Is this art or isn't it? What a tired and useless question!!! You can argue the value from an art history perspective all you want, but I challenge anyone to go to the Museum of Modern Art and spend some time face to face with the several Pollock paintings that are there. Immerse yourself in them. Let them wash over you. Open yourself to the possibility that they might affect you emotionally. Take in their color and form and complexity and sensual movement. Allow yourself to feel what Pollock might have felt while he was pouring himself onto the canvas. Look for the places where his skin contacted the surface, where a booted foot stepped into the frenetic world he was creating. Let the image burn itself into your retinas and then shift perspective so the subtle fiery glow and complex patterns of nature become illuminated again. Anyone who opens themselves to the extraordinary brilliance of Pollock's paintings and remains unchanged is simply lazy and has no lifeforce.
I challenge you to tell me why anything painted by anyone ever, should be worth $148 million. Do you not see the absurdity in that number? Modern Art has become a symbol of brand naming (same as Apple, Armani, Ferrari, etc.), you're paying money for the artists name and their life, and not what the art actually represents (if it even represents anything at all): well there was a guy/gal who had a painful life, they were abused, an alcoholic, etc., then they painted some things. Then they died at an early age (or didn't). Millionaires and billionaires bought their work for millions upon millions as a collectors item and to be "one of the people that own that guys/gals stuff". It became popular and "brilliant art" then come along people like you who "challenge" everyone to go on this wonderful journey of submersion into his/her work. When those individuals that you challenged see nothing in his paintings, you tell them they're lazy, when in reality, they don't need to see anything in art (it's not a must, stop talking about it as if it's going to change the lives of the people who view the paintings). What I don't think you realize is that if his painting weren't bought for millions and millions of dollars and weren't the "it item" to collect and to own, you would not be spewing this kind of garbage all over the internet. Nor would you be telling people it's a must see, that people need to open up their minds, that they are lazy, etc.: actually you wouldn't even know who Jackson Pollock was, his existence would be irrelevant to you (since "art" has become a popularity contest, if you don't think so, you're a joke). Furthermore, I don't need to see this as art, nor is there anything wrong with me if I don't see anything in modern paintings. I am near certain that you would not be reacting this same way to an unknown artists abstract work that had no worth to it (nor would the majority of people who look at it, since his work wouldn't be worth millions). Honestly, the one thing that is "tiring and useless" is hearing people push their agenda of "art" onto the minds of others in a matter that is utterly subjective, and hearing people defend the idea of something subjective and relevant to each individual as being worth a numerical amount: as if that is something that is logical (it really isn't).
Mark Hayes There is perfection in his drip paintings. I do not feel the same at all with regard to the non-drip work. But the drip paintings are absolutely amazing. He leaves no emptiness. I just love them. I traveled to the National Gallery in Wash. D.C. to see Lavender Mist, my favorite painting in all the world. I broke out in tears before even seeing it, just knowing that it was just around a corner from where I stood. How can something affect a person like that? It is mind-boggling, isn't it? And to think how messed up he was. Man oh Man.
First off, he was a notorious asshole. Second, he was a master who, along with greats like Clifford Still and Mark Rothko, brought abstract expressionism into the zeitgeist of the 20th century. He was a master.
People on here are silly. Only an artist can appreciate various forms of art. Art is energy that has been captured momentarily. The audacity and passion it takes to do something that hasn't yet 2 be done is art. So if u think u can do what he did and have the same effect is foolish. HE ALREADY DID THAT. Be the 1st you.
