Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
The intellectual standards of crap "art"? Good for you. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Ah, now the old "I'm rubber and you're glue"! Excellent! Can "Your mama wears combat boots" be far behind?

(I know this is unfair due to your compulsion to post instead of walking away with some dignity left, but frankly we've got a pool going to see how many pages you'll go defending this nonsense.)
 
I'd just like to point out that many of the arguments here used to justify the status of Pollock's works as "art" can also have been used to defend the work of Thomas Kinkade, although most on this forum pointedly declined to do so, citing the work as various synonyms of "bad". What's good for the goose, and all that.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd just like to point out that many of the arguments here used to justify the status of Pollock's works as "art" can also have been used to defend the work of Thomas Kinkade, although most on this forum pointedly declined to do so, citing the work as various synonyms of "bad". What's good for the goose, and all that.
Click to expand...

Hey! I may not know what I like, but I know art!
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ah, now the old "I'm rubber and you're glue"! Excellent! Can "Your mama wears combat boots" be far behind?

(I know this is unfair due to your compulsion to post instead of walking away with some dignity left, but frankly we've got a pool going to see how many pages you'll go defending this nonsense.)
Click to expand...

You keep responding to my posts. (Free clue.)
 
Checkmite said:
I'd just like to point out that many of the arguments here used to justify the status of Pollock's works as "art" can also have been used to defend the work of Thomas Kinkade, although most on this forum pointedly declined to do so, citing the work as various synonyms of "bad". What's good for the goose, and all that.
Click to expand...

You have to figure in the "snoot factor". Only the elite may see "true art". Lowbrows need not apply.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ah, now the old "I'm rubber and you're glue"! Excellent! Can "Your mama wears combat boots" be far behind?

(I know this is unfair due to your compulsion to post instead of walking away with some dignity left, but frankly we've got a pool going to see how many pages you'll go defending this nonsense.)
Click to expand...

Gawdzilla Sama said:
You keep responding to my posts. (Free clue.)
Click to expand...

Nope. I've hilited the free clue for you. Since it preceded your snappy-witty rejoinder, you might've thought to come up with something else. Have you tried "I know it when I see it", yet? That's always good to appeal to the town council meeting.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd just like to point out that many of the arguments here used to justify the status of Pollock's works as "art" can also have been used to defend the work of Thomas Kinkade, although most on this forum pointedly declined to do so, citing the work as various synonyms of "bad". What's good for the goose, and all that.
Click to expand...

For me, kinkade's work is judged along the same standard as pollock's. Do I like their work? In both cases, I think not much, but I think both are art.
 
Belz... said:
Only if the farter calls it that.
Click to expand...

That's right. Maybe you are familiar with Mr Methane? But what, pray tell, is your standard for judging what is or is not music? I already have a thread on this topic by the way so you could probably move your rumination a on the theme thataway!
 
angrysoba said:
For me, kinkade's work is judged along the same standard as pollock's. Do I like their work? In both cases, I think not much, but I think both are art.
Click to expand...



Pretty much my own opinion as well. I personally can't suffer country music but it never for a moment occurred to me to declare that it's not music.
 
Checkmite said:
Pretty much my own opinion as well. I personally can't suffer country music but it never for a moment occurred to me to declare that it's not music.
Click to expand...

And that's it. The OP asked a specific question. It was immediately answered. The rest of the thread has been a stupid pissing contest.

Pollock's paintings are art. Thread closed. Move on.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
See? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. I see you're at 99 posts and the thread is not yet at 11 pages.

I've got the overs at 125 and 13 respectively. I bundled them so I'm getting 18:1, because back at your earliest posts, no one believed me when I said, "Big Lizard? Hell, he can keep this up for weeks!"
 
blutoski said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there are some grounds for saying that Pollock would be harder to fake than other painters, in a way, and that experts - yes, experts! - may be better placed to know what is and is not fake, if something like this is considered.

Bonus points for those who can tell me what makes this hard to fake:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom