What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by iammatt

You don't seem to get it.

Jon.

 

[Ivan Kipling]

Some of the best dressed people on this board seem to be fairly simple-minded (to be polite).
*************
gdl203, if you believe these people to be simple minded, why would you consider them to be well dressed? And would you consider these people to be well dressed, outside the confines of style forum?

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by dusty

Not sharing your taste is not the same as not having taste.
I agree with that. However, the type of bashing seen in this thread has gone further than expressing a difference in taste. Calling it crap, wallpaper or saying it's not art is silly and art ignorance but I guess that's just my opinion. I'm also a bit surprised to read an artist like Willsw write stuff like that btw

Originally Posted by imageWIS

utter and purely overrated crap that isn't worth the canvass it's painted on.

Originally Posted by Willsw

Wallpaper

 

[imageWIS]

Yes, but we are entitled to OUR opinion. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. Perhaps you might (I'm not saying that you do, this is just for arguments sake) find Rembrandt to be utter **** (I know people who think this), and while I would disagree, you can still think that way. Art is a very, very subjective topic.

One man's old toilet seat is another man's art.

Jon.

 

[designprofessor]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Yes, it is the same reason Americans tend to love mashed potatoes and filet mignon rather than squab and foie gras. Anything difficult is shunned on a cultural level.

I've always found it odd that alot of Americans have no problem with aggressive music, but then get frustrated at abstract art.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by designprofessor

I've always found it odd that alot of Americans have no problem with aggressive music, but then get frustrated at abstract art.

Define aggressive music.

Jon.

 

[designprofessor]

I'm talking stuff I would consider more abstract like ABBA, just kidding - oh say, some industrial, or some more intense versions of metal, speed metal, some electronic.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Yes, but we are entitled to OUR opinion. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. Perhaps you might (I'm not saying that you do, this is just for arguments sake) find Rembrandt to be utter **** (I know people who think this), and while I would disagree, you can still think that way. Art is a very, very subjective topic.

One man's old toilet seat is another man's art.

Jon.
Well, they would be idiots as well. There is no reason that somebody cannot dislike Pollock, Rembrant or Duchamp, that is an aesthetic judgment. To dismiss any of the three as ****, or worse as not art, is simply the mark of somebody who is not equipped to, or unwilling to take the time to understand art and the thought processes behind different types of it.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by designprofessor

I'm talking stuff I would consider more abstract like ABBA, just kidding - oh say, some industrial, or some more intense versions of metal, speed metal, some electronic.

Well, electronic is very popular the world over. The most prominent DJ's are Dutch / German. Yes, Industrial is quite American, but the Germans are into some very "˜heavy' music as well.

I think it is very hard to really define a society within the confines of one idea, especially seeing as in this particular case Pollock was American, as were many other members of the "˜intangible' modern art movement.

Jon.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by iammatt

No, but there is a whole lot of hatred for all abstract art in this thread. Also, a general distaste for modern art is apparent every time the subject comes up.

Modern esthetics--witness Yachtie's comment on Neutra.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

You’ve never heard a so called ‘art expert’ have you? They can droll on for hours about the meaning of the squiggly lines. Like it has some great pretext that the rest of us ‘mere mortals’ couldn’t possibility begin to understand. As if a Pollock in ANY WAY can compare to say a Rembrandt or a Caravaggio.

Jon.
Many people would similarly describe the views of shoe experts, watch experts, and suit experts who post around here. Add to that "music experts", "food experts", "wine experts", or the cognoscenti (real and affected) of any field of knowledge one wishes to denigrate as the province of point-headed effetes.
Certainly there are art critics -- or more to the point, art dealers -- who are full of hot air. That's true in any field. There are "art experts" and there are art experts. Is your point that art is such a silly and pointless field, or that there's so little knowledge or perspective to be conveyed, that the term "expert" is meaningless? If not, I'm not sure what the quotation marks are for.

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Because you can’t. It’s like a ‘car expert’ trying to denigrate a MB 540K Spezial Roadster.

Plus, just because they do not speak ill of the two old masters I mentioned, it doesn’t mean they speak well of them either.

Jon.
Sounds like an overpriced, environmentally harmful ************* to me. If you think "art experts" are bad, you should hear "car experts" drone on about meaningless crap.

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

I'm with gdl on this. Good abstract art has an energy, and a sense of identity, that the squiggles being sold at the "art fair" at your local mall lack. Certainly some of Pollock's and Rothko's importance and force come from context, and from understanding what their work meant in the development of art and the understanding of art. Had they come along at different times, they likely would not hold the same place in the canon -- indeed, likely would not have produced the work they produced. But their work also has a presence that is distinct from an intellectual understanding of what they "mean" or are "intended to say".

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Well, electronic is very popular the world over. The most prominent DJ's are Dutch / German. Yes, Industrial is quite American, but the Germans are into some very "˜heavy' music as well.

I think it is very hard to really define a society within the confines of one idea, especially seeing as in this particular case Pollock was American, as were many other members of the "˜intangible' modern art movement.

Jon.
Modernist art movements were directly influenced by the Europeans.

 

[designprofessor]

Well, that might bring up an intersting debate, if there is more of a distaste for modern art (music or otherwise) in America as opposed to other countries.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Well, they would be idiots as well. There is no reason that somebody cannot dislike Pollock, Rembrant or Duchamp, that is an aesthetic judgment. To dismiss any of the three as ****, or worse as not art, is simply the mark of somebody who is not equipped to, or unwilling to take the time to understand art and the thought processes behind different types of it.

To think that I have not discussed it or studied it would be a grievous error on the part of that person's judgment. Simply because it is my opinion that it is not worth the canvass it is painted on, does not mean that to someone else it is not the greatest work of art ever made. What is or is not art is itself quite subjective.

On a personal note, I once had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a professional photographer and has curator many art / photography exhibitions. Her stance, and I was unable to persuade her was that horology is not art, nor are the artworks that have been painstakingly painted on vintage pocket watches and modern wristwatches. At the same time, she was unable to persuade me that Pollock (of all artists, the coincidence is fantastic, no?) was a fantastic artist and his works should deserve the highest of praise and admiration. But, at least we can appreciate some form of art. Some people can't appreciate art at all.

Jon.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

To think that I have not discussed it or studied it would be a grievous error on the part of that person's judgment. Simply because it is my opinion that it is not worth the canvass it is painted on, does not mean that to someone else it is not the greatest work of art ever made. What is or is not art is itself quite subjective.

On a personal note, I once had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a professional photographer and has curator many art / photography exhibitions. Her stance, and I was unable to persuade her was that horology is not art, nor are the artworks that have been painstakingly painted on vintage pocket watches and modern wristwatches. At the same time, she was unable to persuade me that Pollock (of all artists, the coincidence is fantastic, no?) was a fantastic artist and his works should deserve the highest of praise and admiration. But, at least we can appreciate some form of art. Some people can't appreciate art at all.

Jon.
Perhaps you fall into the not equipped catagory

I agree with her that horology is not art. It is high craft.