What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

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

^^

I was unaware that labeled pictures constituted an argument. I don't think Pollock was unskilled, random, or some sort of scam. I am pretty sure I have, in one of these art threads, offered a more thorough argument of my own views, this was just a helpful illustration of things other posters were discussing.

Originally Posted by Willsw

Click to expand...

I was unaware that labeled pictures constituted an argument.
It is though. Posting side by side pictures of monkey paintings and Pollocks with a head title: "Primates and Pollock" is a visual argument. You don't need to spell it out for us. You are making a clear statement

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

You don't need to spell it out for us. You are making a clear statement

The only statement that I am making is that some of these paintings are done by primates, and some by Pollock. If you think I am stating that primates are equal to or better than Pollock, it is because when you compare the images that is what you come away with. If you looked over the images and concluded that the Pollocks were obviously less random and more complex, then the "statement" I was making would be that Pollock is superior. I admit, I deliberately avoided the immeasurably better Pollocks because I wanted more similarity between the paintings. If I did change the images to include better Pollocks, and only changing that, I believe that you would think I was making an argument for the superiority of Pollock.

Originally Posted by Willsw

Click to expand...

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

So let me get this straight...Jackson used a monkey to do his paintings?

That explains a lot.

Some of the marsupialedness on this thread is mind blowing.

Okay, I'm learning. Pollock's works are definitely "more art" than a monkey's.

But this thread is driving me crazy. I'll withhold my opinions of what I think of "art" for the moment but I'd like for someone to define for me, what is "art". You in this thread who agree that you know what "art" is, (and that others don't and possibly congenitally cannot) seem to think that there is a boundary around it within which things can be approved and put in by someone or just be divined by anyone with superior taste. I'd like the boundary spelled out, please. Please include what media are allowable.

Also, are ALL Pollocks "art"?

And, if a painting was discovered with no context but considered just some ugly thing, and later it was found to be a Pollock painting from some fugue period no onw previously knew about, would it then become "art"?

^^ More than anything I think you can define art as something done for reasons of producing visual and mental stimulation without regards to being functional. There are certainly fine points that need to be cleared up, but clearly, at least to me, a painting done by a high school student or Jackson Pollock are both art where a beautifully constructed cabinet, car or watch are not.

The argument that the observer defines whether a painting or sculpture is or is not art is, to me, ridiculous. The fact that it is art is determined by the artist. There may be art that people find lame or unattractive, but that is besides the point.

Not every painting done by a high school student is art, though, is it? I could dig out some of my own work that is definitely not, even though I was "trying" (putting some effort and attempting some meaning), and paradoxically I could show some stuff I did for fun (especially photography) that others have claimed had some meaning in it where I put/intended none.

It's sometimes a little frustrating to me, coming from a very artistic family, that I really don't "get" "art". I have pretty good technical skill and aesthetic sense, but I usually don't see any deeper meanings in anything. I haven't devoted much time to trying to learn though.

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

Not every painting done by a high school student is art, though, is it? I could dig out some of my own work that is definitely not, even though I was "trying" (putting some effort and attempting some meaning), and paradoxically I could show some stuff I did for fun (especially photography) that others have claimed had some meaning in it where I put/intended none.
I disagree. Just because your art sucks does not make it not art. Photography is trickier because there is some sort of split between capturing a family vacation and using a camera to express your own personal vision.

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

paradoxically I could show some stuff I did for fun (especially photography) that others have claimed had some meaning in it where I put/intended none.

This is actually very common. I think it's great feedback about the expressiveness of the tools and techniques that you used. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong interpretation of a piece of art even if the viewer's reaction is completely opposite to what you intended. Since art is a two-way conversation between artist and viewer, what the viewer brings into the dynamic can radically alter what the piece does for him or her.

Of course, this doesn't mean all interpretations are equal. Obviously, a viewer who cannot tell the difference between a monkey painting and a Pollock has a lot less to bring to the table (and gain from the artwork) than someone more knowledgeable. It's sort of like giving a sports car to someone who can't drive.

--Andre

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm learning. Pollock's works are definitely "more art" than a monkey's.

But this thread is driving me crazy. I'll withhold my opinions of what I think of "art" for the moment but I'd like for someone to define for me, what is "art". You in this thread who agree that you know what "art" is, (and that others don't and possibly congenitally cannot) seem to think that there is a boundary around it within which things can be approved and put in by someone or just be divined by anyone with superior taste. I'd like the boundary spelled out, please. Please include what media are allowable.

Also, are ALL Pollocks "art"?

And, if a painting was discovered with no context but considered just some ugly thing, and later it was found to be a Pollock painting from some fugue period no onw previously knew about, would it then become "art"?

Art is fundamentally about an engagement among the "work", the artist, and the audience, and the ability to challenge or inform the audience in a way that a merely utilitarian object does not. If your point is that people can't provide you an absolutely precise definition, the way biologists can define what is or is not a mammal, you're right. If that to you is the central "argument', then you win. But that's a red herring. Obviously, it is the very amorphousness of the precise definition of art that gives much "experimental" or "controversial" art its power.

We can argue about the periphery until the three-horned surrealist cows come home. But for all of the "I'm a common sense kind of dude and you're a snooty posing intellectual" sneering, I'm pretty confident that in your (generalized you, not specifically you, j) heart of hearts you also believe that certain things ("Guernica", for example) are clearly art and certain things (the dogshit some neighbor neglected to pick up) is not. I also think that the works of Rothko and Pollock would qualify as art under any intellectually honest approach other than "if I like it it's art, and if I don't, it's not". And if you're going to adhere to that definition, why even have the word?

I think you're beating on a straw men when you suggest that I, or matt, or gdl, or whoever is suggesting that others think we have some innate, refined art appreciation gene that you lower mortals lack. Most of our discussion has been directed toward the facially silly "art is only what is aesthetically pleasing to me" tautology. Our point (certainly mine, and to the extent I undestand others') is not that I know definitively what is art and what is not art, and if you don't you're a philistine. My point is that however fluid the definition may be around the boundaries, at the core of the term clearly means something that's not entirely subjective. I think Fuuma's Iraq analogy is quite apt.

I wasn't throwing it up there as a red herring or some argument against artism or whatever. I would still like clarification on what is required for something to be "art". If a high school student can paint something and it is "art" or maybe "bad art that sucks", with no context or intent and barely any knowledge of the history of art or even the current culture especially of the art world, then if a high school student paints something very similar to Rothko's color block stuff... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say exactly.

Also, a lot of definitions of art seem to require that the work generally be for its own purposes only, and not primarily "useful" (this being a craft, or "design"). Does that explain why most "art films" are not entertaining in the least? Does that mean that an entertaining film cannot be "art"?

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

I wasn't throwing it up there as a red herring or some argument against artism or whatever. I would still like clarification on what is required for something to be "art". If a high school student can paint something and it is "art" or maybe "bad art that sucks", with no context or intent and barely any knowledge of the history of art or even the current culture especially of the art world, then if a high school student paints something very similar to Rothko's color block stuff... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say exactly.

Also, a lot of definitions of art seem to require that the work generally be for its own purposes only, and not primarily "useful" (this being a craft, or "design"). Does that explain why most "art films" are not entertaining in the least? Does that mean that an entertaining film cannot be "art"?

I get what you're trying to say, and they're legitimate questions. I don't think student's random creation of something that looks like a Rothko is really art. That's why my pseduo-definition, as vague as it is, contemplates some type of engagement among the artist, the work, and the audience. In your example, nothing of note is really been communicated or transmitted (both poor words here) by the creator. Whatever one feels about Rothko, it is hard to reasonably dispute the fact that he was very knowledgeable about painting and was saying or asking something very seriously about the nature of art in his work, and that he was in fact engaging many viewers in a dialogue of sorts. He clearly was making a contribution to the ongoing "discussion" that animates art as vital part of human culture.

Most "art films" are pretty painful. I'm not sure why that is. Most directors of art films that I've met take themselves very seriously and seem pretty grim and humorless. Could just be a coincidence. Any, it's not really my favorite medium, so I won't try to justify it to you. I once saw a video installation done by Harry Shearer and somebody else that was basically a long video loop of short edits from Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings outtakes, showing each of them blinking, flinching, nose-picking, twitching, etc. over and over again. It may or may not have been art, but at least it was funny.

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

with no context or intent and barely any knowledge of the history of art or even the current culture especially of the art world, then if a high school student paints something very similar to Rothko's color block stuff... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say exactly.
In real life, high school color block stuff does not look like this: Also, one of the really fascinating things about Rothko is to observe how his color palate changed as he became more and more depressed over the years. Both the above Rothko and this one below are considered to be absolute masterpieces and reside in the same museum. The difference both visually and emotionally when viewed in person is astonishing.

I don't think entertainment and art are mutually exclusive. I can't think of any examples off-hand from the visual arts, but there are plenty of examples from music and dance.

--Andre