I've been an Abstract Expressionist (Ab-Ex), Impressionist, and Primitive Expressionist painter for about 7 yrs. I get a big kick out of people saying "I don't get it" regarding Ab-Ex works...or asking, "What is it supposed to be?". Consider this: it's NOT representational Art; there's nothing to "get". An Ab-Ex painting either will evoke some feeling in you, or it won't. You don't have to think about it. It will happen, or it won't. If it doesn't, that's okay. But just because it doesn't evoke any feeling (calmness, mystery, anxiety, inspiration, boldness, worry, fear, happiness, pleasure, sadness, etc.) in you doesn't mean that it won't in someone else. Institutional, formal artists hate it when someone says this, but it's true: Beauty (or Art) really is in the eye of the beholder...100%. Institutionalists will say, "No, no, no...it's not that simple...there are Standards...and Rules.". Here's a clue: Standards and Rules in Art merely are some group's opinion. Art, like Beauty, truly is in the eye of the beholder. Relative to Beauty, here's an example: I grew up in the age of Marilyn Monroe... considered beautiful by many, many people. I didn't think she was beautiful in the slightest...and I'm a heterosexual. Relative to Art, here's an example: I believe Pollock was one of the greatest painters ever, in the same class as Rothko, Kline, Miro, de Kooning, and a few others. From some of the comments here, obviously that's not a universal opinion. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Standards & Rules are for Institutionalists (or sheep), not Insurrectionists (or free thinkers). Happy Trails
You've achieved all this in 7 years! I've been working in 'art' for 15 years and I would never dare to presume or assume such 'status' as you do, despite a certain appreciation for what I do. But at the least , you are open minded to modern and contemporary art and you appreciate Pollock, whose wonderful work I've seen in various museums in Europe. What I found most impressive, despite what some of the public may deem as incongruous splashing, was a deliberate symphony and harmony of forms, lines and colours, which in turn, produced an orchestration of beauty in visual art and made him unique and original in the modern art of early 20th century.
Thanks for your input. I have no "status"; all I have is a sense of Logic and a degree of understanding of Aesthetics. As to time, I started in Art (part-time) in 1979, doing primarily pen & ink drawings. I've been a full-time painter for about 7 yrs. Thanks again for your comment. Happy Trails
Scott Haley Can you direct me to other artists? Famous and non-famous up and coming artists and famous artists in the past and under appreciated. I'm a fan of Gerhard Richter.
For Jason Jarvis... Here are just a few--- more recent: Allen N. Lehman, Susan Sadoury, Maxim Grunin. They all do Abstracts in addition to representational art. from the Past: Paul Klee, Perle Fine, Robert Motherwell, & Franz Kline. Thanks, and Enjoy.
Sad to see the negative comments about Jackson....it is well worth looking at the era that he did this ....he was born the year the `Titanic ` sank .....and died aged 44...I could perhaps understand the criticisms back in 1942 , but not now ....give him the recognition he deserves.
The uneducated individuals that describe Pollock's work as not even art are 100% idiots. What makes his paintings so great is that since he painted with the canvas on the ground, it allowed him to in a sense be a part of the painting, because it was on the same plane as him. They way he painted, he allowed the framework of the painting to develop in the air, instead of causing a pre-destined pattern to form. The drips that are spead across the canvas give one an impression and a sense of rhythm in the painting, which intrigues the viewer.
Jackson Pollock was a drunkard and a cad that stumbled into a career because someone influential perceived his garbage as art. That is why he was a genius. He saw an opportunity and he took it. His work is the most perfect example of analogical evidence supporting the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" logic. However to call him an artist is disrespectful to artists everywhere. That is like saying Miley Cyrus is an extraordinary composer, and I can assure you da Vinci turns in his grave every time Pollock is referred to as an artisan.
C.R.E.A.M. I get what you're saying, but I have to disagree. It sounds to me that you are comparing the technical skill of Pollock to great artists before him. If that is the case you are completely right. His skill doesn't hold a candle to Da Vanci or other incredible artists. However you have to understand that his art wasn't about technical skill. He broke down the art world even further in a time where it seemed like it couldn't be done. So maybe for you it isn't anything special, but it inspired millions and catapulted art to the next step in history. Oh and by the way, Da Vinci was quite the rebel and Pollocks avant-garde style of painting was quite rebellious. Da Vinci may not have liked his style or skill, but he would have loved that he was upsetting the establishment and would have likely cheered him on!
+Leifer Stieler From what I hear and what I've read, he's not the first person to try this technique of painting, he did it decades later (might be wrong, but oh well). So really he wasn't the one who broke anything down, he's simply the one who got popular (his work is now sold for insane amounts, and people call it "brilliance and art", while the others aren't even recognized). Modern art has become a competition between the rich, and it goes a bit something like this: "Check it, I've got Pollock's #5, boooooooyaaaaaaaaa suckers, it only cost me $140 million", then the other guy goes, "Oh fuck, I should buy a Pollock!?!?! Gimme' Pollock's #69 for $400 million! Booooyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I got Pollock's # 69, in all of your faces". Really the only reason he is known is because his art is sold for so much. He didn't invent the technique, nor is his work any more brilliant and mesmerizing than the other artists who have put paint on canvas that same way.
