What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

[LabelKing]

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.
On an aside, simply because someone is a professional photographer--whatever that means these days--does not mean they have some sort of authority. There are plenty of "professionals", and I have seen them, who have no idea what depth of field is.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

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.

And that's fine, to you the 540K is not art, to me it is. To me a Pollock is not art to you it is. Luckily for the both of us, art is subjective. We are both right, we are both wrong.

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".

That can be true of any artist. Drop Mozart in the 20th century and you are not going to get the Jupiter Symphony.

Jon.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by dusty

Not sharing your taste is not the same as not having taste. You're invoking the old "you just don't get it" defense. I think Picasso was brilliant. I don't think Jackson Pollock was.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely. Certainly appreciation of art is highly subjective. But I think most people here would agree that, for example, preferring Kenneth Cole shoes or some awful poly blend suit to Lobbs or St. Crispin's or whatever, constitutes a "lack of taste" and not just "different tastes". The fact is, when it comes to art -- as well as other fields -- some people really do "not get it". It's not all just a matter of subjective preference.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

On an aside, simply because someone is a professional photographer--whatever that means these days--does not mean they have some sort of authority.

There are plenty of "professionals", and I have seen them, who have no idea what depth of field is.

Yes, but she also has a PH.D in art from Yale and as I said is very much involved in the art world, as I mentioned, she was curator of art shows and continues in this capacity.

I never said she was an authority anyways, merely implied that she is learned regarding the subject of art.

Jon.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

And that's fine, to you the 540K is not art, to me it is. To me a Pollock is not art to you it is. Luckily for the both of us, art is subjective. We are both right, we are both wrong.



Jon.

Actually, no, that's part of the problem with this discussion. You can hate Pollock. But you can't (validly) define his work as "not art". Art does not mean "what any particular person finds aesthetically pleasing".

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

That's somewhat true, but not entirely. Certainly appreciation of art is highly subjective. But I think most people here would agree that, for example, preferring Kenneth Cole shoes or some awful poly blend suit to Lobbs or St. Crispin's or whatever, constitutes a "lack of taste" and not just "different tastes". The fact is, when it comes to art -- as well as other fields -- some people really do "not get it". It's not all just a matter of subjective preference.

It's not that we don't understand, it's that we don't like it or consider it art. Art, in its foremost is a subjective question which is: "do you like it?", then comes all the background. If the answer is "˜no', the person is hardly going to care about the background, aren't they?

Jon.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

It’s not that we don’t understand, it’s that we don’t like it or consider it art. Art, in its foremost is a subjective question which is: “do you like it?”, then comes all the background. If the answer is ‘no’, the person is hardly going to care about the background, aren’t they?

Jon.

I'm not saying you don't understand it. I'm prepared to accept that you "understand" it intellectually but still don't like it. I was responding generally to dusty's post, which suggested (as I read it) that there's no distinction between "having no taste" and simply "having different tastes".
But if you don't consider it art, then I blieve you truly don't understand it. That's an entirely different thing from not finding it appealing.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by gdl203

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

To dismiss the impact that someone like Pollock (probably the most influential post WWII painter) had on art and society is indeed an unworthy opinion. His un-referential approach to art, which in my mind can be linked to the writings of Barthes on the "death of the author" have redefined both the way we paint and analyze painting, effectively ushering a change of paradigm from the "author and his social context" to the "viewer and his reaction to the work displayed", no small feat and probably one of the reason more people are actually able to enjoy art today. I find his energy lines or whatever you want to call them so powerful in person that I can get lost in them, something that honestly has never happened to me in front of a Rembrandt, no matter how much I might enjoy looking at the night watch or his numerous self portraits.

The argument that everyone's opinion is worthy and the ensuing assumption that there can be no objective judgment in the artistic fields is an unlucky consequence of the beauty of the domain; it is highly accessible although it offers the potential for unlimited growth. Everyone can appreciate and hold an opinion on an art piece, as it speaks to a yearning for aesthetic brilliance, connection and self-expression that is present within the whole of humankind. However this does not mean that you can make the mistake to put every opinion on the same level and effectively negate the possibility of a growth in knowledge and introspection that will result in a finer and finer appreciation of what is out there.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

To dismiss the impact that someone like Pollock (probably the most influential post WWII painter) had on art and society is indeed an unworthy opinion. His un-referential approach to art, which in my mind can be linked to the writings of Barthes on the "death of the author" have redefined both the way we paint and analyze painting, effectively ushering a change of paradigm from the "author and his social context" to the "viewer and his reaction to the work displayed", no small feat and probably one of the reason more people are actually able to enjoy art today. I find his energy lines or whatever you want to call them so powerful in person that I can get lost in them, something that honestly has never happened to me in front of a Rembrandt, no matter how much I might enjoy looking at the night watch or his numerous self portraits.

The argument that everyone's opinion is worthy and the ensuing assumption that there can be no objective judgment in the artistic fields is an unlucky consequence of the beauty of the domain; it is highly accessible although it offers the potential for unlimited growth. Everyone can appreciate and hold an opinion on an art piece, as it speaks to a yearning for aesthetic brilliance, connection and self-expression that is present within the whole of humankind. However this does not mean that you can make the mistake to put every opinion on the same level and effectively negate the possibility of a growth in knowledge and introspection that will result in a finer and finer appreciation of what is out there.

This is what I meant, but said more smarter ^

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Perhaps you fall into the not equipped catagory

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

Exactly, artisanship and art are not the same thing, although the techniques of the former can be applied to the later. I would classify it along with design, as "applied arts" or art that is supposed to solve the problems of present day living.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

This is what I meant, but said more smarter ^

Same here. I wish there was a Fuumanator on the web where I could enter simple thoughts and the generator spits out a much more articulate version of those, relevant references included

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Exactly, artisanship and art are not the same thing, although the techniques of the former can be applied to the later. I would classify it along with design, as "applied arts" or art that is supposed to solve the problems of present day living.

Also fashion.

Industrial design can be beautiful and elegant, but the fact that it is firstly a useful object disqualifies it from the realm of art.

 

[spertia]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

This at least is art:

I don't particularly like it, but it is art.
Jon.

Why, because it's a familiar, non-abstracted image?

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Three lines, in 2 colors though is hardly art



You're entitled to your opinions, but who made you the authority on what constitutes art???

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Exactly, artisanship and art are not the same thing, although the techniques of the former can be applied to the later. I would classify it along with design, as "applied arts" or art that is supposed to solve the problems of present day living.
Yes. Although on this board you will find many dissenters, almost no thinking person considers the people who actually fabricate for Anoosh Kapoor the artists. Interestingly, when I was 9 or 10 I had the chance to visit Marc di Suvero's workshop with some friends of his. He was a very cool guy and after lunch, he went through his junkyard with me and helped me pick a couple pieces of metal, place them together and weld them. Although the pieces of steel were first rate, and the construction methods the same the outcome has none of the power of even the smallest of his pieces. I think I still have it at home and will try to take a pic sometime just for laughs. It is a great example of how art comes from the mind and not the hands

Of course, I am sure many people here would not consider di Suvero an artist.

 

[vaclava krishna]

Is any1 here, an artiste? I'm not thinking, like J.J. Evans.