Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
Sadly, we've been there since WWI

I was referring to the post I replied to. Try to follow the thread.

However, you seem to think it's insulting to point out that you've been suckered by a massive hype. For an atheist this position is really bizarre.
Click to expand...

Ah, the No True Atheist card. Can the "you call yourselves critical thinkers" be far behind.WTF does atheism have to do with a discussion of modern art?

What I find bizarre is that you would not consider that everyone who's read the thread has read your opinion and that while it is brilliant in its simplicity, it's still simple. It only requires repetition if you think you're going to shout down the opposition, because you haven't elaborated or extrapolated. "Pollock is crap!" We get it. If you would care to explain how your reached that conclusion and what your art background is, we're all ears. Or would expand and explain why you feel, say, Magritte is a genius and Kandinsky was wonderful, but that Mondrian is right up there with Pollock, that might actually be a "discussion". In, like a "discussion forum", that'd be pretty good.
 
People seem to miss the point that if enough people, especially the right people, think something is Art (with a capital A) then it is. There is no objective definition I would suggest that makes something art and something not art, whether it is a painting, an upside down urinal or an unmade bed.

Up and coming artists are often mentored and promoted by the likes of Charles Saatchi who (as canny business people) buy their work cheap, boost them and end up owning very valuable pieces of art.

You can't really separate the market, these days anyway, from the Art. Even Van Gough wanted to be a commercial success and at least make a living at it. He never did and his brother supported him and flogged a few paintings for him. It took a while for the public to 'catch on'.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ah, the No True Atheist card. Can the "you call yourselves critical thinkers" be far behind.WTF does atheism have to do with a discussion of modern art?

What I find bizarre is that you would not consider that everyone who's read the thread has read your opinion and that while it is brilliant in its simplicity, it's still simple. It only requires repetition if you think you're going to shout down the opposition, because you haven't elaborated or extrapolated. "Pollock is crap!" We get it. If you would care to explain how your reached that conclusion and what your art background is, we're all ears. Or would expand and explain why you feel, say, Magritte is a genius and Kandinsky was wonderful, but that Mondrian is right up there with Pollock, that might actually be a "discussion". In, like a "discussion forum", that'd be pretty good.
Click to expand...

Art is subjective. But requiring us to have "qualification" in art is ... Well beyond pale. We may have *taste* and reason behind those, but pretending those taste would change if we knew a bit more about art is laughable.

My justification is simple : mondrian , pollock and others where you can barely see geometric figure and paint dot or anything recognizable... Could be done by a child or a horse with a paint brush attached to the tail. Heck in the case of mondrian while I was in lessons i usually did similar boxed figures in various colors, jsut because I liked doing such geometrical color. There is no skill. You only need a few color tubes and a few rulers.

Heck "white dot on empty canvas" ask me about that one. If the white paint was making out something skilled, like a dog or a person or a landscape inv arious shade of white you cannot see that would still be artistical.

That is why I like for example renaissance art, but find pollock (and co) to be unskilled and worthless as art. That is the part which is lost in modern art frankly. It used to be that art *required* skill.

But here is the deal : I accept other find it artistic, and that there is no "rule" on what is art and what is not. You are perfectly entitled to see mondrian as artistic and skillful.

I will leave it to the sucker to buy art anyway. If I find something beautiful, I am perfectly content with a paper reproduction costing 1$ of ink.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ah, the No True Atheist card. Can the "you call yourselves critical thinkers" be far behind.WTF does atheism have to do with a discussion of modern art?

What I find bizarre is that you would not consider that everyone who's read the thread has read your opinion and that while it is brilliant in its simplicity, it's still simple. It only requires repetition if you think you're going to shout down the opposition, because you haven't elaborated or extrapolated. "Pollock is crap!" We get it. If you would care to explain how your reached that conclusion and what your art background is, we're all ears. Or would expand and explain why you feel, say, Magritte is a genius and Kandinsky was wonderful, but that Mondrian is right up there with Pollock, that might actually be a "discussion". In, like a "discussion forum", that'd be pretty good.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, I'm not entitled to my opinion unless I've been to seminary school?
 
Rum said:
People seem to miss the point that if enough people, especially the right people, think something is Art (with a capital A) then it is. There is no objective definition I would suggest that makes something art and something not art, whether it is a painting, an upside down urinal or an unmade bed.

Up and coming artists are often mentored and promoted by the likes of Charles Saatchi who (as canny business people) buy their work cheap, boost them and end up owning very valuable pieces of art.

You can't really separate the market, these days anyway, from the Art. Even Van Gough wanted to be a commercial success and at least make a living at it. He never did and his brother supported him and flogged a few paintings for him. It took a while for the public to 'catch on'.
Click to expand...
For me it's the marketing that matters here. Pollock should have been a crazy little man in an attic, not a god of the artsy crow. But then they do need their gods.
 
Rum said:
People seem to miss the point that if enough people, especially the right people, think something is Art (with a capital A) then it is.
Click to expand...

So with enough marketing *anything* can be declared a work of art. Just get enough people to agree with it. Does not matter the maker intent, or the skill involved. Got it. Well I disagree with that definition, and I am not alone in that assessment when you see the rejection from many of "modern" art.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
For me it's the marketing that matters here. Pollock should have been a crazy little man in an attic, not a god of the artsy crow. But then they do need their gods.
Click to expand...

I agree. The 'value' rises in exactly as any rare commodity does. Look at the Picasso that just make a record. Establishing something as an 'art commodity' is the trick. Sometimes, but rarely does it not involve the cash value of the object.

However, as a student of the aesthetic myself (I went to Art school), there are objects I like, understand and appreciate and others I don't. I rather like much of Pollock's work. If he had been an unsuccessful paint splasher who never made it, I doubt I would.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Oh, I see, I'm not entitled to my opinion unless I've been to seminary school?
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. We discuss things. You are merely asserting. You dodged the point on Picasso. If you're a person who simply hates all modern art, it might explain to some of us. "You're wrong!" is not much of a discussion, unless I want to rejoin with a witty "Am not!".... and then you go, "Are, too!"
 
Foolmewunz said:
You're entitled to your opinion. We discuss things. You are merely asserting. You dodged the point on Picasso. If you're a person who simply hates all modern art, it might explain to some of us. "You're wrong!" is not much of a discussion, unless I want to rejoin with a witty "Am not!".... and then you go, "Are, too!"
Click to expand...

Evidently it upsets people when I state my opinion. Shows the fragility of their own opinions.

As for Picasso, some of his stuff is nice, some is crap. I wonder if he developed astigmatism.

And I don't hate all modern art, there's probably some I haven't seen yet. I do think any idiot with a good hypester could be famous these days.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Potholes are art. You can put a rope around one can charge admission to see it.
Click to expand...

You could possibly charge for people to see the rope, if you can get permission to have your rope on public property. Whether you could privately charge to view public property (the road) is rather less likely.
 
MikeG said:
You could possibly charge for people to see the rope, if you can get permission to have your rope on public property. Whether you could privately charge to view public property (the road) is rather less likely.
Click to expand...
But this is a pothole in a private drive. The "artist" is the only one who drives on that drive. Therefore the "artist" created that pothole. Now he just has to sign it.
 
In principle, Gawdzilla, why can't you accept that there are multiple definitions of art? In fact, there are probably as many definitions of art as there are people on the planet, and for a very good reason. That yours differs from mine doesn't make yours more or less valid than mine.

Confusing or conflating "I do or don't like it" with "It is or isn't art" seems to be your problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom