Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

eerok said:
Yes, Jackson Pollock's paintings are art.

What a silly question.
Click to expand...

I don't see that it's silly.

The definition of art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Where is the creative skill and imagination in Pollock's work? How is it any different than what a chimp might produce, if you gave it a bunch of paint and brushes? If I did train a chimp to imitate Pollock's style are you sure you could tell the difference? What if I programmed a computer to use an RNG to drip and drizzle a bunch of paint around in the manner Pollack did? Would that be art? Again, do you think you could tell the difference?
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't see that it's silly.

The definition of art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Where is the creative skill and imagination in Pollock's work? How is it any different than what a chimp might produce, if you gave it a bunch of paint and brushes? If I did train a chimp to imitate Pollock's style are you sure you could tell the difference? What if I programmed a computer to use an RNG to drip and drizzle a bunch of paint around in the manner Pollack did? Would that be art? Again, do you think you could tell the difference?
Click to expand...
His work looks like his trash can threw up on the canvas. No hint of Mona Lisa there.
 
Of course they're art. In fact they are PURELY art. There is nothing about Pollock's paintings that is the slightest bit functional or practical in nature. Every decision made in the creation of his works is an aesthetic decision. That's pretty much the definition of art.

This does not mean you have to like his work. Nor do you have to understand it. If you want to call it bad art, that's your prerogative. But if you want to insist it's not art at all, you are then going to have to define what you believe art actually is.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I like the implication that not liking Pollock automatically makes one a lowbrow. That's school yard bull ****.
Click to expand...

Disliking Pollock could be a matter of taste. "It ain't art!" is lowbrow.

(Oh, and you're overly generous in the choice of "implication". It was a direct statement.)
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't understand the appeal of Pollock's paintings. Is there a technique on how to view them so they actually resemble an artistic endeavor?
Click to expand...


The best defense of Pollock as an artist I've heard was actually given in the recent movie Ex Machina. It had something to do with his desire to make his paintings being an expression of a desire to live life to the fullest ... or whatever.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Disliking Pollock could be a matter of taste. "It ain't art!" is lowbrow.

(Oh, and you're overly generous in the choice of "implication". It was a direct statement.)
Click to expand...

TFB if you find it to be a problem. Projectile vomiting produces art according to some people. They can't stretch that far enough to claim it's good art or even worth the time spent on it.
 
I think that the posts in this thread prove the point that what Pollock did IS art, otherwise it would not have attracted such emotion (positive and negative).

Isn't that what art is supposed to do?

Norm
 
fromdownunder said:
I think that the posts in this thread prove the point that what Pollock did IS art, otherwise it would not have attracted such emotion (positive and negative).

Isn't that what art is supposed to do?

Norm
Click to expand...

**** stinks. That produces a reaction.

Pollock fans, you've been snookered, lead by the nose, conned. "It's art because I've been told it's art." Really, that's too bad.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Pollock fans, you've been snookered, lead by the nose, conned. "It's art because I've been told it's art." Really, that's too bad.
Click to expand...


I disagree. It''s art because it's a physical representation of emotion.

When a monkey paints, that's not art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom