What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by gdl203

Is this a general bashing of abstract art as a whole or simply Pollock?

I personally love Pollock - although much more in real life than in photos. All I can see when I'm in front of a Pollock is energy, on canvas
True, live around one and then you understand.

 

[Rome]

He would listen to Big Band Salsa as he painted. The work represented here is also what I like Pollock for, not how he muddled his way through cubism or other comtemporary artists styles. While the early surrealist are credited with "drip painting" (or whatever its called) as stated here already its the energy he brang to it. He believed he could control every drop of paint on the cavas. I like to think I can see the music in his paintings.

 

[Willsw]

Most books of abstact art are pretty useless, given that the paintings are completely reliant on scale and texture, for the most part, or the idea, which is better explained in text than in image anyway.

 

[zjpj83]

Hate it like almost all abstract art.
Good thing there's something for everyone out there.

 

[Dakota rube]

Pollock's work looks to me an awful lot like a Google Earth image. I thought that before there was even a Google Earth. I always pictured Pollock levitating somehow about 250 miles above earth and painting what he saw from there.

And that was even before the pharmeceuticals kicked in.

 

[BankerBoi]

Originally Posted by Connemara

... and his gay lover...

Jesus Christ and Grandma, too !

Anyway, in full scale, I find Pollock's work impressive;
on postcards, less, so.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by iammatt

True, live around one and then you understand.
Lucky man

 

[Brian SD]

This thread rocks. Keep the entertainment coming.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

As far as abstract expressionists, I've always liked Jane Frank.

 

[culverwood]

What do you think of Jackson Pollock's pictures?

"I think I trod in one the other day"

 

[California Dreamer]

Count me as a Pollock fan. One of my best memories of the Met is walking up the stairs to the Abstract Expressionists gallery. The first thing you see at the top is a giant Pollock that just imposes itself on you. Amazing.

Pollock has a bit of a special rep in Australia because of the furore in the 70s when the Whitlam government spend (gasp) $1 million on Blue Poles. Of course it is worth zillions now, probably the best investment any Australian government has ever made.

There is a Guggenheim exhibition here at present with some Rothkos and early (non-abstract) Pollocks. I like his abstracts better. Riotous colour that just leaps off the canvas at you.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by gdl203

Lucky man
Oops. I wish. I just meant that you have to spend a lot of time around one. I find that sometimes I like to visit a certain piece of art at a museum enough times that I get an even better appreciation than just seeing it once in person.

 

[eg1]

So, um, how long would you have to hang around to grok this?

Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire ...

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Oops. I wish. I just meant that you have to spend a lot of time around one. I find that sometimes I like to visit a certain piece of art at a museum enough times that I get an even better appreciation than just seeing it once in person.
Oh crap, I'm so disappointed. I imagined you as a little boy in jodpurs, holding a riding crop, on your way to the stables, pausing to look at the Pollack in the entrance way.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by eg1

I mean, really: how is that art? Or good art for that matter?

Jon.