Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

[asydhouse]

I'll echo MikeG's response to you. A very reasonable adjustment to your original stance. We need more of that, here.



Imagine if the David was just a mess of nonsense and people said "it's not about the sculpture, but about the marble..."



I think the definition of art should perhaps include intent of the author. If you find a pile of rocks that looks good and evokes an emotional reaction, is it art ? Is a sunset art ?

By my earlier definition of Art as an occurrence in your mind, yes, looking at a rock or a sunset or a pile of marble (or a raw lump of marble such as you see walking up Snowdon) is an act of Art, if you look at it that way.

It's not the object, it's the experience that makes it Art.

The fetish for art objects is just trying to turn aesthetic experience into materialistic economics. Fetishising art objects, whether Pollock paintings or Michelangelo's products, is anti art.

Witness the misplaced discussion in this thread. All about what's of value in objects, or also fetishising skill. Skill is not vision, or ecstasy, or Art. Skill is a tool.

Without vision, without Art happening in your head, David is just a lump of marble. You have to learn to see the David in the marble, just as all humans have to learn to see at all.

So yes, education is necessary. The more you know, the more you can see, just as Dawkins says about science, refuting the idiots who think science kills magical mystery and removes the sense of wonder.

it's Gawdzilla who is playing the elitist card here, claiming that we who disagree with his arrogant and bullying dismissal of our aesthetic experience makes his intellect superior to we poor dupes.

In my opinion.

 

[Belz...]

If they are commenting on the technical aspects of a movie then what is wrong with that?

I repeat: they are claiming that the technical aspects of a movie make it objectively good or bad.

 

[Belz...]

By my earlier definition of Art as an occurrence in your mind, yes, looking at a rock or a sunset or a pile of marble (or a raw lump of marble such as you see walking up Snowdon) is an act of Art, if you look at it that way.

It's not the object, it's the experience that makes it Art.

In that case the word "art" is meaningless. I prefer narrower definitions.

 

[angrysoba]

I repeat: they are claiming that the technical aspects of a movie make it objectively good or bad.

Are you actually repeating yourself? That seems different from what I was replying to.

Actually, I think there is a lot to be said for the idea that the technical aspects of a movie can be considered objectively good or bad. I have seen movies where there have clearly been continuity errors or rushed panning shots that went out of focus. What's objectionable about saying that in such cases they were badly made?

 

[GlennB]

In that case the word "art" is meaningless. I prefer narrower definitions.

I agree; there must be a creative act in there somewhere.

art
noun

1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination,....

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What makes it garbage?

What makes it art?

 

[angrysoba]

What makes it art?

It's bad form to answer a question with a question; but it is art simply because it is recognized as such. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities, usually involving imaginative or technical skill. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art. This article focuses primarily on the visual arts, which includes the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media.

He also developed a distinctive style within art, which was itself following on from a well recognized distinctive style of art:

The style of an artwork, artist, or movement is the distinctive method and form followed by the respective art. Any loose brushy, dripped or poured abstract painting is called expressionistic. Often a style is linked with a particular historical period, set of ideas, and particular artistic movement. So Jackson Pollock is called an Abstract Expressionist.

Now, what makes it garbage, other than the fact you don't like it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What makes it art?

The artist saying it is art.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, I think there is a lot to be said for the idea that the technical aspects of a movie can be considered objectively good or bad.

I don't. I consider "good" and "bad" to be subjective terms by definition. It is therefore impossible, by definition, to have an objective good.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination,....

I'd rather include some clause that limits it to non-essential stuff (not-work).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The artist saying it is art.

Then I am the master of the gaseous art.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now, what makes it garbage, other than the fact you don't like it?

You really don't like the fact that I have an opinion, do you? I know heresy upset true believers. And that's a shame in this forum.

 

[GlennB]

I'd rather include some clause that limits it to non-essential stuff (not-work).

Definitely. The definition was snipped.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't. I consider "good" and "bad" to be subjective terms by definition. It is therefore impossible, by definition, to have an objective good.

Then maybe the film critics think differently from you.

In your opinion, Picasso is "rubbish" (I assume you are familiar with his whole body of work and are not being casually dismissive), and Pollock is not "good" art, and that some movies are "cool" and others are "boring".

That's fine, and maybe art and movie critics will just assume you are talking about how they make you feel. If that's the case maybe they do indeed acknowledge that those are subjective opinions and that the only "objective" way in which something could be called good is if it achieves its artistic aim - i.e. whether it is successful or not in a technical sense.

Was Kubrick a good director? Film buffs may point to the ways in which he was skillful and successful, as well as the times he made errors in his movies. On those grounds, even if there are disagreements among critics, movies can be said to be good or bad. I have no problem with that.

Was Ed Wood a good director? No! He was a terrible director whose movies were beset with awful scripts, bad (yes, bad!) acting, rubbish special effects and sets which wobbled when people walked on them.

 

[angrysoba]

You really don't like the fact that I have an opinion, do you?

I'm merely interested. There's no need to be so petulant about this. I would think that if you had joined a discussion like this with any good faith then you would engage in the same kind of giving and taking of answers instead of demanding them of others and then refusing to answer questions from others.

You seem to have a bit of a tin ear for prose as well.

I know heresy upset true believers. And that's a shame in this forum.

I don't consider your opinions to be heresy at all. I don't particularly like Pollock's work either, but I don't consider it "garbage".

But the main thing I am trying to get you to do is not to tell me you don't like Pollock (I know that), but to tell me why it doesn't qualify as art.

