Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's no examples IRL to go on, so you must be right. :rolleyes:
 
luchog said:
The fact that pretty much anyone with a few pints of paint and a canvas can create something in about an hour that is indistinguishable, even by so-called experts, from a genuine Jackson Pollock without fingerprint analysis pretty much says it all for me.

As for balance, there's nothing there to balance. They're effectively random. Just layers of splattered paint. There are no forms, no interplay of light and shade, nothing but just splatters of paint. They look like random plaint splatter, because they are random paint splatter.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Among other things, Pollock described his technique. Secondly, as a person who has tried (and failed) to paint, I can recognize how difficult his pieces are to replicate.

You say above that anyone anyone can replicate these... I'm pretty sure that's not special to Pollock, and probably not a good way to interpret 'good' art from bad. Particularly with an eye to invention.

As an example, I can assemble bicycle parts into a bull's head the same way Picasso did. I can't imagine why this would be put forward as evidence Picasso was a fraud.



luchog said:
I think to a great extent the popularity of his splatter work is the epitome of pretension. Critics and aficionados displaying how much more knowledgeable, sensitive, or whatever than the hoi polloi. Only those with superior taste and discernment can appreciate the true genius... etc. etc. Spent too much time around people like that, and art like that, when I was still active in the scene. Too many hours spent in galleries reading artists' "vision statements" that were clearly the work of far more though and effort and imagination than anything they stuck up on the wall.
Click to expand...

I think this is the thing, yes. Some people translate "I don't get it" to mean "It must be a scam." My Creationist friend does the same thing with Evolution. Feels like sour grapes.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. I can't believe that anyone would actually pay for a Pollock drip painting when they could easily make their own. If we were talking mass market low dollar art then I could maybe understand it, not worth the hassle of creating your own. Since we are talking about high dollar paintings I say skip the middleman and the cost and do it yourself. Hell, maybe I will open my own studio in my garage and sign my masterpieces Jackin' Polack. I could probably generate some cash from the less literate art lovers.
 
sloinker said:
I suppose you're right. I can't believe that anyone would actually pay for a Pollock drip painting when they could easily make their own. If we were talking mass market low dollar art then I could maybe understand it, not worth the hassle of creating your own. Since we are talking about high dollar paintings I say skip the middleman and the cost and do it yourself. Hell, maybe I will open my own studio in my garage and sign my masterpieces Jackin' Polack. I could probably generate some cash from the less literate art lovers.
Click to expand...


Lots of people like to say "I could do that," or "my 10 year old nephew could do that," or "anyone could do that." But funny enough, there aren't a lot of people out there creating Pollock knockoffs, or knocking off other abstract artists who people seem to think are making dead simple frauds that are mistaken for art. I wonder why. Maybe it's not as easy as it looks. Just once I'd like to see one of you boors actually go out and buy some paint and show the world your stuff. Just once.

I would bet that the people who could manage to passingly copy a Pollock are skilled painters who could also probably make decent copies of representational art works.
 
Last edited:
I've already made some when I've been painting house walls. They are on tarps that usually get tossed eventually but maybe a couple are hanging in museums and I haven't been compensated because they're unsigned. I like being boorish and part of the unwashed masses, it smells like victory!
 
sloinker said:
I've already made some when I've been painting house walls. They are on tarps that usually get tossed eventually but maybe a couple are hanging in museums and I haven't been compensated because they're unsigned. I like being boorish and part of the unwashed masses, it smells like victory!
Click to expand...

Pollock had a technique that manifested in his work in a way that would make your drop sheets readily distinguishable to someone who knows his work. Smells like wallowing in ignorance.
 
blutoski said:
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Among other things, Pollock described his technique. Secondly, as a person who has tried (and failed) to paint, I can recognize how difficult his pieces are to replicate.

You say above that anyone anyone can replicate these... I'm pretty sure that's not special to Pollock, and probably not a good way to interpret 'good' art from bad. Particularly with an eye to invention.

As an example, I can assemble bicycle parts into a bull's head the same way Picasso did. I can't imagine why this would be put forward as evidence Picasso was a fraud.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you didn't. Picasso did. You either didn't think of it, or don't have the technical skills necessary (eg, I've never welded anything before and I don' t know how to create welded steel sculpture) to create such artwork. Picasso did both come up with the idea, and have the technical wherewithal to put such a thing together.

Not everyone can create a Jackson Pollock painting. I think that's obvious - otherwise where are all the cheap knock-offs? As I said before, people seem to be vastly underestimating the skill involved. A tarp splashed with paint won't cut it - because it looks like a tarp splashed with paint. If you have looked - really looked - at a Pollock painting, one thing will stand out: there is no blank canvas. Every part of the canvas has paint on it. You can't do that randomly. You just can't.
 
angrysoba said:
I think that is, ironically, a supercilious opinion.
Click to expand...

Any opinion where you think others are wrong could be called that, Soba. The question is: am I wrong ? Perhaps some psychologist could chime in, but in _my experience_, it's a factor: people who pretend to 'get' an artwork in order to be part of the clique.
 
Belz... said:
Any opinion where you think others are wrong could be called that, Soba. The question is: am I wrong ? Perhaps some psychologist could chime in, but in _my experience_, it's a factor: people who pretend to 'get' an artwork in order to be part of the clique.
Click to expand...

No, what makes it supercilious is that you claim to know people's preferences better than they do. You assert that people are conned into saying they like art because they want to be in the in-crowd. That is to say you reach for motivations which diminish the people you are talking about.

This is different from simply claiming other people are wrong unless you are now claiming that art preferences can be wrong which flies in the face of earlier statements by you that opinions cannot be wrong because they are subjective. Do you now think people can be "wrong" for liking Pollock?
 
sloinker said:
I suppose you're right. I can't believe that anyone would actually pay for a Pollock drip painting when they could easily make their own. If we were talking mass market low dollar art then I could maybe understand it, not worth the hassle of creating your own. Since we are talking about high dollar paintings I say skip the middleman and the cost and do it yourself. Hell, maybe I will open my own studio in my garage and sign my masterpieces Jackin' Polack. I could probably generate some cash from the less literate art lovers.
Click to expand...

But most art is not bought to decorate. If you want to have your own copy of any of the famous paintings to do that you can just by poster reproductions for a few pounds.
 
Belz... said:
Any opinion where you think others are wrong could be called that, Soba. The question is: am I wrong ? Perhaps some psychologist could chime in, but in _my experience_, it's a factor: people who pretend to 'get' an artwork in order to be part of the clique.
Click to expand...

I like Pollock's work, and can categorically state that I have no desire to be in a clique. I don't even talk to other people about Jackson Pollock paintings and I don't care if they are technically easy, or replicable. I just like how they look. I am more likely to like a Pollock painting than I am another artist's painting in the same style, because I appreciate the pioneering aspect of the former.

All paintings are art. Some paintings are Art. Passionate internet discussions 70 years later? Definitely Art.
 
angrysoba said:
No, what makes it supercilious is that you claim to know people's preferences better than they do.
Click to expand...

Where have I done this ?

You assert that people are conned into saying they like art because they want to be in the in-crowd.
Click to expand...

No, you're conflating me with another poster. I said that _some_ people pretend to "get" some pieces of art in order to appear more knowledgeable. But I didn't count on the usual black-and-white understanding of posters here, and you thought I meant that they're all like this. Read back my post: I suggested another possibility.

That is to say you reach for motivations which diminish the people you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom