Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

I'm a little curious. If say a barn was discovered to hold hundreds of previously undiscovered Pollock paintings and twelve graphically talented citizens were given a week to study these paintings and try to emulate those paintings without direct copying. Could anyone tell the difference between the Pollock and the amateurs. I say probably not. What does this mean, if true, for the afficianados of this artist?
 
ALL of the great masters have had works convincingly faked in their style. Are you saying that if a faked da Vinci convinced art critics for a while that da Vinci wouldn't be considered an artist?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
"Life experience" isn't much help in understanding the intellectual notion of "Art" unless your life experience is relevant to art in general or the specific works in particular.
Click to expand...

The way I understand art is that it is like a spectrum. I.e. it involves a lot of aspects and the moment someone goes for a binary of "right" and "wrong", they use a different notion of art, than my idea of it being a spectrum. The problem is in part that we can't use science to decide with evidence and in practice it is a combination of cognitive and aesthetic relativism.
 
sloinker said:
I'm a little curious. If say a barn was discovered to hold hundreds of previously undiscovered Pollock paintings and twelve graphically talented citizens were given a week to study these paintings and try to emulate those paintings without direct copying. Could anyone tell the difference between the Pollock and the amateurs. I say probably not. What does this mean, if true, for the afficianados of this artist?
Click to expand...

I don't know what they would say but I don't understand the relevance of the point. All major artists have had their artworks forged to the point that the fakes are indistinguishable from the authentic ones. Why would your thought experiment pose a problem for Pollock's reputation and nobody else's?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The way I understand art is that it is like a spectrum. I.e. it involves a lot of aspects and the moment someone goes for a binary of "right" and "wrong", they use a different notion of art, than my idea of it being a spectrum. The problem is in part that we can't use science to decide with evidence and in practice it is a combination of cognitive and aesthetic relativism.
Click to expand...

As noted elsewhere I've traveled a bit. I made a point of seeing the "must see" places and the "are you crazy" places. I observed, I learned. If you can put decades of experience and dozens of countries worth of beauty into a sentence I'd love to read it.
 
MikeG said:
Is it the water, or is it the glass which is the art? Or is it the relationship between the two? Did the artist intend that the water should be maintained at the same level, or that it would be allowed to evaporate away? Is the work still the possession of the artist once he/she has sold it to a gallery or museum? Therefore, should the artist's instructions be fulfilled? The artist didn't make the glass. Does this mean that the glassware manufacturer is actually an artist? Is every glass of water a work of art? Is everything in an art gallery automatically art? In which case, why isn't the viewer art? Why isn't the lost property box behind the reception desk to be considered art?

This is why I have a very low threshold, the craft/ skill question, as a filter.
Click to expand...



There is no art in a museum apart from in the minds of the viewers. The viewers are in fact the artists that make the contents of the museum into art for the duration of the time the viewers interact with them. As a viewer moves on, so the Art fades from existence. As the viewer remembers, so the echo of Art reemerges in that viewer's mind.

The whole movement of conceptual art was precisely to undermine the crass collectors who had turned Modern Art into a commodity. The only con was from capitalists who converted the notion of Art into cash cow objects, stealing Art out from under the feet of the artists. The artists then stole it back by creating Art that had no objects.

The glass of water is irrelevant to the Art that was created in the "viewer" (or "user", as I prefer to more accurately say). All your other questions are nonsensical in the light of the understanding that Art is an ephemeral state of being, a psychological experience. Objects are not art. The experience of being an artist is what Art is.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Oh, I gotta be "trained"? Where's the seminary?
Click to expand...

Any university or college art department will do. Fine art isn't made for the unwashed masses but for the knowledge observer.

As a non-musician I'm among the unwashed masses, and customarily deride modern (post ww2) jazz as "wrong notes in random order." My lack of appreciation for the form does not devalue the jazz for anyone else, and my lack of relevant life experience limits my personal understanding of both the craft and art behind noodly jazz that actually pisses me off.
 
sloinker said:
I'm a little curious. If say a barn was discovered to hold hundreds of previously undiscovered Pollock paintings and twelve graphically talented citizens were given a week to study these paintings and try to emulate those paintings without direct copying. Could anyone tell the difference between the Pollock and the amateurs. I say probably not. What does this mean, if true, for the afficianados of this artist?
Click to expand...

Yes. With about a 93% success rate.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/ip-wia021015.php

Edit: another article, with a link to the paper. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210133210.htm
 
Last edited:
asydhouse said:
There is no art in a museum apart from in the minds of the viewers. The viewers are in fact the artists that make the contents of the museum into art for the duration of the time the viewers interact with them. As a viewer moves on, so the Art fades from existence. As the viewer remembers, so the echo of Art reemerges in that viewer's mind.

