Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I imagine he will tell you to avoid getting worked up over your own straw men.

Thanks for the substantive contribution.

 

[blutoski]

But why? What message does the Mona Lisa communicate? If I do not know does that mean I am not competent to judge it good art? Or does it mean that devoid of a message it objectively fails some good art standard?

That's why people debate over what is or is not a 'good' piece of art.

I can paint pretty pictures... but I don't consider myself a 'good' artist. About 20 years ago, I was selected to paint the children's examination room at the hospital where I worked. I did a Noah's Ark theme, with dozens of animals painted in the bold style of Joe Average. (he was not very famous at that point - I became an early fan when he was one of my first graphic design clients)

Technique aside, I fully admit that I couldn't capture the emotional power that his work possesses. They were just pretty paintings. I don't consider them good art. I'm not trying to communicate anything. Or perhaps I was, but didn't succeed.

In contrast, when I look at Manet's L'Absinthe, I feel the emotional darkness, the bleakness, the depression... that's at the observer level. Study of the painting reveals why it does that, and that's to the credit of the painter. The terrible angles, the oversized (heavy?) hat, the weight is palpable from the illustration. It's not a pretty picture, but I think it's good art.

 

[blutoski]

You said that someone could copy Einstein or Pollock. Hence my

?

Yes, that's what I said. Any creator can be copied. I listed a few for the purpose of an analogy. Shakespeare was the 3rd. There are documents we think may be Shakespeare's but we're not sure. It could be one of his peers copied his style. We'll never know. This does not prove Shakespeare is a fraud.

The point was that your argument was fallacious (of the general type non sequitur).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

?

Yes, that's what I said. Any creator can be copied. I listed a few for the purpose of an analogy. Shakespeare was the 3rd. There are documents we think may be Shakespeare's but we're not sure. It could be one of his peers copied his style. We'll never know. This does not prove Shakespeare is a fraud.

The point was that your argument was fallacious (of the general type non sequitur).

It would take someone of Einstein's capabilities to fake an Einstein paper.

It would take someone of Pollock's capabilities to fake a Pollock painting.

You don't see an issue there?

 

[Meed]

There's a difference between liking something because it's decorative, or is your favorite colour, or whatever; and appreciating/understanding something.

I think you've been conflating "aesthetically pleasing" with "decorative". Aesthetically pleasing artwork is not necessarily used for the purpose of decoration.

Good art should communicate with those who experience it.

Perhaps it's my lack of training in art theory, but I find this statement so vague as to be meaningless.

Can you give an example of something you consider good art and explain what it communicates?

 

[blutoski]

That's why people debate over what is or is not a 'good' piece of art.

Incidentally... regarding the 'communication' aspect...

I have a few friends who often use the phrase "I just don't get it." They are concentrating on the superficial aspects of the work, such as whether the painting or sculpture is a good likeness of the model. Basically, the more photorealistic the product, the better 'art' they consider it to be.

They dismiss Mondrians as meaningless wastes of paint and canvass, for example. Van Gogh's Night Cafe doesn't look like a real cafe, so it's not very good art, is the theory.

They're not trying to learn if the paintings are communicating more abstract concepts such as a interracial urbanism (Mondrian) or psychotic mental breakdown and the desire to flee (Van Gogh).

When I point out these concepts... they still can't see it, or say they don't get it. I also can't help but notice that these same people are slightly along on the Spectrum scale. They also struggle with recognizing when people are communicating emotions (with their body language, faces &c). I have a theory that this is more than a coincidence.

Here's another example... my wife's a bit aspie, so she's one of the datapoints. My wife and I joined the tourist crowd to see Michelangelo's David. The tourguide asked what the statue 'meant'. My wife said "It means Michelangelo took anatomy lessons." I said "Alertness, vigilance, readiness, something like that". I could see it in his eyebrows and posture. I know a lot of sculptors who can create anatomically correct pieces... but very few can capture an emotion and infuse it in media. That's the part that transcends mere skill and shows talent, in my opinion.

 

[blutoski]

It would take someone of Einstein's capabilities to fake an Einstein paper.

It would take someone of Pollock's capabilities to fake a Pollock painting.

You don't see an issue there?

Yes, because it does not take someone of Einstein's capabilities to fake an Einstein paper.

Like I said: I can do that. Anybody with say, 4th year physics can do that.

I'm no Einstein. Copying is not creating.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I guess we have different standards of what would make a believable fake.

 

[xjx388]

I like a lot of things I would never call good art. There's a difference between liking something because it's decorative, or is your favorite colour, or whatever; and appreciating/understanding something.

Im not seeing what makes the distinction between decorative and artistic. Art can be decorative, no? I also don't see why "understanding," something is important as a qualifier for art.

Some of it is about education. I like math, but I don't understand much of anything above Trigonometry, and won't without a good deal more education. I can appreciate the beauty of some types of math; but cannot appreciate the beauty of higher maths, because I don't understand them, they're just gibberish at my current education level.

I like this analogy. I can put a bunch of symbols together that looks like math (*\+24^x) and might fool an uneducated person, but any math major can look at my "work," and see that it's crap.

The problem with the analogy is that math has very definite rules. There is no room for interpretation; it either makes mathematical sense or it doesn't. Art isn't like that at all. Two Art majors may look at any given piece and come away with entirely different opinions. There is no level of education which one can achieve that qualifies a person to define any given work as art or not-art. Perhaps one might give a PhD in Art's opinion more weight but even then, she would only be giving an opinion.