First things first for philistines. There are no rules in art. Sure you dont like it or it looks crap, you can't understand it but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A genuine artist does it purely for himself and isn't too bothered by other peoples opinions. Other peoples opinions are what kills original art stone dead because they are based on things that have already been done. If its from an artist then it might be a good opinion, because they at least have a basic understanding People seem to either get it or not. I'm an artist and not a very good one but I do my own things so to me it's good and I know if my work is good or not . So far its crap but hey never mind. Thats why I keep doing it, to get better.
zenoist2 To say something is or isn't art, for me, is a tired debate and i realize that there is no definitive answer. The thing that makes me angry about this type of art, though, is that there is nothing to it that anyone couldn't do in their own backyard. There seems to be no skill involved. If i would come with that exact painting and an original name, i'd get shown the door (rightfully so), but if there's an established "artist" that makes that stuff, the entire painting of splashes or just a blank canvas with a single dot or a heap of shite would be praised by that community and tons of money would be given. Don't get me wrong, I'd complement the artist for their cunning, but it's the crowd that pisses me off.
sheogorath19 I agree actually. I bet lots of people were doing this type of thing back then. You just have to be lucky in being "found" and praised by people whose opinion carries some weight I reckon. Art critics do need artists or else they'd starve. The more outrageous it is the better as far as they are concerened, the caveat being it has to attract public attention to even get started. What better than a drunken artist who just splashes paint around that anyone could do? Pollock was lucky to be in the right time and the right place and with the right critics to promote him.
zenoist2 You're right about that. I just can't stand the pretension that goes on in the " art establishment" where i see total garbage in museums and art that takes effort on Deviantart...
sheogorath19 You be true to yourself and see what happens. Honesty is the best thing an artist has in my book. The "art establishment" can go and fuck itself as far as I'm concerned. I ilke some deviantart things as well. Theres some good art (and an awful lot of rubbish) on flickr too if you search date uploaded.
Thank goodness the GREAT perception of Peggy Guggenheim was at least given some small mention. She kept Pollock in funds for some years...behind the man...always a woman....or two...or three...((
I do think there is a huge hole in the segment of his death in that it fails to mention that Edith Metzger was also killed in that accident. It makes his death less tragic and more a stupid & selfish act. Having read biographies of both Pollock & Krasner - it is an important element to the story of his life - his death was not his alone.
I have seen Pollock's work in museums, and it's better than these photos, mostly due to the scale. But overall, his work is taken way too seriously. Read your art history; Janet Sobel was the first to experimented with this technique, and Pollock was aware of her work.
I once brought a friend of mine to the museum and showed her many works I liked, Giacometti, Pollack, Gorky and she could enjoy the colors and shapes and was open minded but I asked her do you feel the emotion of it. She said no. I then took another friend whose father had manic-depression and she suffered with depression and asked her and she said "this work is so emotional it vibrates". A lot of this work by abstract expressionists evoke a certain type of emotions that some won't get because they never experienced such emotion, and others will out right reject because they are deeply afraid of such emotions. The out right rejection of this art is an indication of how little many know of themselves and the degree to which a person can actually slow down to appreciate. More than ever before in history understanding our own subjectivity is of pressing importance. And certainly the abstract expressionists provide a window into their own subjectivity.
I'm very pleased to come across this video! Must say Kligman didn't seem as genuine as those who have described her to be. She appeared phony. Anyways, thanks again for sharing!
el maestro Pollock !! el creador de la Pintura en Accion , sin duda unos de los grandes maestros del Arte moderno !! GRACIAS MAESTRO POR TANTO ARTE !!!
Sometimes context is needed for the appreciation of art. Whether you like his paintings or not visually you can't deny he broke huge boundaries with his works, so to answer your question: yes, in my opinion a large part of his succes/fame is because he was (one of the) first painter(s) that produced this kind of art. I am more a fan of his less abstract works ("The Water Bull" is great) and I think those paintings show that he didn't paint at random and he actually had a lot of skill.
When i attended an artschool i was always made to feel quilty because i didn't find abstractionist, expressionist or impressionistic things deeply appealing. Well, i don't care about that anymore. To me all of these renowned artists that surfaced from the 1800's to today are merely serving to further degenerate the artforms of mankind, and it's hardly like their works manifest good things. It's like they do their art in some kind of trance, and they fragment and warp reality, use dark, gloomy colours and give expression to chaos and wild emotional states, and it's all muddled up and completely backwards. The works of the the traditional artist of the past was truly extraordinary and glorious, and it took a high level of mastery, composure and patience to produce them. What is todays art in comparison? It's like child's play.
i agree,pollock and rothco are todays bansky etc,a total lack of talent wrapped up in a veil of mystery and pseudo-intelluectualism .their creations don't represent modernity,theres no effort put in.compare and contrast todays art to an old dutch still life.......all opinions listened to..in anticipation.
So only art that takes time and skill is worthy of being called art? That is a very shallow interpretation of art. Should we spend another 1,000 years paintings landscapes and nudes?
P. Fitz Luxenberg "The fine, the rich, the indolent men, distillers of quintessence, looking for the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, from cubism and later, I met these gentlemen and these critics with all the antics that went through my head, and how much less understand, the more they admired. Having fun with these games, tricks, puzzles, riddles and arabesques, I became famous quickly. And the celebrities for a painter means increase in sales, money, wealth. Today, as we know, I am famous and very rich. But when I'm alone with myself, I did not dare to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the term. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya." (Pablo Picasso)
Mark Mcleod Whether you like it or not, life is always the same, you're born, you live and you die, on this Earth, lighted by the same Sun of 100, 1000 years ago. In the meantime, you can focus on the inner world of some drunk or mentally unstable guy without any skills or you can look to the Nature as something to follow and find your true place in the world: Nature in the center and beside, you. The art that keep in centre the man and his illness has no use to anyone, a message conveyed through a not encrypted and unreadable code, produces no communication but rather suggestion! A crumbling wall or a dirty sidewalk of pigeon droppings produce the same effect...
i was not familiar with Merzbow until a minute ago. do you like them / it / him / her? that is a good analogy. when i was younger, and my parents did not always care for the music i liked, i wondered how bad music would have to get in the future for me to complain similarly, i imagined what i now know to be Merzbow. in fact, when i studied music in college, i experimented with various styles, techniques, & instruments including electronic noise. i consider some of my electronic noise experiments to be junk. that's why i stopped doing that stuff. apparently Merzbow has seen fit to make many albums of such noise. i suppose some pretentious person will tell me what a moron i am for failing to recognize Merzbow's genius.
Trobtwillis It's completely okay to not be into harsh noise music! I am not the biggest fan of his, however, I find the noisescapes he creates to be interesting and captivating in an "art sound" type of way. There are definitely some tracks of his that I can listen to, but most of his discography is unfortunately forgettable.
_"I AM nature."_ He was right. That always bugs me when people seem to have this notion that human beings, or some of the things they do, are somehow not part of nature. We are as much part of nature as a tiger in the wild, as is anything we think or do.
+Tinselbutt Explodia - If only everyone knew and understood this! But how many people on the planet today are as comfortable in nature as a tiger in the wild? Equally important: How much 'wild' is left? Obviously, not much, nor many tigers... Does any other part of nature destroy the wild? Does any other part of nature turn what was wild into something no longer recognizable as ''the wild'? Has any other part of nature tried to 'dominate' and control nature itself? Or ~seen itself as separate from nature~? I used to wonder why so many people would trash up their own habitat- home, neighborhood, etc... until it occured to me that until a short time ago everything humans tossed was either biodegradable or was stone. So long as they moved periodically any minor disturbance to the ecosystems they were a part of benefited from the presence of humans, just as the jungle benefits from the tiger. Many issues (likely most) humans face come from the fact that we in Western cultures have been trained to see ourselves as separate from Nature, and we live as though we are not a part of the natural world. As a species, we are just beginning to discover that in Nature everything is connected. Ah, one of the greatest questions of all time: What is Man's place in the world? (When capitilized 'Man' is gender neutral, as every educated person knew when the Declaration of Independance was written...)
For the ones who think that anyone can do pollock's art: 29:55 Don´t give up on a simple view, saying that is just paint thrown randomly, just try to imagine the rhythm, the soul, and the creativity of these type of artists.