The whole movement of conceptual art was precisely to undermine the crass collectors who had turned Modern Art into a commodity. The only con was from capitalists who converted the notion of Art into cash cow objects, stealing Art out from under the feet of the artists. The artists then stole it back by creating Art that had no objects.

The glass of water is irrelevant to the Art that was created in the "viewer" (or "user", as I prefer to more accurately say). All your other questions are nonsensical in the light of the understanding that Art is an ephemeral state of being, a psychological experience. Objects are not art. The experience of being an artist is what Art is.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting viewpoint, but just a little too definite for my taste. "There is", "are not" and so on. No element of "in my opinion" or "often considered to be" or whatever. As though you have laid down the law and will brook no opposition. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across that way.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Any university or college art department will do. Fine art isn't made for the unwashed masses but for the knowledge observer.

As a non-musician I'm among the unwashed masses, and customarily deride modern (post ww2) jazz as "wrong notes in random order." My lack of appreciation for the form does not devalue the jazz for anyone else, and my lack of relevant life experience limits my personal understanding of both the craft and art behind noodly jazz that actually pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Very elitist of you. BTW, ever been to Purdue's art department?
 
Art is very elitist. Art that isn't falls into other categories such as product and propaganda. This isn't opinion, it's just functional description. Art is by very nature also very contextual. We have a vastly different appreciation for the state-sponsored propaganda carvings the Maya priests demanded.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Art is very elitist. Art that isn't falls into other categories such as product and propaganda. This isn't opinion, it's just functional description. Art is by very nature also very contextual. We have a vastly different appreciation for the state-sponsored propaganda carvings the Maya priests demanded.
Click to expand...
Now we've descended into snobbery.
 
MikeG said:
That's an interesting viewpoint, but just a little too definite for my taste. "There is", "are not" and so on. No element of "in my opinion" or "often considered to be" or whatever. As though you have laid down the law and will brook no opposition. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across that way.
Click to expand...



I just assume that in discussions about art, every single thing is preceded by a virtual "in my opinion". Typing that phrase over and over would be an obstruction to reading, let alone boring.

As everyone who is anyone in this thread (haha, my little joke :D ) has been saying, everybody is entitled to think what they want about art, and my pronouncements are simply publishing my findings.

So, yes, in a small way I have indeed "laid down the law", and will brook no opposition… simply because "opposing" my views is irrelevant to your own pleasure in art… of course, if "opposition" itself is your pleasure, as seems to be Gawdzilla's predilection, then I withdraw to enjoy my own space and "allow" the opposition to have their own party.

It's a party, not a war! Sheesh! :)
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Now we've descended into snobbery.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm just rejecting your understanding of art as an appeal to authority fallacy, with yourself as the authority. I took a crappile of art and analysis classes in college, and I'm just reporting what I learned.

Personally, I can't stand Pollock's stuff, but I can't stand most modern art. Too much of it, in my opinion, relies exclusively on confrontation with the academic Art establishment to fulfill the "Interest" portion of the design triad with Unity and Order.
 
I would love to see this test. An undiscovered (or maybe much lesser known) Pollock painting put beside other paintings that used the same same drip paint technique and poll people who see the five or six paintings and ask which is the most brilliant of the paintings.

Does Pollock hit people on a subconscious level? Does taking courses in geometry or trigonometry help your appreciation. What courses or experiences most help appreciating Pollock.

I've only seen one Pollock in person so I can only judge by that and pictures but I don't get it. That doesn't mean I believe there is nothing to get. But an intelligent description of what to look for would be appreciated.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Not at all. I'm just rejecting your understanding of art as an appeal to authority fallacy, with yourself as the authority. I took a crappile of art and analysis classes in college, and I'm just reporting what I learned.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone needs to be taught to enjoy great art. I remember seeing a gentleman lying on the floor of the Sistine Chapel with a pair of binoculars. He had to keep stopping to wipe his eyes. I asked him if he was an artist himself. "No, I am a clerk in a butch shop in Liverpool." I wanted to hug him. But he was English. ;)
Personally, I can't stand Pollock's stuff, but I can't stand most modern art. Too much of it, in my opinion, relies exclusively on confrontation with the academic Art establishment to fulfill the "Interest" portion of the design triad with Unity and Order.
Click to expand...
That's a long way to say "he was trolling the art world."
 
Yeah, I had to milk that premis for a whole semester once and really give it a workout. My artist of choice for the class was Cristo, not Pollock but the topic is pretty much the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom