Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

[sloinker]

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.

It's hard to give concrete supported positions on a subjective topic of personal taste. How's this? An analogy.

If Pollock was a psychic giving out "leads" to find a missing loved one for a fee and at the same time the local police are also using their methods to locate this person. Which one engenders your trust and complicity? Is Pollock the psychic the real thing or are the police force the real thing? I don't believe that Pollocks art is real in the sense of what I consider art. I believe it was a contrivance of a con artist, who realizes he has no marketable talent, who came up with a scheme to part the gullible from their money. Psychic or did the elaborate art world scam he created take on a life of its own became self sustaining? Like Franklin Mint collector plates.

 

[Meed]

How exactly do you con people into thinking that they like your art?

 

[angrysoba]

It's hard to give concrete supported positions on a subjective topic of personal taste. How's this? An analogy.

If Pollock was a psychic giving out "leads" to find a missing loved one for a fee and at the same time the local police are also using their methods to locate this person. Which one engenders your trust and complicity? Is Pollock the psychic the real thing or are the police force the real thing? I don't believe that Pollocks art is real in the sense of what I consider art. I believe it was a contrivance of a con artist, who realizes he has no marketable talent, who came up with a scheme to part the gullible from their money. Psychic or did the elaborate art world scam he created take on a life of its own became self sustaining? Like Franklin Mint collector plates.

That's some fine well-poisoning you got there by suggesting that Pollock is a psychic. Does this mean that you can use the Mona Lisa to find missing people? Is this something you picked up from the Da Vinci Code?

Why not just compare Jackson Pollock to a pedophile and ask if appreciating his work is the art equivalent of being attracted to children?

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's hard to give concrete supported positions on a subjective topic of personal taste. How's this? An analogy.

If Pollock was a psychic giving out "leads" to find a missing loved one for a fee and at the same time the local police are also using their methods to locate this person. Which one engenders your trust and complicity? Is Pollock the psychic the real thing or are the police force the real thing? I don't believe that Pollocks art is real in the sense of what I consider art. I believe it was a contrivance of a con artist, who realizes he has no marketable talent, who came up with a scheme to part the gullible from their money. Psychic or did the elaborate art world scam he created take on a life of its own became self sustaining? Like Franklin Mint collector plates.

That Pollock was acting deceptively is either a fact or it isn't. Taking a position on that is not subjective in the way that saying you dislike his work is. Is your accusation based on anything other than your own subjective view that his works lack value?

 

[Belz...]

If you do it as a consciously artistic action, yes, it's art

Does that self-naming of things work with everything, or just art ? Is the definition of art "something that its maker says is art" ?

It seems many people are unable to allow art to exist unless it is an exercise of skill, and turn it into a contest.

Strawman.

But singing is an art, and lots of people sing for their own pleasure.

Humming while you're baking potatoes isn't art, is it ? Well, of course it is, since everything is art. Stars are art. Atoms are art !

Do you say it's not allowed unless you are among the best of singers? Isn't that silly?

It's very silly. It's also a strawman.

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.

I'm what your what ? I have no idea what you're saying there.

It's a shame this thread has been mainly confrontational, instead of appreciative.

Welcome to humanity.

 

[Meed]

That's some fine well-poisoning you got there by suggesting that Pollock is a psychic.

Well he must have possessed some manner of impressive Jedi mind tricks if he was able to "con" people into liking his art.

Right now I'm listening to Global Underground 024: Reykjavik, a record that I've been quite enjoying. I'm concerned that my appreciation may be the result of a confidence trick of some sort. What can I do to alleviate my fears?

 

[angrysoba]

Well he must have possessed some manner of impressive Jedi mind tricks if he was able to "con" people into liking his art.

Right now I'm listening to Global Underground 024: Reykjavik, a record that I've been quite enjoying. I'm concerned that my appreciation may be the result of a confidence trick of some sort. What can I do to alleviate my fears?

If you use it to find missing loved ones, and it doesn't work, then obviously you were conned.

 

[stanfr]

....
Humming while you're baking potatoes isn't art, is it ? Well, of course it is, since everything is art. Stars are art. Atoms are art !....

Depends on what your humming and why. Stars or even atoms could be seen as art, depending on the context. I think part of the roadblock in this discussion is that some here embrace an extremely narrow definition while others are extremely wide--and neither has to be 'correct'. As a landscape photographer, I've frequently referred to natural scenes as "nature's art." I'm not just playing with words, I'm making a specific statement about the aesthetics and emotional connections to be made as a result of that scene.
You think this discussion is divided--you should see the long debates on whether photography constitutes "art"--been there, done that!

As some have attempted to point out, art is more about an emotional connection than a physical act, so it's probably not surprising that a forum full of skeptics are going to struggle a bit with that notion. It's not an accident that Science and Art have traditionally been separated. Folks like Da Vinci were applauded for being scientists and artists, not artistic-scientists.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does that make them art? Is aesthetic appeal a necessary condition to be among the category of art?

You missed it. I was referring to the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[hgc]

You missed it. I was referring to the Emperor's new clothes.

Yeah, for the umpteenth time. Your shtick is tiresome.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You missed it. I was referring to the Emperor's new clothes.

Well, the Emperor didn't have anything on, where as the paintings is a case of something. See the difference?

 

[Shepherd]

Would it be more like the dress that doesn't make her butt look big, then?

 

[Sideroxylon]

You missed it. I was referring to the Emperor's new clothes.

And only the clothes?

Has this been a trolling exercise from the start or only when you realised you had no point to argue?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, for the umpteenth time. Your shtick is tiresome.

You don't like being naked?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And only the clothes?

Has this been a trolling exercise from the start or only when you realised you had no point to argue?

No point you like, at least.

 

[Belz...]

Stars or even atoms could be seen as art, depending on the context.

Exactly, the word means nothing.

 

[sloinker]

How exactly do you con people into thinking that they like your art?

Academic/peer pressure comes to mind. If you are told or taught that something is worthy of praise because those more learned or worldly than you say so......

There have been many posters on this thread who point out their art education background as the fulcrum for their opinions.

I totally didn't know that Pollock was also a pedophile. It's a wonder the few that do appreciate his work would publicize the fact knowing his proclivities.

 

[Meed]

I don't believe that Pollocks art is real in the sense of what I consider art. I believe it was a contrivance of a con artist, who realizes he has no marketable talent, who came up with a scheme to part the gullible from their money.

How exactly do you con people into thinking that they like your art?

Academic/peer pressure comes to mind. If you are told or taught that something is worthy of praise because those more learned or worldly than you say so......

You appear to be saying that Jackson Pollock's "scheme to part the gullible from their money" was "Academic/peer pressure". Sorry, but I'm sure you can see that that makes no sense. You are leaving out some steps. How did he get all these people to claim his art was good in the first place? Blackmail? Hypnotism?


Does being taught/told something is good make people more likely to think it's good? Yes, of course. I would be very surprised if there weren't some studies in the psychology literature confirming this. And surely the psychological principle applies in general, not to Jackson Pollock exclusively. I think once Academia deems something good, it often becomes "canonized" in a sense and can become somewhat of a self perpetuating cycle. If only one out of twenty kids loves Catcher in the Rye, then we're still producing a crapload of Catcher in the Rye fans, simply because so many are forced to read it in school. Vincent Van Gogh, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mozart, the list goes on. But, this only goes so far. For one thing, there still have to be people who admired and appreciated the artist in the first place. And for another, simply being told something is good is not enough on it's own to make someone a fan of an artist. I'd heard The Great Gatsby is brilliant, but I did not enjoy it at all. I'd also heard that Shakespeare is brilliant and I happen to like Shakespeare quite a bit. Being told something is good/bad can nudge and influence our appreciation of it, but it certainly can't do all the work.

 

[Sideroxylon]

No point you like, at least.

I have a preference for ones that come with arguements.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's hard to give concrete supported positions on a subjective topic of personal taste. How's this? An analogy.

If Pollock was a psychic giving out "leads" to find a missing loved one for a fee and at the same time the local police are also using their methods to locate this person. Which one engenders your trust and complicity? Is Pollock the psychic the real thing or are the police force the real thing? I don't believe that Pollocks art is real in the sense of what I consider art. I believe it was a contrivance of a con artist, who realizes he has no marketable talent, who came up with a scheme to part the gullible from their money. Psychic or did the elaborate art world scam he created take on a life of its own became self sustaining? Like Franklin Mint collector plates.

This analogy strikes me as saying "If Pollock were a completely different person doing a completely different thing, how would that affect your view of him?"

In this analogy, he is not Pollock any more. He is someone else. My view would depend on who he was and what he was doing, and wouldn't relate back to Pollock at all.