Yeah bro I watched that part about him comparing this art to a pianist (or someone playing the piano) Problem is, we all know the difference between Beethovens 5th....and well SMASHING THE KEYS AT WILL. Now I ask you everyone here, is Jackson Pollack more like Beethovens 5th...or SMASHING THE KEYS!! I know some of you will troll...oh what a great oppurtunity to troll. SO I don't care what you type...you the person reading this comment, you know in your heart which one you would pick if you knew getting the answer right would win you a million dollars on who wants to be a millionare. And even if you got it wrong...don't kid yourself, you'd still know in your heart which one is the right answer. If you said beethovens 5th lolololol omg you troll. Cmon get real. Here's why, beethoven's 5th is controlled key presses at precise times. A specific sound has to be played & misplaying a note is noticeable. Jackson Pollacks painting is all over the place there is zero control in it. He's painting every which way he wants to and he's even going over areas multiple times, he's filling the entire canvas with paint. To call it controlled movement is laughable. If he misses a dribble here or there nobody is going to notice. In fact what we all notice is that it's just splattered paint all over the freaking place. But hey "nobody has ever played piano like that in a live concert" is also an argument one could make. But to call Smashing the Keys the same as Beethoven HAHAHH haha hahahaha haha. P.S. beethoven was freaking def & he still created those masterpieces on the piano. But no no controlled random splattering of paint that's clearly on par. I still love Jackson Pollacks work, I think it's beautiful!! But do I think he's on the level of beethovens 5th haha hahahahah hahaha hahaha HAH ahha. He's not even on the level of beethovens freestyle. He's kinda on the level of your friend who doesn't really know how to play piano & is just feeling his way through a song. It sounds groovy, and cool and you had no idea he was gonna miss notes all the time...but sometimes it's good & then you kinda like the transitions a bit & feel if he put his mind to it maybe he could be beethoven. ANd jackson seems to be very good at this we have no idea what he's gonna paint...but it seems like he's gonna smash some keys & it'll sound good sometimes, painter. And not a lot of people are willing to smash keys like that...so it's interesting. But again lol. Just lol.
I'm sure you have a "couch size" painting hanging in your living room that you purchased at a Starving Artist Sale. " ... no painting over $29.99 no paintings over $29.99 ...... "
Whats more interesting than the Documentary are all the comments from self proclaimed art experts/fans/fanatics/scholars et cetera arguing how their opinion is valid and others are not. Or how the work of Pollock is garbage because they deem it so. Or because it doesn't "speak" to them it is trash and he had no talent. Thats the real entertainment.
i heard one of the biographers said of the painting as "they are big, great calm, not just feeling of grandness but also intimacy and quiet", then I looked at Pollock's paintings and boom........ nothing.... i thought of nothing... i couldn't relate the paintings to whatever the biographer said, except a confusion, a confusion as to why they are even called work of arts. If those paintings are arts then I don't understand arts. Don't have concept of art
We have Pollock's "Blue Poles" painting here at the art gallery in Canberra, Australia. It's my main reason for visiting Canberra. For me it expresses the thought process in the creation of a poem. A brilliant achievement !
I always thought during his drip paintings that he reached a level where he was literally painting the neurons in his brain. He had reached such a level of awareness that he could "see" them although he probably didn't realize it at the time, he "felt" it subconsciously, like his brain was saying "this is me". Like an acid trip, his consciousness went in and in and in and in till it was literally painting itself. Photos of the human brain under a microscope look just like Pollock paintings.
never knew to much on jackson pollock but someone said you do art the same as jackson pollock dam i do you old timers have been around never copy my work is real work coming from my mind anyway glass is some of my famous work with acrillic paint love you to see my art video on youtube at matthew johansen you see the video about 8 mins
Very interesting documentary. I am looking forward to seeing his work at DMA when it returns to Dallas, in November. Pollock is one of the few artists I find to be compelling.
I love Abstract Expressionism but I have to say that I'm glad that the Pop Artists came along and turned the tough, drunken cowboy, John Wayne with a paintbrush ideal into a subject of mockery. That sort of insecurity about maintaining a sense of manhood in what was considered an effete profession is just really a massive waste of time and energy. The AbEx painters had a lot of great ideas and I wish people would have focused more on their philosophies and not on how rowdy and aggressive they were when they drank.
Making a comparison between Pollock and Tolstoy is ludicrous. Pollock made a small, and often considered dubious, contribution to modern art - like a one-trick pony. And don't forget, Pollock wasn't even the first to employ the "drip" technique. On the other hand, Tolstoy was a huge influence on literature and mankind; he was million times more than Pollock.
i like some of pollocks paintings but we must know that media doing is: mys·ti·fi·ca·tion n. 1. The act or an instance of mystifying. 2. The fact or condition of being mystified. 3. Something intended to mystify. and all for the $$$
Sometimes I feel like the artist has the last laugh in the work they create. Most of it is sensational cork sniffery. I do appreciate mural 1943 by Pollock but that's about it. In Mural, I can actually see something, lots of things going on but for most of his drip/splash work, I'll pass. Emperor's New Clothes.
Gee I didn't know being manic was the same as being an Artist. Thanks. Why don't they just say he was bipolar? A mental illness stigma? No, we're too intelligent for that. When was this made, 1987?
For those who think a two-year-old can do this, etc., just look at 3:02 and watch him do the series of ten black curves that look a little like reversed question marks ? that cover the canvas vertically. They're perfect -- four and seven are backwards, it makes a ( ( ( ) ( ( ) ( ( ( pattern, which subdivides into a two-one-three series. His paintings are all reduced to layers of rhythm like this, like Led Zeppelin's music
Harry Cullum, (28:05) the master mechanic's interview is great! It is both valuable and entertaining for me hear his account of seeing Pollack paint. Hilarious!
I agree with Kae, but I'm not convinced that it is well-organized. History shows (and is still showing) that it doesn't take much to "lead the lambs to the [aesthetic] slaughter," so to speak. It could be more like a herd mentality.
Pollock is the inevitable awful result of the rejection of technique which started with the Impressionists. The problem with the visual arts is that it is easier for people to auto-hypnotize themselves into thinking there is artistic quality and creativity when in fact there is none, in a mental process of wanting to conform to popular acclaim. It's much more difficult for people to fool themselves when it coms to music or the performance arts. Imagine fans of Pollock going to a 'Pollock' music concert where all the instruments are out of tune and everyone is playing at random. For that would be Pollock in musical form. Imagine a Pollock fan who likes ballet going to a 'Pollock' ballet where the dancers are throwing themselves around on the stage while the orchestra is out of tune and playing at random. Pollock fans who would actually enjoy such concerts or ballets I can respect. The rest are letting popular acclaim ruin their aesthetic judgement, and they are demonstrating that they have no idea what art of the highest order is. Finally, just to be the first one to do something is not necessarily deserving of fame. It depends completely on what that something is. He has left us nothing which he should be proud of, but in fact he helped further contribute toward modern arts' decline into the aesthetically empty absurdity it has become.
You know that the funny thing is?On one hand they try to force an overexpanded definition of art to the public so as to accept Pollock's paintings as true art,on the other hand they limit the power to create such art just to themselves.If what Pollock did is the expression of his subconcious mind, and i am willing to accept that for argument's shake, why are his paintings of any more value than mine for example? Is his subconcious of any more value than mine?Can you prove that my expression of my feelings is less authentic than his?Because you can damn prove that he can paint a bull or a flower better than my untalented ass.How in zeus's fucking asshole can you value one's expression of the subconcious via abstract shapes as superior to another's?
Yes, your kids could do it. But they couldn't do it first. They couldn't create it...they can only recreate it. I can copy War & Peace... but I couldn't author it.
It's so trivial to judge, with violent absolutism, any artist or their art. Like it or don't like it- just accept that by you, yourself, expressing an opinion about it, often says more about you and less in particular about the art. A glorious compliment to the artist actually, as creating a subjective source of provocation is at the essence of what distinguishes an artist from, let's say, everyone else. Think about it this way: You're here, spending your energy, trashing on art and an artist...that's fine. But please tell me, who is trashing on you? No one.... Because he's the artist, and not you. What I do 'absolutely' know, is that his bones will not pause in their decay to be concerned with the likes of haters. However, his influence, legend, legacy, and spirit are ensured to continue, in part, thanks to your inability to understand his art.
Alcohol AGAIN? Same ol story with so many great artists n their chemicals, not always of course, but too often too ignore! thanks for the upload, didn't know of him until it popped up on my feed
"A method of painting is a natural growth out of a need, i want to express my feelings rather than demonstrate them, technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" Hoffman: you are very talented, you should join my class but you don't work from nature, this is no good you will repeat yourself ,you work by heart not from nature Pullock: I am nature
Pollock's drip paintings are amazing. Scientists have analyzed his drip printing using computers, and found something amazing; his paintings are based on fractal chaos theory. At almost any reasonable magnification, any part of his paintings maintain an almost identical composition, and are so consistent, computers can scan various parts of a painting, and at different magnifications, and resolve a consistent fractal dimensional number, or "D". No other painter of this style can do this. In fact, when a forged Pollock painting is scanned, it is easily mathematically found to be a forgery, despite looking identical in style.
