Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...


Gee, thanks for calling me a wanker!


We have nothing to say to each other, obviously. You certainly haven't understood what I've been saying. I think that's because you've decided to reject my ideas before reading on.

I likewise reject your narrowing of art down to "communication". The only possible communication in nonverbal art is the communication of the opportunity for an aesthetic experience. That's what I meant when I said it's about sharing the creativity in the moment.

I'm somewhat insulted and bemused that you chose to attack me so vociferously in order to dismiss my understanding, sentiment, and practice. The animosity is quite surprising to me.

I guess you are really talking to some one who has traumatised you in the past, from what you've alluded to. Anyway, I've lost interest in this conversation.

Enjoy yourself!
 
asydhouse said:
That's exactly how I feel about your glib dismissal of everything I've said!
Click to expand...


With the difference being that, having actually had training in both classical and modern art, history and practice; I actually know what I'm talking about. I already went through my Deconstructionist phase back in my early twenties. I grew out of it once I actually started to put real, serious effort into my work instead of just hanging around galleries engaging in pseudo-intellectual theorizing.
 
asydhouse said:
The only possible communication in nonverbal art is the communication of the opportunity for an aesthetic experience.
Click to expand...

And that right there is why you have no idea what you're talking about, and are completely and fundamentally wrong. In fact, there is a great deal of communication possible in non-verbal art well beyond mere aesthetics.

What irks me is when people hold up their inability or unwillingness to actually understand something as a virtue; and dismiss and denigrate those who have made the effort to do so. It's like deriding people for speaking a language you don't want to make the effort to learn.

I likewise reject your narrowing of art down to "communication".
Click to expand...


Rejection of intellect and creativity is certainly nothing new for Post-Modernists/Deconstructionsts. Eunuchs boasting of their rejection of sexual desire.
 
Last edited:
Explorer said:
Nature can provide pleasing randomness, texture and colour. Pollock surely is doing something similar by using personal creative techniques that no one before him has tried.
Click to expand...

Not so. We have many documented examples of influences, but the most striking is the Ukrainian Sobel whose drip painting, all-over work he saw in person.
 
If nothing else, Pollock has generated plenty of discussion on the nature of art on these forums. Does that make it art?
 
luchog said:
Warhol's artistic genius had nothing to do with his paintings or films; which were mostly schlock, and intentionally so.
Click to expand...
You say "genius," I say "hack." Who's correct? Does it even matter? What I object to is one person telling another, "the artist you admire is crap. It's not even art." But if I appreciate something as art, isn't that enough? Have I been conned, as some posters have said?

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.
Click to expand...
Art is all about perception and emotion; how could it be otherwise? As such, art is all about aesthetics. In fact, that's all it really is.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I note your demand.
Click to expand...
And still won't answer the question.

Okay, I will therefore assume that your sole criterion for something being garbage is that you don't like it, and that everything that you don't like is therefore garbage.

You are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion, parochial and narrow-minded though it is.
 
arthwollipot said:
And still won't answer the question.

Okay, I will therefore assume that your sole criterion for something being garbage is that you don't like it, and that everything that you don't like is therefore garbage.

You are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion, parochial and narrow-minded though it is.
Click to expand...

See? That's why I didn't bother answering. I knew you'd do it for me. And so wisely. I will sit at your feet.
 
luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

So? I never said or implied that everything that's aesthetically pleasing is art. Would you deny that a painting of breasts is art?
 
The opinions expressed pro/con somehow remind me of the Emperor with no clothes fable.
 
sloinker said:
The opinions expressed pro/con somehow remind me of the Emperor with no clothes fable.
Click to expand...

By this statement you simply deny the value of Pollocks work, place yourself among the honest truth speakers, with no reasoning given for the position.

ETA: Apologies as this is a misinterpretation of what you have said.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I appreciate you pointing out that luchog's statement about randomness is complete nonsense. For example, anyone claiming that a work like "Convergence" (widely considered his most famous work) is random clearly doesn't know the definition of the word.

But I think your off the track in your comment about 'transmitting meaning'
Consensus certainly isn't necessary for great art. Take the most popular, successful songs and you'll find dozens of contrary interpretations of the lyrics. Knowing something about the artist's vision and goals is helpful, but even that isn't going to give some universal 'meaning'.
Also, read Cornsail's response. 'Meaning' isn't even necessary for something to be appreciated as aesthetic and artistic. Do you think the Mandelbrot Set is art? It's just a mapping of solutions to a mathematical statement. But some of the 'artistic' renditions of it are quite complex and beautiful, much like a JP painting. ;) Do they require any "transmission" other than the underlying quadratic polynomial?
Click to expand...

I like this paper, which covers Pollock's progression along with his critical reception, and people have brought up pretty much every argument that has been made in this thread. These are many sub-categories of debates, but my interpretation of Pollock is that there is a meaning, just not oft communicated. I don't believe he was aiming for total non-form, which we see in his later works.
 
Since my opinion is both right and wrong (i think he's a great artist). I'll submit my art critique using "The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator" to create CRAP.

I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the optical suggestions of the spatial relationships makes resonant the substructure of critical thinking.

Pixmaven Phrase Generator
 
luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, my old painting professor used to tell a little anecdote about how he and some of his graduate school colleagues went through a period where they tried to intentionally create a "bad" painting. They failed miserably, according to him... he thought those were some of the best paintings he ever did. Art is sort of like that. This would've been during the height of abstract expressionism.

Oddly enough, I think his own abstract paintings would be well-received by those who complain about not understanding "abstract art" though. His works show a lot more organization, skill and detail than earlier abstract paintings. His work is sort of a Diebenkorn derivative though, so not particularly avant garde anymore (if ever).

(examples) Like any paintings, they look a bit different (better, in this case) in person than what a digital image can give you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom