consciously artistic action, yes, it's art, but if you start praising yourself and calling yourself "great", you are again missing the point. Why do people always seem to equate "art" with "good art"? That's a value judgement that has objective standards in some instances, and is irrelevant or indeterminate in others.

It seems many people are unable to allow art to exist unless it is an exercise of skill, and turn it into a contest. But singing is an art, and lots of people sing for their own pleasure. Do you say it's not allowed unless you are among the best of singers? Isn't that silly? Same with watercolour painting. Lots of people enjoy doing it. Is it not art if it's not skilled? Seems silly.

By the way, I'm rather disappointed that you breezily dismiss all I've said in attempting to get over my concept of art as the consciousness event that is engagement with art. You seem to be patronising me by saying that you don't get any meaning from my attempts. Don't feel sorry for me, I've got very deep artistic experience in my quiver, and I understand what I've been saying very well indeed.

It's a shame this thread has been mainly confrontational, instead of appreciative. It's not necessary to give up your own understanding or comfort in order to appreciate someone else's experience/understanding. Or is that just me?

 

[asydhouse]

I don't mean for the purposes of whether it's art. I would just like to know what other people see in it, and maybe if I saw one up close, it would resonate with me.

Don't stop at a sample size of one! I was rather disappointed in the Pollock on display in the Tate last time I was there. Some are more viscerally engaging than others.

 

[luchog]

You've completely missed the point. Art only exists during the user's engagement with it. It is not in the object or whatever, it's an ephemeral experience in the mind of the user.

Which doesn't change the fact that your definition means that there is nothing that is or is not art; you've effectively reduced the term to meaninglessness. Anything is/is not/can/cannot be art/not art depending on my mood and what I had for lunch. Nonsense. If that is the case, then taking crap is art because I'm creatively engaging in moving my bowels. You've completely devalued the term and made it worthless.

It's not postmodernist, I hate that arch insincere bs.

And yet, everything in your post reeks of quintessential Post-Modernist anti-intellectualism bordering on Deconstructionism.

You have everything exactly backwards. Art is what engages people, their intellect and emotions. People do not engage art; regardless of their frame of mind, that's gibberish.

 

[luchog]

Nature can provide pleasing randomness, texture and colour.

So, that doesn't make them art. Art has to require the application of human creativity. Replicating random processes does not have anything of the creative mind; only of the mechanical. Art imposes order on nature's randomness. Otherwise, a bug walking through paint and across a canvas is just as much art as Guernica.

Pollock surely is doing something similar by using personal creative techniques that no one before him has tried.

That is fundamentally wrong. In fact, there is nothing even remotely new about Pollocks dribbles; except the insistence that they're great art. His work is clearly and completely derivative of the "automatic" writing and painting of the late DaDaists and Surrealists; which themselves are derivative of even earlier decorative pursuits.

 

[luchog]

Luchog seems to be narrowing down the definition of art to being all about communication, as if it were nothing but an elaborate telegraph service.

Pat and inaccurate dismissal. Evaded every single thing I've ever said about art and communication. Makes me think you haven't understood a single word I've said.

But it's not as linear as that. The artist has no way of controlling the response of the user of the art, and the artist only has a vague idea of what they are trying to "communicate", and is usually involved in exploring towards discovering for themselves whatever they may be "wanting" to "communicate".

It's not about communicating information as such. It's about sharing an experiential stimulus in the activity of engaging with Creativity. Passive consumption of Art is not where it's at!

Forget what I said about borderline Deconstructionism, this is well into that realm of anti-intellect, anti-creative, mental-masturbatory woo where Deconstructionism melds with New Age mysticism. The rest of your posts only serve to reinforce this conclusion. It's not possible to have any meaningful discussion on art, communication, and creativity with someone who denies the very existence, let alone relevance, of these things. It derides and dismisses real vision and skill in favour of pseudo-populist self-importance masquerading as anti-elitism. I had enough of that crap in art school to know how bankrupt it is. If anything is contributing to the commodification of art, this is.

I know very little about Pollock, or about classical disciplines in art, come to that.

That is profoundly obvious in everything you've said.

 

[asydhouse]

Pat and inaccurate dismissal. Evaded every single thing I've ever said about art and communication. Makes me think you haven't understood a single word I've said.



Forget what I said about borderline Deconstructionism, this is well into that realm of anti-intellect, anti-creative, mental-masturbatory woo where Deconstructionism melds with New Age mysticism. The rest of your posts only serve to reinforce this conclusion. It's not possible to have any meaningful discussion on art, communication, and creativity with someone who denies the very existence, let alone relevance, of these things. I had enough of that crap in art school to know how bankrupt it is. If anything is contributing to the commodification of art, this is.

That's exactly how I feel about your glib dismissal of everything I've said!

Funny that.

 

[luchog]

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.

No one is denying that they're decorative; only that they're good Art. But there is a whole lot more to Art than "aesthetically pleasing". I find looking at female breasts to be "aesthetically pleasing"; but I'm hardly going to claim that they're Art.

 

[luchog]

I got nothing out of Warhol; my daughter loves his work. I got nothing out of "Lung;" my son found it interesting.

Warhol's artistic genius had nothing to do with his paintings or films; which were mostly schlock, and intentionally so.

If you think this is about "aesthetic preference", then you really haven't understood the argument. Aesthetic preference is only one component of Art, and arguably not even remotely the most important. "Aesthetic preference" is about decoration.