I think people say the same thing about expressionists in music such as webern or schoenberg. Some mock serialism and such as "not music" and anyone could do it. Yes noone is ever going to hum their tunes and such and the harsh dissonances aren't liked by many, but it is still music and it is there to be analyzed and appreciated. From the outside it may seem like trash, but from the inside there is a lot of work put into their work to create what they have created. For me, I may not be a big admirer of his art, but I respect him for coming forth with his own style. Pollock, Schoenberg, etc. are revered for a reason.
I find it hilarious how so many commentators are content to mouth the same shopworn cliches over and over and over about modern art: the Emperor's New Clothes, their six year old nieces have more talent, it's all a big con, etc., etc., etc.. I have never yet met one of these yo-yos for whom I have the slightest respect or regard for their educational background or insight into art history. They usually came by their cliches cheaply, by looking at a survey book on art history, or a brief excursion onto the internet
I like Jackson Pollock paintings, allright, but you know we'd never be hearing about him today or seeing them if he had known that he was anti-Jew, and come out and say so.
I've noticed over the last 2+ years that several people here seem to believe that in my comment back then I was touting Abstract Expressionism TO THE EXCLUSION of (or as superior to) all other styles of painting. That certainly was not my intention; I appreciate more than a few different styles, and anyone surely can see that here: fineartamerica.com/profiles/scott-haley It's true that some people believe only Figurative (Representational) paintings should be considered genuine Art; I don't agree with that view, and that was perhaps my primary point in the original comment. A big thanks to those of you who agreed with me and supported that viewpoint. To those who don't agree, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Happy Trails, and Paint On
I stood in front of one of his paintings, almost exactly like the one at 50:00, and it was really intense, I stood right in front of it and it was just coming right at me, 3 dimensional and super alive. It was one of the best they had, at the museum of Modern Art in New York. His and the Picasso's really stood out to me as the most interesting and exciting in the entire museum
*This man obviously isn`t an artist and his scrawled " drawings " aren`t pieces of art but that`s okay. The man wanted to throw some paint on canvas and in this way satisfy his desires.I just don`t understand those rich assholes who pay for this trash millions of dollars. Can anybody explain what is the point ?*
lets get this straight. comparing art that was once revolutionary in the 30s to 2017 art taste, only your logic is a joke. appreciation to think outside the box is, at the very least, an objective complimentary point to give to pollock. without these traits. we'd have no art. nuance to art is important. i've grown distaste to the billions of copy cats, not his gift to say it's ok to do this work.
It's so sad that many of the famous artist from the past didn't live to see the great appreciation of their workings. All of the long hours, days, nights, and heart aches with very little to no reward. Then after they die someone else benefits financially from their hard work. It's just sad!
The guy at 28:30 is the most honest form of expression ever documented, you my friend are my new God, where are you- we could meet at the local 'place of worship'. I'll buy you a beer.
Hi, I am very curious about Pollock and have been searching for people to explain his success to me because everyone agrees monet's painting was hard and beautiful,but there are so many critics on Pollock. First you say it is hard to replicate-that is not cause enough to be a success. I have understood that every painter is unique and hard to replicate-like da vinci even. The only thing now is he was provocative. So would you say the reason he is a success is because he was the first to it?
Tomorrow I take for the 4th time the Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE) test..... I want to be an art teacher while I continue to work on my M.F.A degree in animation at S.C.A.D here in Atlanta. This documentary has giving me a better understanding of J. Pollock as an artist....well, wish me luck on Gace tomorrow I have prayed and studied....Off to the next documentary.
I have no problem with abstract paintings, I even love some of them. The problem is this, if you change the name tag of a painting to a random guy and the painting becomes meaningless, then it was meaningless to begin with and a lot of people seem to place meaning on these abstract paintings simply because of the name of it's painter. A lot of these "artists" we see at MoMA now are really just bullshit artists that managed to convince the pseudo-intellectuals that they are geniuses and then they get their paintings that are completely meaningless exposed in a museum, it's a joke.
actuallu, no one can create a pollock as he has extreme skill in how he drips the paint, as if his body is also painting, thus a more primal, atavism in his art. of course people hate his art, but every great artist has to bear with ignorant fools...to control and express dripping paint takes incredible actually... this is art moving beyond mere representing and craft....as picasso said it took him a lifetime to learn to draw like a child..absolute freedom of expression with nothing held back is genius.
it's the one good thing about art. In that you don't need talent to be successful. If you created music by randomly banging on the keys, people would obviously see it for the garbage that it is. But in art, you could actually create something like this, sip a chai latte and go "Flabadabadabadabadabadaaa", and if your audience is Truly DUMB enough, they'll "see it".
You need to step into your consciousness through your subconscious realm to know what this man, artist and revolutionary person started and created for the world of art. He place the United States ahead of the rest of the world in the world of the Arts. An abstract expressionist is one who inquires the blessed skill of freedom, unrestricted.
The rhythm achieved in his work was random, the same can be achieved putting birds to shit randomly on a canvas. Altho as a technical resource can be useful. (just like impressionism, etc). By itself is more towards design than art. (very musical too, the jazz is there for sure) 6.5/10
If i had enough money to buy one of his paintings i would do though to this day i just don't get his paintings. I love going to art museums and i still don't get it or fully enjoy it like music. What am i missing? What the fuck do any artist see????
People that claim they can do this... Go do it! I hope you believe in your scribble as much as Pollock did because it'll take more than one to get you through the cold nights.
Pollock was an absolute genius. People need to remind that he made this kind of art in the 1930's and 1940's. I see in the comments there are a lot of discussion whether he is a genius or not:imagine how provocating his art was at the time! He showed that art does not need to contain any order or form and has there been ESSENTIAL for the development of other forms of art. By the way, about "everyone can do it" thing: it has been scientificly proven that people can't replicate Pollock's style.
At glich509, you should look up Rothko you'd love him, he paintings have sold for tens of millions of dollars. You need to blank out everything else when looking at art and identify the emotion you feel, not just dismiss it because its shapeless
I are a jenious. I do nut bodther to learm popper speeling but my senetences protray der mood amd der ezzense of my thots. I em liek Jackson Ballock. He do nut neet to learm drewing but he kan drip paimt and sell it fur milliens.
The problem in the art world is that collectors and critics, inflate the public's perception of an artist's talent, in order to (artificially) inflate the value of a collection. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to determine whether many prominent names, are the result of underlying talent(s), or a phony persona.
What about people who generally liked his art? Did you just discount them all together? I know conspiracy theories are alot more exciting than the boring old truth, but please give me a break with that stuff!
I love "Appalachian Spring" but I have always associated it with a green Pennsylvanian landscape rather than the desert. So why is it the background music to this story?
People talking about art must have 'standards'. Supposedly they will be the one to dictate what they are. Well to those: Pollock is a standard and you are the one who doesn't want to adhere to them.
thats like defining art... saying art is this or that... pollock is art to me because he defined the time in america when he was alive... it was emotional and big, like america. america wasnt europe.
Some of you think he is over-rated? Possible, I just finished my paper about his work and I think he deserves all the credits. His progress is remarkable, but that depends, its subjective.
What a genius..He takes what is really spilled paint and sells it to these fools and sycophants for great sums of money..HE SELLS FERTILIZER OF A DIFFERENT KIND..lol good for him
most of you are missing the point of art or being an artist. which is fine because your opinion doesnt matter in the history of art or artists. you may think that you could make something better and thats great but you probably arent going to have a part of art history either and he does. almost every very gifted talented soul struggles with some kind of addiction or demon. so in the name of none of our opinions matter God bless every creative expression for just the need to create something.
Not depicting subject matter as abstraction is too a limitation because it is a reaction. What of language & symbol beyond the visual field. Perhaps the diagram is all.
Some people are more artistic than others but Pollock definitely made great art. Now Warhol I'd say was over hyped. A great painter but little creative talent
The people who don't understand it think the people who do understand it are just trying to be pretentious. Honestly why do people get so mad about art, sure maybe it is overpriced, but it's not your money so why get all frustrated. And on the flip side there's people who say the art sold for tons of money so it must be good but of course the people who buy it get into a bidding war and whoever wants it the most will pay the most so maybe it's true value really is what people are willing to pay for it. Abstract expressionism changed the way people looked at art and Jackson Pollok did it in a seemingly sincere way where he really didn't know if what he was doing could be called art. Others have done it more as a joke which is a little easier to pick up on, like that one art contest that let anybody send something in and they would display it so someone sent in a urinal as a joke and of course they displayed it so people weren't really sure what to make of it some thought it was a statement and the non artists looked at it like some kind of travesty that artists were so full of themselves they were calling urinals art now and how low they had sunk when it really wasn't that at all.