So far you have not managed anything serious and I could make an argument far better than you have for saying that (for example, I could bust out some evo-psych argument that ultimately sees modern art as some form of conspicuous consumption in the days when it has no longer become as difficult as it once was to produce realism in art etc..). But that's not for me to do.

 

[Belz...]

Then maybe the film critics think differently from you.

So what ? It doesn't make their opinion more valid than mine. You can't use the fact that people disagree as some sort of evidence or implication that my opinion is incorrect, unless you can use some sort of objective standard, which doesn't exist for "good" or "bad".

Film critics probably disagree with me because if I'm right they're not very useful as a profession beyond giving us a vague idea of what the movie's like (which we can get from non-critics as well). You can probably more-or-less objectively determine the quality of a movie's technical aspects, but it doesn't tell if you if you enjoy the movie.

In your opinion, Picasso is "rubbish" (I assume you are familiar with his whole body of work and are not being casually dismissive), and Pollock is not "good" art, and that some movies are "cool" and others are "boring".

For me, yes.

 

[angrysoba]

So what ? It doesn't make their opinion more valid than mine. You can't use the fact that people disagree as some sort of evidence or implication that my opinion is incorrect, unless you can use some sort of objective standard, which doesn't exist for "good" or "bad".

Film critics probably disagree with me because if I'm right they're not very useful as a profession beyond giving us a vague idea of what the movie's like (which we can get from non-critics as well). You can probably more-or-less objectively determine the quality of a movie's technical aspects, but it doesn't tell if you if you enjoy the movie.



For me, yes.

Of course you can have objective standards of good and bad in film making. I gave you examples such as a rushed panned shot that goes out of focus. If it does so, was not meant to, has no useful effect then by any sensible measure it is objectively bad.

And indeed, you are right that such technical points don't say whether you enjoy the movie which means if you follow the logic you now agree with the critics that the only objective test of a good movie is the technical aspects. Why, because as you said enjoyment is subjective.

 

[luchog]

By my earlier definition of Art as an occurrence in your mind, yes, looking at a rock or a sunset or a pile of marble (or a raw lump of marble such as you see walking up Snowdon) is an act of Art, if you look at it that way.

It's not the object, it's the experience that makes it Art.

This is flat nonsense, as it renders the word completely devoid of meaning. If anything is Art, then nothing is Art; since that leaves no meaningful way to differentiate Art from not-Art. It is just this sort of post-modernist drivel that drove me away from the art world. It's woo, just like "perceptual reality" is woo.

Art is a form of human communication. Specifically, Art is an attempt to communicate emotions and abstract concepts in a tangible medium. Nothing more nor less. The Visual or Plastic Arts are a method of attemptimg to communicate emotions and abstract concepts in a concrete and plastic medium. The Performing Arts are an attempt to communicate in a transitory auditory or visual medium. The Literary Arts are an attempt to communicate in a linguistic medium. Contrast with Propaganda, which is an attempt to communicate a specific message or value in the chosen medium (which doesn't mean that some Propaganda cannot also be good Art).

If it's not humans communicating with other humans, it's not Art. How effective that communication is makes the difference between good Art and bad Art.

The fetish for art objects is just trying to turn aesthetic experience into materialistic economics. Fetishising art objects, whether Pollock paintings or Michelangelo's products, is anti art.

That is so wrong as to be effectively gibberish.

 

[luchog]

I don't. I consider "good" and "bad" to be subjective terms by definition. It is therefore impossible, by definition, to have an objective good.

I think this is talking past each other. Artistic endeavors are applications of human skill to communication. One can appreciate and judge a work on its application of skill, as well as more subjective factors.

A film, just like a piece of music, or a painting, can be a supreme work of technical skill; but still be bad Art if it fails to communicate effectively. Architectural illustration requires (or used to) a great deal of technical skill at drawing, painting, or sculpture; but still failed as Art, because it was not intended to communicate abstractions, only to serve as a reference for physical characteristics.

It's far less likely that something can be good Art, but still lack technical skill, though it is certainly possible. However, the more skilled the artist, the more effective the communication can be.

Thus, it is possible to appreciate the technical skill that went into making a film; but still find the film to be bad.

I'd rather include some clause that limits it to non-essential stuff (not-work).

See my post just prior to this one.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm merely interested. There's no need to be so petulant about this. I would think that if you had joined a discussion like this with any good faith then you would engage in the same kind of giving and taking of answers instead of demanding them of others and then refusing to answer questions from others.

You seem to have a bit of a tin ear for prose as well.

I'll get you a panty-debuncher for Christmas.

I don't consider your opinions to be heresy at all. I don't particularly like Pollock's work either, but I don't consider it "garbage".

But the main thing I am trying to get you to do is not to tell me you don't like Pollock (I know that), but to tell me why it doesn't qualify as art.

So far you have not managed anything serious and I could make an argument far better than you have for saying that (for example, I could bust out some evo-psych argument that ultimately sees modern art as some form of conspicuous consumption in the days when it has no longer become as difficult as it once was to produce realism in art etc..). But that's not for me to do.

You don't like what I say, so it's not serious. Gotcha.

 

[Belz...]

Of course you can have objective standards of good and bad in film making. I gave you examples such as a rushed panned shot that goes out of focus.

That makes it objectively out of focus, not objectively bad. I love Ed Wood movies. They're very fun to watch, though for unintentional reasons.

And indeed, you are right that such technical points don't say whether you enjoy the movie which means if you follow the logic you now agree with the critics that the only objective test of a good movie is the technical aspects.

Wrong. I agree with the critics that the only objective measures of a movie is the technical aspects (and the box office success). "Good" has nothing to do with it.