What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

[LabelKing]

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross

 

[DocHolliday]

Bob Ross is more avant garde. Too much "kitsch" -- including some of Koons' stuff - is self concious and lacking in genuine affection. It just seems heavy handed. Better when there's some ambiguity.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross

That was PoMo.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Bob Ross is more avant garde. Too much "kitsch" -- including some of Koons' stuff - is self concious and lacking in genuine affection. It just seems heavy handed. Better when there's some ambiguity.

Or perhaps this:

 

[Willsw]

Unaffected kitsch from the Living Masters gallery of the Art Renewal Center. Don't want to re-upload to resize.

 

[rubylith]

Originally Posted by fareau

I personally don't like modern art, but I can appreciate that Pollock is utilizing a vocabulary of some sort that makes his work look intentional.

Yes he was. Abstract Expressionism was the next step of the breakdown and 'simplification' of the time, of the elements of art, as defined by previous works of art (such as rhythm, proportion, balance, etc.--also applies to architecture and music).

The thing about a work of art is that it can't ever be completely understood all on its own. Every phase of art draws from, and/or is a rebellion of, a previous phase.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by karensaw

As familiar as Jackson Pollock is to our society, I can only imagine the discourse on conceptual artists of avant-garde. Beuys, then Acconci- go!

This Beuys installation at the Tate modern is actually quite powerful and, dare I say, accessible to a wide audience considering its dual impact on a visceral (repetition of the form, feeling of movement and urgency, impressive scale) and cultural level (everyday material, ominous war references and of course, museum context clearly pointing at the installation being "art") :

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/beuys/

Sometimes you don't need to know that much about the artist and his conceptual approach to get something out of the pieces.

 

[designprofessor]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

There's a painting being sold on eBay now as a Bob Ross original. Starting bid is $2,000. I'd love to own it, if only to see the reaction from different people.

I would think with Mr. Ross teaching people how to paint like him, there would would be alot of fakes with his name on it.

 

[dkzzzz]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

I just don't get the Pollock paintings. I've tried but it seems like just a scam at the end of the day.

Do you feel sometimes that Mark Shagal's paintings are something 5-years old could have done in a drawing class?


...careful, it's a trick question.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

Do you feel sometimes that Mark Shagal's paintings are something 5-years old could have done in a drawing class?


...careful, it's a trick question.

I don't know who Shagal is.

 

[Artisan Fan]

This whole modern art scene, especially with Pollock and others, reminds me of Bill Murray's character in Stripes when he sees some camo gear and says "Chicks in New York pay top dollar for this stuff."

 

[Go Surface]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

About the same I think about Mark Rothko: utter and purely overrated crap that isn't worth the canvass it's painted on.

Jon.

Agreed.

 

[visionology]

There are also elephants and monkeys where they put a paintbrush in their hands, they are taught to slap paint on a canvas, and called geniuses.

I think other than perhaps the use of color, Pollock's famous works are too randomly created to have any meaning or significance. Some I find appealing perhaps as an interior decorating item but that isn't art, that is a decoration.

 

[Willsw]

Primates and Pollock. Though I admit I chose the worst Pollocks I could find.

 

[gdl203]

I can't believe a self-proclaimed "artist" would post this kind of crap arguments

^^