Some of it is about universal, or semi-universal, human themes. Symbols and emotions that are common to us as humans; that almost anyone can see and understand.

I see emotion in Pollock's work.

A more important question here is "why" you like Pollock. If it's just because it's "pretty", then that's a perfectly good reason to like it; but it doesn't really make it good art. Good art should communicate with those who experience it.

As I've said, I did get an emotional connection to the work. Why is my emotional response not enough to qualify it as good art?

 

[Belz...]

Equating Pollock to Einstein? My cardiologist will be calling on you.

How about the examples of Shakespeare and Raphael ?

 

[blutoski]

I guess we have different standards of what would make a believable fake.

I don't see how that follows.

I was pointing out that your reasoning fails, how 'believable' the fake is doesn't impact the disjointed reasoning.

The corollary is that if every forger who attempted a Pollock forgery was caught, you're saying it would prove Pollock was a good painter. But no, that doesn't follow. It just tells us that forensics had enough information to make a distinction between an authentic Pollock and forgeries.

That's why I mentioned Shakespeare: there are works that may be his, but we're not sure. This tells us about the limits of forensics, but not about his talent.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good luck with that.

 

[blutoski]

Perhaps it's my lack of training in art theory, but I find this statement so vague as to be meaningless.

Can you give an example of something you consider good art and explain what it communicates?

A piece that captivated me when I was an immunology student was Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Triumph of Death.

This piece depicts the miserable human condition caused by year after year of plague. I don't think a person can stand in front of that and say: "Maybe it's conveying happiness, maybe it's conveying despair... gosh I can't tell."

And there are little details that tell stories, such as the king in the bottom-left, all his gold couldn't save him. The corpse two to the right holding the dead baby - slash dogfood - is a doctor, who couldn't save himself. The dead are unburying their colleagues, the point being that the disease propagates long after the dead are dealt with, that doesn't seem to solve it. It's layered, it's dark, it's depressing. And that's what the artist intended. It's not a pretty painting, it's not even remotely photorealistic, but it's good art.


ETA: link to the painting: [Triumph of Death]

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess we have different standards of what would make a believable fake.

If you believe that anyone can fake a Pollock, yes.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

But why? What message does the Mona Lisa communicate? If I do not know does that mean I am not competent to judge it good art? Or does it mean that devoid of a message it objectively fails some good art standard?

The Mona Lisa isn't big-A "Art" it's high end craft. The notion of "Art" as we know it is a novel development.

Characteristics of "Art" include some kind of message, manifesto or semiotics embedded in the piece and/or the written artist statement next to particularly vacuous concoctions.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Mona Lisa isn't big-A "Art" it's high end craft. The notion of "Art" as we know it is a novel development.

Characteristics of "Art" include some kind of message, manifesto or semiotics embedded in the piece and/or the written artist statement next to particularly vacuous concoctions.

Is that a necessary characteristic of art? Or are you defining "Art" as something different from art?

 

[angrysoba]

The Mona Lisa isn't big-A "Art" it's high end craft. The notion of "Art" as we know it is a novel development.

Characteristics of "Art" include some kind of message, manifesto or semiotics embedded in the piece and/or the written artist statement next to particularly vacuous concoctions.

Who made this rule?

 

[Meed]

A piece that captivated me when I was an immunology student was Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Triumph of Death.

This piece depicts the miserable human condition caused by year after year of plague. I don't think a person can stand in front of that and say: "Maybe it's conveying happiness, maybe it's conveying despair... gosh I can't tell."

And there are little details that tell stories, such as the king in the bottom-left, all his gold couldn't save him. The corpse two to the right holding the dead baby - slash dogfood - is a doctor, who couldn't save himself. The dead are unburying their colleagues, the point being that the disease propagates long after the dead are dealt with, that doesn't seem to solve it. It's layered, it's dark, it's depressing. And that's what the artist intended. It's not a pretty painting, it's not even remotely photorealistic, but it's good art.

ETA: link to the painting: [Triumph of Death]

You picked a rather easy example though. Of course this painting is a representation of the effects of the plague and of course it tells a story. But for much of the art that is generally considered to be great, it would be far less straightforward to say what, if anything, is being communicated.

Similarly the case for much of the music that is generally considered great, if we are including music in the broader sense of the word "art".

 

[xjx388]

You picked a rather easy example though. Of course this painting is a representation of the effects of the plague and of course it tells a story. But for much of the art that is generally considered to be great, it would be far less straightforward to say what, if anything, is being communicated.

Guernica is a good example of what you are talking about. If you came to it without understanding what lead to its creation, you would be hard pressed to come up with a cohesive theme. It's obviously people and animals and pain but beyond that, what message is it communicating in and of itself? Many interpretations are possible. As far as aesthetics, it almost looks like a kid painted it. It's certainly not pretty and it's a bit of a mess as far as composition is concerned.

Why is that great art?

 

[Woolgatherer]

Guernica is a good example of what you are talking about. If you came to it without understanding what lead to its creation, you would be hard pressed to come up with a cohesive theme. It's obviously people and animals and pain but beyond that, what message is it communicating in and of itself? Many interpretations are possible. As far as aesthetics, it almost looks like a kid painted it. It's certainly not pretty and it's a bit of a mess as far as composition is concerned.

Picasso never committed to a specific explanation of his symbolism: "...this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are." Link

Why is that great art?

You're free to answer that for yourself.