Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

cornsail said:
You appear to be saying that Jackson Pollock's "scheme to part the gullible from their money" was "Academic/peer pressure". Sorry, but I'm sure you can see that that makes no sense. You are leaving out some steps. How did he get all these people to claim his art was good in the first place? Blackmail? Hypnotism?


Does being taught/told something is good make people more likely to think it's good? Yes, of course. I would be very surprised if there weren't some studies in the psychology literature confirming this. And surely the psychological principle applies in general, not to Jackson Pollock exclusively. I think once Academia deems something good, it often becomes "canonized" in a sense and can become somewhat of a self perpetuating cycle. If only one out of twenty kids loves Catcher in the Rye, then we're still producing a crapload of Catcher in the Rye fans, simply because so many are forced to read it in school. Vincent Van Gogh, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mozart, the list goes on. But, this only goes so far. For one thing, there still have to be people who admired and appreciated the artist in the first place. And for another, simply being told something is good is not enough on it's own to make someone a fan of an artist. I'd heard The Great Gatsby is brilliant, but I did not enjoy it at all. I'd also heard that Shakespeare is brilliant and I happen to like Shakespeare quite a bit. Being told something is good/bad can nudge and influence our appreciation of it, but it certainly can't do all the work.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I hated The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. But I still acknowledge they are examples of literature. Many in this thread seem to be saying, "I hate Pollock," and thus this means his work isn't art.

Others have said: I know what art is because I studied it. This, to me, isn't much better.

I tend to like the definition that art is anything that at least one person thinks is art. That means only the artist might think so -but its still art. Any other discussion is just judgement of whether something is good or bad art. Thus, saying Pollock's work isn't art, is really just saying that you think it's bad art.
 
cornsail said:
How exactly do you con people into thinking that they like your art?
Click to expand...

In my experience, social issues are a great way of doing that. Somehow tying your art into a popular social issue, especially of the "social justice" sort, is a very effective way to gain supporters and admirers. Context of the work and access to the work can greatly affect perception of its quality and desirability.

Price of a work is also an effective way to manipulate peoples' perceptions of it. This is a well-known phenomenon, and there have been studies of how price can changes one's perceptions. For example, a CalTech study on how price affects evaluations of wine. This is such a well-established phenomenon that it's actually taught in marketing courses, and consulting firms exist to help business take advantage of it.

Advertising. Everyone dismisses this; but the fact is that advertising can be extremely effective at manipulating peoples' perceptions of a product or service. And not just commercial advertising, there are many tricks to altering perceptions that have been used by religions and governments thoughout history.

How much any of these apply to any particular person will vary considerably; but as a general rule, it's very effective. And this can work both ways; not only increasing desirability, but reducing it as well.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they were still films.

The mistake the OP made was to claim that art is not art. Bizarre.
 
xjx388 said:
Many in this thread seem to be saying, "I hate Pollock," and thus this means his work isn't art.
Click to expand...

And what you've completely ignored, is that many of us are acknowledging that his work is art; but that it's bad art. Bad art is still art.

I'm perfectly happy to engage in debate with anyone in this thread about whether something is good or bad art; as long as there is an agreed on standard of what is Art. As with Belz, we can at least mostly agree on the standard definition of Art, so can debate on the quality of a particular piece of art.

The two positions which cannot be debated, because they inherently stifle all possibility of debate, is "everything is Art" (which, conversely, means nothing is); and "art is exclusively subjective", which eliminates all possibility of critique.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
But they were still films.

The mistake the OP made was to claim that art is not art. Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I agree.

It seems that some people have made the bizarre mistake of thinking that art depends upon whether the person thinks it is good or bad (or "rubbish" or "crap").

Some people have even made the rather dubious claim that such artists are "con artists" and also considered this claim not to be a potentially libellous empirical claim but "just mah opinion, man!"
 
luchog said:
In my experience, social issues are a great way of doing that. Somehow tying your art into a popular social issue, especially of the "social justice" sort, is a very effective way to gain supporters and admirers. Context of the work and access to the work can greatly affect perception of its quality and desirability.

Price of a work is also an effective way to manipulate peoples' perceptions of it. This is a well-known phenomenon, and there have been studies of how price can changes one's perceptions. For example, a CalTech study on how price affects evaluations of wine. This is such a well-established phenomenon that it's actually taught in marketing courses, and consulting firms exist to help business take advantage of it.

Advertising. Everyone dismisses this; but the fact is that advertising can be extremely effective at manipulating peoples' perceptions of a product or service. And not just commercial advertising, there are many tricks to altering perceptions that have been used by religions and governments thoughout history.

How much any of these apply to any particular person will vary considerably; but as a general rule, it's very effective. And this can work both ways; not only increasing desirability, but reducing it as well.
Click to expand...

All that is accurate, but I wouldn't consider any of those things to be "con"s. That is, unless anyone who engages in marketing or sales techniques is a con artist. Telling someone you're selling a Rolex and selling them a knock-off imitation would be a con.

Also, I'll reiterate that such factors can influence perceptions, but they can't do all the work. The interaction between the quality of the product and the consumer's natural tastes are still relevant.
 
luchog said:
In my experience, social issues are a great way of doing that. Somehow tying your art into a popular social issue, especially of the "social justice" sort, is a very effective way to gain supporters and admirers. Context of the work and access to the work can greatly affect perception of its quality and desirability.

Price of a work is also an effective way to manipulate peoples' perceptions of it. This is a well-known phenomenon, and there have been studies of how price can changes one's perceptions. For example, a CalTech study on how price affects evaluations of wine. This is such a well-established phenomenon that it's actually taught in marketing courses, and consulting firms exist to help business take advantage of it.

Advertising. Everyone dismisses this; but the fact is that advertising can be extremely effective at manipulating peoples' perceptions of a product or service. And not just commercial advertising, there are many tricks to altering perceptions that have been used by religions and governments thoughout history.

How much any of these apply to any particular person will vary considerably; but as a general rule, it's very effective. And this can work both ways; not only increasing desirability, but reducing it as well.
Click to expand...

I would add elitism, or the desire of one to be part of the clique who "gets" it.
 
Senex said:
Uri Geller had his fans who felt they were exposed to some sort of art when he performed on stage.

I'm in no way comparing Pollock with Geller however.
Click to expand...


Well, sleight-of-hand magic, which is Geller's trade, is a performing art. The problem of course is that he claimed it was something other than what it was, and made a bunch of money on that lying claim. It's certainly not the level of harm that the talking-to-the-dead vultures inflict, but it's still annoying.

I prefer Ricky Jay as a performing artist.
 
Senex said:
I didn't look at it that way before but you are right. Pollock and Geller can be compared. Entertainers playing on the fringes.
Click to expand...


Except that Pollock never claimed he was doing anything other than what he was doing. And I'm not sure why you would say "on the fringes" about either one of them. They're both quite famous and widely recognized for their work product. In the case of Pollock, also well respected in his field.
 
luchog said:
And what you've completely ignored, is that many of us are acknowledging that his work is art; but that it's bad art. Bad art is still art.

I'm perfectly happy to engage in debate with anyone in this thread about whether something is good or bad art; as long as there is an agreed on standard of what is Art. As with Belz, we can at least mostly agree on the standard definition of Art, so can debate on the quality of a particular piece of art.

The two positions which cannot be debated, because they inherently stifle all possibility of debate, is "everything is Art" (which, conversely, means nothing is); and "art is exclusively subjective", which eliminates all possibility of critique.
Click to expand...
What makes you say it's bad art? Is there something you see as inherently wrong? Do you just not connect with it?

I think it's great art because it expresses something that I could connect with. I see frustration and depression and even hope in those drips. That's just my reaction. If it was able to cause a reaction like that in someone, why can't it be good art even if you don't connect with it?
 
Remember when radio stations received payola from record companies to spin certain record's? Some of those tunes were great and some not so much. I think Pollack's drip paintings were somewhat marketed in art world inner circles in an elitist type of way. Maybe a collector came across a raft of the early Pollock drip paintings in a dumpster and started talking them up figuring his stature and the me too nature of the art crowd could provide him with future profits. Seems perfectly plausibe to me. That is how I recomcile the popularity of some "artists" that I despise. Nickelback anyone?
 
sloinker said:
Remember when radio stations received payola from record companies to spin certain record's? Some of those tunes were great and some not so much. I think Pollack's drip paintings were somewhat marketed in art world inner circles in an elitist type of way. Maybe a collector came across a raft of the early Pollock drip paintings in a dumpster and started talking them up figuring his stature and the me too nature of the art crowd could provide him with future profits. Seems perfectly plausibe to me. That is how I recomcile the popularity of some "artists" that I despise. Nickelback anyone?
Click to expand...

You and others here forget the more prosaic possibility that people actually like the type of art you hate. The idea that it must be about marketing or elitism is really a displaced argument from incredulity: you can't believe people like it so it must come down to some deficiency in that person that you have invented for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom