[OC] Personal opinion on Jackson Pollock's drip art
-
This post did not contain any content.
Sir, I laughed and upvoted. I am unable to share as my wife is a visual arts grad and I want to be able to get laid in the future.
-
You know when everybody on both Lemny and Reddit are up in arms that American mainstream culture celebrate anti-intellectualism?
This here is a prime example.
Nothing intellectual about claiming something is more than it actually is and being pretentious about it.
-
Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum
To expand a bit on the idea that the process itself is as important, or more important, than the resulting work standing in isolation, there are a bunch of examples of people really enjoying the "behind the scenes" or "how it's made" aspects of art.
I happen to love OK Go's single-take music videos in large part because they are absurdly complex projects requiring precise planning and tight execution. And you can see that the resulting work (a music video) is aesthetically pleasing, and can simultaneously be impressed at the methods used in actually filming that one take, from their early low budget stuff like Here We Go Again, or stuff like the zero gravity Upside Down and Inside Out, or even this year's releases with technological assistance from programmed phone screens or robot arms holding mirrors.
Another example I like is James Cook making paintings out of typed pages in a typewriter.
There's a lot of stuff with sculpture and painting that have these aspects where the methods used to make it are inherently interesting, and explain some of the features in the art itself.
To expand a bit on the idea that the process itself is as important, or more important, than the resulting work standing in isolation
This leads to my take on photorealistic art: basically photography has made fully realistic drawn and painted art obsolete. Even "unreal" things that look real but aren't based on actual places or things can be achieved by photoshopping pictures together in a fraction of the time it takes, to make something look even close to a photographic accuracy drawing or painting by hand. If you see a picture of photorealistic art somewhere you'll just think it's a photograph or photoshopped, unless someone explicitly tells you it's painted. The visual representation of photorealistic art has stopped being meaningful as it used to be, and the works need the context of the hard labour to be appreciated as what they are.
As a disclaimer though, photography and digital editing can be art in themselves, I'm not making point about that. It's just fascinating how the value of hand drawn photorealistic stuff has almost fully shifted from the visual representation of reality to the actual process of producing it
-
Very succinctly so I don't end up writing another wall, I generally agree with you on these points. Where we differ I think is that I feel context can add depth and richness (as in the Jester painting) but that the work itself should contain some INTRINSIC depth and richness.
The analog discussion I think we are having is "are placebos good medicine?". Do you feel better after taking them? Sure. I suppose that makes it hard to say they are not medicine. At the same time, it's the act of consuming them that gives them the effect, not anything to do with the content.
I genuinely disagree with you on the placebo argument, but that is okay.
Sometimes I like an abstract painting or sculpture because of shape, color, composition and so on. I don't think abstract art would be popular with many people is the works didn't stir something in them just by how they looked.
Again, I completely respect that this type of art doesn't do anything for you, but I think you are entirely wrong in claiming that there is nothing to abstract art unless there is a title for context. That isn't true. Abstract art can evoke all kinds of emotions in people without any context. Disgust, euphoria, sadness, happiness, fear, anger, calmness etc. It is not a trick that an abstract art piece can evoke emotions. It is simply a matter of the art piece being created by someone who has an eye for composition, color theory and is in tune with the emotion he or she intents to transfer onto the canvas.
-
That sounds like a different kind of art altogether. The experiential kind of art where the point is the unspoken discussion between the artist and the audience, or just a commentary on the audience, is pretty cool. Marina Abramović is an icon of art in that category I would say.
That is contemporary art.
-
My favorite thing about art is that if you look at it and you hate it, that's still a completely valid take
Art museums became way more fun once I realized that
wrote last edited by [email protected]I am going to MOMAs all over to laugh at the stupid shit some artists pull off. Laughed my ass off at the taped banana. I am not even interested in what the artist thinks or means. I am entertained, that is what I expect of art.
Like in London, there was this big-ass room dedicated to a giant chair and a giant table, you could walk under. Heated, in the middle of a freezing winter. Like, the homeless were freezing out on the streets, and here we are as a society, heating a room for a chair and a table nobody could use. Just take in the absurdity, and you have to laugh at this shit to compensate and stay sane.
-
Still better than AI art.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't like AI slop. But this kind of "art" is not much better. This is human slop.
-
Nothing intellectual about claiming something is more than it actually is and being pretentious about it.
What is it then and what is it not?
-
You're equating an appreciation of significance with an appreciation of aesthetics.
What if I told you that art is much more than aesthetics. Clearly this is news to both OP and yourself.
-
Hitler didn't kill millions of people to make you think about his art. Pollock intentionally wanted to create art that makes people think about what counts as art. His methods certainly worked.
So now you have to get into the mind of the artist and if their fame influenced the knowledge of their art, but they didn't achieve that fame in order to promote their art, you can ignore their art? That seems very convoluted.
A better idea is just to ignore the artist and focus on the paint on the canvas.
-
Tbf lots of stuff in that style, including some of his, is trash.
Edit: and if context is beauty: a lot of people making it didn't understand, and it was overpromoted by the fucking cia to contrast the literal style pushed by the ussr. So it's literally an anti-communist plot by yhe cia. Show me some other 'anti communist' things.
Yep. If you look into history there are plenty of examples of political powers promoting arts of all tradition for their own purposes.
But you know who were on the fronts of practically banning modern art in the first place? Check out Entartete Kunst, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art. So does that make all traditional and figurative art problematic now?
And you know what other art was "not understood" by it's creators until later? Oh, boy. Fucking most of it, because a lot of art is expression and exploration, and theory is the understanding after, despite academics and theorists in fine arts have been trying to center the entire scene around themselves rather than the artists for the better part of the 1900s until today.
-
Yeah, yeah op. You have no idea of the what's and why's or any context for why plenty of modern art looks like it does and why it is important in art history. You know what you like. And you like what you understand. And if you don't understand it, you feel intellectually lesser and have a knee jerk reaction to protect yourself - by taking a meme format that says you have all the smarts and people that understand it are below yourself.
You can keep doing that, or you can get curious and ask the what's and the why's and see if you can appreciate things from it that aren't immediately obvious. That is how people grow.
Third year art major?
-
Yep. If you look into history there are plenty of examples of political powers promoting arts of all tradition for their own purposes.
But you know who were on the fronts of practically banning modern art in the first place? Check out Entartete Kunst, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art. So does that make all traditional and figurative art problematic now?
And you know what other art was "not understood" by it's creators until later? Oh, boy. Fucking most of it, because a lot of art is expression and exploration, and theory is the understanding after, despite academics and theorists in fine arts have been trying to center the entire scene around themselves rather than the artists for the better part of the 1900s until today.
Im saying if, as is pretty strongly stated upthread, beauty comes entirely from the context, and the piece does not factor, by that metric, this genre is ugly, disgusting, vile.
I did not say that it is the case. I am responding to someone who defended this genre by saying people who dont like it do not understand the history.
Please read before replying.
-
Third year art major?
I have a MA in Fine Arts many many years ago actually, so I'd consider I have some actual weight in the field and not only shallow opinions confused as equal to knowledge and facts.
But I should know better than to vent because every time this sort of post is a living illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect on a bandwagon.
-
I don't like AI slop. But this kind of "art" is not much better. This is human slop.
Low effort bullshit to impress art "connoisseurs" (people with money)
When the end goal is (in)fame and money, we can't argue with the results
-
Those art pieces are literally poison to a young aspiring artist's mind. It condemns them to a life in poverty, chasing dreams of becoming high profile abstract-postmodernist-whatever artist selling shits in jars, instead of focusing on making what the world really needs the most:
::: spoiler spoiler
gay furry porn
:::Well, I'll let you know that big dragon mommy milkers are superior
-
Im saying if, as is pretty strongly stated upthread, beauty comes entirely from the context, and the piece does not factor, by that metric, this genre is ugly, disgusting, vile.
I did not say that it is the case. I am responding to someone who defended this genre by saying people who dont like it do not understand the history.
Please read before replying.
Damn, my dude. You sure have impressive reading skills to find all of that in "this is shit".
Not to mention the truly phenomenal, remarkably exceptional, astonishingly outstanding writing skills required to wield, utilize, employ, and make strategic use of a dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon, and vocabulary compendium in order to lend, bestow, confer, and imbue an exaggerated, inflated, and artificially magnified impression, illusion, and semblance of substance, gravitas, and argumentative weight.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I just like the way it looks.
-
Those art pieces are literally poison to a young aspiring artist's mind. It condemns them to a life in poverty, chasing dreams of becoming high profile abstract-postmodernist-whatever artist selling shits in jars, instead of focusing on making what the world really needs the most:
::: spoiler spoiler
gay furry porn
:::You either die dignified and impoverished, unrecognized in your own lifetime, or you live long enough to afford a custom alpaca fursuit.
-
Damn, my dude. You sure have impressive reading skills to find all of that in "this is shit".
Not to mention the truly phenomenal, remarkably exceptional, astonishingly outstanding writing skills required to wield, utilize, employ, and make strategic use of a dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon, and vocabulary compendium in order to lend, bestow, confer, and imbue an exaggerated, inflated, and artificially magnified impression, illusion, and semblance of substance, gravitas, and argumentative weight.
+! im a fucker whos fucking good at fucking writing.
