[OC] Personal opinion on Jackson Pollock's drip art
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think Maude Lebowski was a better painter
-
This post did not contain any content.
Didn't the CIA covertly drive up his price by secretly overpaying for his paintings?
-
Didn't the CIA covertly drive up his price by secretly overpaying for his paintings?
Never heard of that, but I love an actual (with evidence) conspiracy theory. Spare me any conspiracy hypotheses tho, please.
-
Very polite of you to make that comment. I, however, am willing to be a dick.
Pollock was a drunk and a hack, Kandinsky is the abstract artist we should be celebrating as a household name.
Also I'm p sure I read that Pollock killed a dude while drunk driving and got away with it but I don't care enough about him one way or another to verify that before posting it on lemmy dot com.
Kandinsky is the abstract artist we should be celebrating
Had to look this up, and wow yeah, that is some very striking, abstract art from someone who has definitely refined their craft and worked hard to do so. Very cool imagery.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Pollock is popular because of this exact thing. He "challenged" the idea of art as the Dada movement had done. You can absolutely hate it but like Warhol it made conversations and questions about process and astetics. By making a meme about it you have in fact thought about what art is and aesthetics you prefer. A Pollock painting made you do that.
People saying he do not select colors or use technique is just false. He would use a pulley system for large scale canvases and spread the colors quite purposefully. Remember this is the time of "happenings" like applying body paint and rolling on canvases, cutting up the canvas and applying newsprint, burning things, etc.
I don't even like Pollock but not to recognize him in museums within a moment of abstract expression would be a disservice. I've had plenty of students say. "I could paint that!". But there are two points they always misunderstand. 1. Pollock was an established painter who drastically changed styles. Many artists show that they can paint or draw in the traditional style but choose to push what is even art. Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum. 2. Everyone who tries to replicate a Pollock typically just uses some random paints with some bushes and just sort of flings it around. If you actually look at a Pollock in person up close. Yes you can see unevenness is created from not having full control of the paint on the brush but thought seems to go into exactly where the paint will land so that you have even coverage or at angles with different brushes. They is motion in how the paint drips. I can say that many of them I've seen are very much not "random" as you would think it would be.
Again I don't care for the work as there are plenty of other abstract expressions to choose from like Hans Hofmann, Helen Frankenthaler who used Pollock as an influence.
-
I was similar until I saw him actually painting. There is something about the process that makes me love it. It's weird to me too that I feel that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Uj_HAAvbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ&list=RDCrVE-WQBcYQ&start_radio=1
He did say one thing that made me think a lot about art in general:
"technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" - Jackson Pollock
-
Very polite of you to make that comment. I, however, am willing to be a dick.
Pollock was a drunk and a hack, Kandinsky is the abstract artist we should be celebrating as a household name.
Also I'm p sure I read that Pollock killed a dude while drunk driving and got away with it but I don't care enough about him one way or another to verify that before posting it on lemmy dot com.
Don't forget my man Rothko!
-
Didn't the CIA covertly drive up his price by secretly overpaying for his paintings?
Yes, they financed lots of art in the fifties/sixties to:
A) Show the west had better culture/art than the Soviet Union
B) Infiltrate those pesky leftists
That's why we have Pollack and other crap "artists". Pollack didn't even invent the whole "pouring" thing, some lady in an esatblock country did IIRC.
-
Pollock is popular because of this exact thing. He "challenged" the idea of art as the Dada movement had done. You can absolutely hate it but like Warhol it made conversations and questions about process and astetics. By making a meme about it you have in fact thought about what art is and aesthetics you prefer. A Pollock painting made you do that.
People saying he do not select colors or use technique is just false. He would use a pulley system for large scale canvases and spread the colors quite purposefully. Remember this is the time of "happenings" like applying body paint and rolling on canvases, cutting up the canvas and applying newsprint, burning things, etc.
I don't even like Pollock but not to recognize him in museums within a moment of abstract expression would be a disservice. I've had plenty of students say. "I could paint that!". But there are two points they always misunderstand. 1. Pollock was an established painter who drastically changed styles. Many artists show that they can paint or draw in the traditional style but choose to push what is even art. Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum. 2. Everyone who tries to replicate a Pollock typically just uses some random paints with some bushes and just sort of flings it around. If you actually look at a Pollock in person up close. Yes you can see unevenness is created from not having full control of the paint on the brush but thought seems to go into exactly where the paint will land so that you have even coverage or at angles with different brushes. They is motion in how the paint drips. I can say that many of them I've seen are very much not "random" as you would think it would be.
Again I don't care for the work as there are plenty of other abstract expressions to choose from like Hans Hofmann, Helen Frankenthaler who used Pollock as an influence.
This definitely gave me a new perspective. Thank you. I disagree with some things and the finished product is what is seen by most and "does not do anything for me" / I don't feel anything, which I value the most. You are more versed on the technical side of art than I am for sure. I hope people see this as a light hearted meme and nothing deeper, how I intended it.
Edit: Also, the fact that a vast amount of people dislike it, no matter how versed they are in art, still means something IMO, as on the subjective side everyone's opinion is equally valid.
-
I think Maude Lebowski was a better painter
I find her work strongly vaginal which bothers me.
-
I think Pollock paintings are fine. I’ve seen his paintings in an art gallery at least once.
Compared to most other modern art in the same gallery, Pollock was actually visually pleasing to look at. He knew which colors work well together, which is uhm great.
i thought it was shit until i saw some of his paintings in person, and they’re awesome….
they suck when tiny and on a screen -
Pollock is popular because of this exact thing. He "challenged" the idea of art as the Dada movement had done. You can absolutely hate it but like Warhol it made conversations and questions about process and astetics. By making a meme about it you have in fact thought about what art is and aesthetics you prefer. A Pollock painting made you do that.
People saying he do not select colors or use technique is just false. He would use a pulley system for large scale canvases and spread the colors quite purposefully. Remember this is the time of "happenings" like applying body paint and rolling on canvases, cutting up the canvas and applying newsprint, burning things, etc.
I don't even like Pollock but not to recognize him in museums within a moment of abstract expression would be a disservice. I've had plenty of students say. "I could paint that!". But there are two points they always misunderstand. 1. Pollock was an established painter who drastically changed styles. Many artists show that they can paint or draw in the traditional style but choose to push what is even art. Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum. 2. Everyone who tries to replicate a Pollock typically just uses some random paints with some bushes and just sort of flings it around. If you actually look at a Pollock in person up close. Yes you can see unevenness is created from not having full control of the paint on the brush but thought seems to go into exactly where the paint will land so that you have even coverage or at angles with different brushes. They is motion in how the paint drips. I can say that many of them I've seen are very much not "random" as you would think it would be.
Again I don't care for the work as there are plenty of other abstract expressions to choose from like Hans Hofmann, Helen Frankenthaler who used Pollock as an influence.
What about Helen Frankenthaler and others doing "pouring" before Pollock, and that Pollock was a mediocre traditional painter, plus I guess the CIA money helped.
I understand the whole idea of transcending stuff, but just doing something "different" isn't IMO obligatory noteworthy.
The Dada movement challenged not just standards but art itself, interesting and necessary, but is it art? One can argue.
The impressionists started it all, but then it spiraled out to just do something not have been done yet, which is good and important, but IMO it does absolutely not mean it's some kind of new art form. But of course that's just my opinion.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Okay, how about "It's shit, but I think it looks nice."?
-
Me? Probably Neanderthal.
A Neanoerthal that knows Kandinsky, tho.
-
Sure, but if I were to do that, I'd at least buy something nice.
Why pay more when banana taped to wall do?
-
Wait - you're respecting other people's tastest that don't coincide with yours on the internet? Is that legal? /j
-
Why pay more when banana taped to wall do?
Someone eat banan
-
This definitely gave me a new perspective. Thank you. I disagree with some things and the finished product is what is seen by most and "does not do anything for me" / I don't feel anything, which I value the most. You are more versed on the technical side of art than I am for sure. I hope people see this as a light hearted meme and nothing deeper, how I intended it.
Edit: Also, the fact that a vast amount of people dislike it, no matter how versed they are in art, still means something IMO, as on the subjective side everyone's opinion is equally valid.
Absolutely. It's funny for sure. Your preference which I share is totally valid as any art critics. One more thing I forgot is the scale of these. Seeing in a book is one thing but like the Raft of the Medusa or Mona Lisa (very tiny) scale produces a very different idea and reaction in person. People often don't consider how things actually were/should be seen. Pollock could be considered a bit of a "troll" of the time I find it amazing he still gets a reaction good or bad. In a post post moden art world Warhol has just sort of been accepted as art across the board. Pollock, Rothko and Duchamp still making people question why they are in a museum.
-
Tax dodges for the rich don't need to look good, they just need hype.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not just tax dodges. Also money laundering.
Edit: I'm not slamming Pollock. He's cool with me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Pollock hits harder in person tbh.
Prints and photos don't really work; it ends up looking flat and empty. But in person, there's more "depth" in both a literal and figurative sense. You can see more of the intent put into the methodology.
Mind you, I agree with the idea that he's over hyped. He wasn't exactly breaking new ground, and there's plenty of other artists that explored abstract painting with more satisfying and effective results.
But I don't think it's accurate to call it shit either. As much as people love to say it, no a kindergartener couldn't do it. Even high schoolers have trouble making something that looks similar enough to carry the same visual effect. Some art students at a collegiate level can't.
Turns out you do have to have some degree of development in your techniques at the very least to get the same results, no matter how much raw talent you have.
Now, don't ask me if I really like his stuff. I mean, I'm going to say it anyway, but still. My take on his body of work is that he fully explored the "drip" technique way before he quit doing it, and likely could have stopped after the first one because the only real differences between them amount to nothing more than the difference between most hotel and doctors' office wall hangings. You see one, you've seen them all.
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that he got something more than money out of the process. I make bland and basic art myself, and IDGAF about the results as much as the enjoyment of making. Every art student I've ever known gets super into the process of creating and that's a wonderful thing; dissecting what they're doing as they do it.
But that value isn't something that carries on beyond the process itself.
