Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Rum said:
If you think his stuff is art then that's all you need. I do too as it happens. It is creative, original, mostly very appealing in an aesthetic sense and part of a creative story you can follow over the years as he got more deeply unstable and alcoholic.

A true modern artist!
Click to expand...


Actually, Pollack's most important and respected work is from 1948-50, when he was off the bottle. When he went back to drinking, his work went downhill.
 
hgc said:
Actually, Pollack's most important and respected work is from 1948-50, when he was off the bottle. When he went back to drinking, his work went downhill.
Click to expand...
Speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I have to ask...

How can paint drizzeled on canvas ever "go downhill"?

The cynic in me might suggest that his post-drunk work was just as useless as his pre-drunk work, but group-think in the art world has resulted in people preferring one set of works to another.

ETA: Unless by "going downhill" you mean he started to drip paint on a canvas while travelling in a van traveling down a steep roadway.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
No, sorry........you're wrong. Unless, that is, art is only aimed at other trained artists. To say that only trained artists could critique art is like saying only trained engineers could critique a Ferrari, or trained architects could critique le Ville Savoir. It's grossly arrogant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, poor choice of word--what i was getting at was one cannot 'denounce' art as some here have done (calling it crap etc) without the prerequisites i mentioned. By critique I meant 'criticize'. Although, I still maintain that for a decent meaningful critique you need some background. I would agree that anyone can give their two cents! I certainly do all the time on subjects i no nadda about.
 
Segnosaur said:
Speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I have to ask...

How can paint drizzeled on canvas ever "go downhill"?

The cynic in me might suggest that his post-drunk work was just as useless as his pre-drunk work, but group-think in the art world has resulted in people preferring one set of works to another.

ETA: Unless by "going downhill" you mean he started to drip paint on a canvas while travelling in a van traveling down a steep roadway.
Click to expand...


Anything new to add?
 
stanfr said:
Sorry, poor choice of word--what i was getting at was one cannot 'denounce' art as some here have done (calling it crap etc) without the prerequisites i mentioned. By critique I meant 'criticize'. Although, I still maintain that for a decent meaningful critique you need some background. I would agree that anyone can give their two cents! I certainly do all the time on subjects i no nadda about.
Click to expand...

I'm really quite impressed with this post. You overstated your original case, were called on it, and realising that your original case was flawed you have adjusted your stance on the matter. We may still be a little way apart ("without the pre-requisite I mentioned"), but I respect the re-think.
 
Segnosaur said:
I think the difference is, string theory is part of science, and actually has right and wrong answers. Equations have to be mathematically correct, and things can be proven or disproven through experiments.

However, art has no such "right or wrong". In part its personal; I can't tell whether you will find it emotionally satisfying for you to stare at a blank canvas; I can only point out how such a piece requires absolutely no talent to create.
Click to expand...

I was referring to people who claimed it wasn't art to begin with, that was the analogy. Arguing about the skills involved does have an analogy to science, as you seem to agree in your last sentence.

That seems like an incredibly high bar to set.... you can't criticize something unless you've studied it for decades? And this is for something that, as other posters have suggested, is supposed to evoke "emotion" (i.e. something that should be largely visceral rather than acedemic).

Does seem rather... cliquish.
Click to expand...

See my response to MikeG

And how do you know the "masters" who you were learning from were really great artists themselves? You suggested some abstract art is "garbage"... how do you know that the ones who did that "garbage" weren't the true masters and you were learning from incompetent people?
Click to expand...

Fair question...but I think if you can't acknowlege that some artists are deserving of recognition while others aren't, it becomes a moot point. Personally, I gave my teachers credit because they were good teachers--they taught me things I couldn't have learned from other people. That's true with art, science, whatever--some people just have that knack. When I was referring to 'garbage' art, I was referring to my own personal subjective opinion, not some objective judgment. But, I think there are some clear boundaries when it comes to what constitutes art. I'm sure there are some here who would argue that a dog splashing paint on a canvas would constitute art. I wouldn't--it may end up 'aesthetic' or pleasing to the eye, but it aint art.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
But until you actually DO art and STUDY it for a few decades, and LEARN everything about composition, color, geometry, vision--then you really have no place critiquing it. End o story.
Click to expand...

By that token I wouldn't be justified in saying that Little Jimmy Osmond's "Long haired lover from Liverpool" is a piece of crap, musically.

eta: sorry, didn't read the follow-ups
 
Last edited:
My dear departed auntie had an Elvis on black-velvet painting that she just loved. We would wince every time we saw it, but for her....It was art and good art at that.

I admit that as someone who has played around with art more than a bit I find a great deal of material lauded as great contemporary art in such a state that I too wonder if the artist is just having us on.

I have seen perhaps a couple of abstract expressionist works that had a pleasing bit of color harmony and such...But that's about as far as I'd go. Minimalism? Worked for the pyramids. After that, not so much.
Slathering a canvas with red paint and using terms like "It's not about the image, it's about the paint".....
Doesn't work for me....

I don't tend to like avant-gard jazz either.... And minimalist music? Well....

But that's all taste. I'm sure there are folks who find some sort of intellectual stimulation from all these things and more besides. Millions of people like rap/hip-hop and "metal" music.....I'm not one.
It's probably presumptuous to refer to all the things I don't like as "not art" or "not music".....

However, I do recall the incident of the "prison artist" who used to show up on Johnny Carson. He had become quite successful. He had to store his canvases in a barn on the prison grounds, and the top one got totally covered with pigeon droppings. He was going to toss it....But he had a show coming up so he gave it a title and included it....Sold for 1000 bucks.
 
What is amusing is that both the ultra traditionalist and the ultra modernist spend so much time trying to prove that what goes aganist their taste's is not "art".
 
Bikewer said:
My dear departed auntie had an Elvis on black-velvet painting that she just loved. We would wince every time we saw it, but for her....It was art and good art at that.

I admit that as someone who has played around with art more than a bit I find a great deal of material lauded as great contemporary art in such a state that I too wonder if the artist is just having us on.

I have seen perhaps a couple of abstract expressionist works that had a pleasing bit of color harmony and such...But that's about as far as I'd go. Minimalism? Worked for the pyramids. After that, not so much.
Slathering a canvas with red paint and using terms like "It's not about the image, it's about the paint".....
Doesn't work for me....

I don't tend to like avant-gard jazz either.... And minimalist music? Well....

But that's all taste. I'm sure there are folks who find some sort of intellectual stimulation from all these things and more besides. Millions of people like rap/hip-hop and "metal" music.....I'm not one.
It's probably presumptuous to refer to all the things I don't like as "not art" or "not music".....

However, I do recall the incident of the "prison artist" who used to show up on Johnny Carson. He had become quite successful. He had to store his canvases in a barn on the prison grounds, and the top one got totally covered with pigeon droppings. He was going to toss it....But he had a show coming up so he gave it a title and included it....Sold for 1000 bucks.
Click to expand...

is found art ie the pigeon work
any less valid then created art

I have seen found art far more moving then some created art

few paintings even by masters come near a sunset for simple beauty
 
Almo said:
I didn't like Rothko either. Until I stood in front of one. I say this without sarcasm, the guy is a genius. If I were to try to buy a really expensive piece from a real artist to hang in my house, it would probably be a Rothko.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my experience with Rothko! In a museum, live and up close with proper lighting, the depth and beauty of his work shone through. I had a similar, but not quite as profound experience when viewing Pollock's work.
 
It was strange, I stood 18"-24" away from a well lit Pollock painting in a world famous museum. The image was too large to take in wholly but something transfixed me about it. Suddenly my brain perceived a hidden pattern and the picture hidden amongst the garish swirls and drips became clear. A steaming pile of dung surrounded by dollar signs and a motto that said "Pay up Sucker". I was impressed as Pollock clearly preceded the hidden picture within a picture, shopping mall exhibit era by at least 30 years.

I think art is intuitive. The majority of people can appreciate a Monet or a Picasso. I would guess the majority of people would dismiss Pollock as a hack, I certainly do. Who is right? It doesn't matter until money exchanges hands and if being bought by a tax funded museum, I would hope the curators would use a barometer of prevailing sentiment prior to purchase. I would much rather see my tax dollars buy a Rembrandt or Vermeer than a Rothko or Pollock. Of course I am one of the unwashed masses.
 
sloinker said:
It was strange, I stood 18"-24" away from a well lit Pollock painting in a world famous museum. The image was too large to take in wholly but something transfixed me about it. Suddenly my brain perceived a hidden pattern and the picture hidden amongst the garish swirls and drips became clear. A steaming pile of dung surrounded by dollar signs and a motto that said "Pay up Sucker". I was impressed as Pollock clearly preceded the hidden picture within a picture, shopping mall exhibit era by at least 30 years.

I think art is intuitive. The majority of people can appreciate a Monet or a Picasso. I would guess the majority of people would dismiss Pollock as a hack, I certainly do. Who is right? It doesn't matter until money exchanges hands and if being bought by a tax funded museum, I would hope the curators would use a barometer of prevailing sentiment prior to purchase. I would much rather see my tax dollars buy a Rembrandt or Vermeer than a Rothko or Pollock. Of course I am one of the unwashed masses.
Click to expand...

Picasso and Van Gogh were both considered to produce rubbish back in the day.....
 
Are Jackson Pollock paintings art? Sure they are, in the sense hdn pok04]hfy6jdmdhjhjhjhjh sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi sjnbshhsduibafoiownfnoefoien oicoic 548267777swmnMMMMMMgdetVVCSFTF ggYGY994&&&5b%%%CV###4cw8b hehdn hy4778hiu ih8747h 9899065fdoihj iojoi is writing.
 
Last edited:
sloinker said:
The majority of people can appreciate a Monet or a Picasso.
Click to expand...

Not during their lifetimes. Impressionism (Monet) was a term coined as an insult. I suspect the same is true for cubism. "That's not art".

Miles Davis, Coltrane, Bird, etc all got "that's not music". Hard to imagine now.

sloinker said:
It doesn't matter until money exchanges hands and if being bought by a tax funded museum, I would hope the curators would use a barometer of prevailing sentiment prior to purchase.
Click to expand...

Dear god no. I hope curators never do this. Because then you'll end up with Elvis on velvet as art. Like music, most people have terrible taste in art.

sloinker said:
I would much rather see my tax dollars buy a Rembrandt or Vermeer than a Rothko or Pollock.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I always want to be challenged by the newest works. Just like with music.
 
lionking said:
That's exactly my experience with Rothko! In a museum, live and up close with proper lighting, the depth and beauty of his work shone through. I had a similar, but not quite as profound experience when viewing Pollock's work.
Click to expand...

Me, too. There was a handful of Pollocks at the MOMA when I was there a few years ago, and I found them captivating.

Half were mixed media. There was one that was clearly themed on depression, with embedded bottlecaps, broken class, cigarette butts and ash, and an antique key. A very emotionally dark work.
 
lionking said:
I would guess the majority of people would dismiss Pollock as a hack, I certainly do.
Click to expand...
Picasso and Van Gogh were both considered to produce rubbish back in the day.....
Click to expand...
Maybe. But their works have withstood the test of time.

Perhaps then publically funded galleries should avoid purchasing any art that is less than (lets say) 150 years old, so that curators and art historians have the ability to properly judge the historic and cultural significance of an art piece, and avoid spending money on works who's popularity in the art world is only temporary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom