PDA

View Full Version : Please help me understand Pollock



cs
08-25-2009, 05:41 PM
I've always been one that kept an open mind when it comes to art and music and so forth, but for the life of me I can't really understand what makes Jackson Pollock's art, well what makes it art. To me it is more of just slinging paint. But there must be more to it than that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r73fNGflA2U/Rna5X4VuoRI/AAAAAAAAASw/YeEhwe1Mam4/s400/Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg

Chad

Tom Montgomery
08-25-2009, 05:46 PM
Read The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe. His thesis: Modern art is completely literary insomuch as it is entirely about theory. The paintings only exist to illustrate the text.

Wolfe's book is short and sweet, entertaining and provocative. He doesn't come right out and say that everything in the MOMA is a swindle... but that's the conclusion one can draw from his essay.

Glen Longino
08-25-2009, 05:46 PM
"there must be more to it than that"

Nope, that's it!:)
For what it's worth, I agree with you.

garland reese
08-25-2009, 05:47 PM
I think Chad, that it is the slinging of paint in a............ well, in an artistic sort of way. ;)

Personally I'm not a fan of modern art, in general. I think a lot of modern artists are capable of traditional styles of rendering. I'm not sure of the concept of those modern forms of artistic impression. Maybe I don't think deep enough to understand the genre.

To each his own, I reckon.

Peerie Maa
08-25-2009, 05:48 PM
True of Mondrian, when you know where he started from, it's easier to understand what he is doing. But Pollock is even further out for me.

BrianW
08-25-2009, 06:03 PM
One of, if not the largest fishing industry catch.

And that's all I know about that...

;)

cs
08-25-2009, 06:09 PM
There is a movie on about him that I'm kinda half watching. Maybe I should pay more attention to it and try to figure out what is so special about him.

Chad

seanz
08-25-2009, 06:13 PM
Australia bought a Pollack (Blue Poles) in 1973 for $2 million, there was quite a fuss about the price.....it's now worth $200 million.

I've seen Blue Poles and I really liked it.......but I can't say why......:)

JimD
08-25-2009, 06:21 PM
Read The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe. His thesis: Modern art is completely literary insomuch as it is entirely about theory. The paintings only exist to illustrate the text.

Wolfe's book is short and sweet, entertaining and provocative. He doesn't come right out and say that everything in the MOMA is a swindle... but that's the conclusion one can draw from his essay.

The reason its not a swindle is because for the most part they took themselves very seriously. The art of those years was essential to history and Pollock is my favourite among them. I agree that for the lighter side of modern art The Painted Word is a must read. I read it while an art student and it had me rotflmao. Can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. A brilliantly jaundiced view.

S/V Laura Ellen
08-25-2009, 06:22 PM
I've always been one that kept an open mind when it comes to art and music and so forth, but for the life of me I can't really understand what makes Jackson Pollock's art, well what makes it art. To me it is more of just slinging paint. But there must be more to it than that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r73fNGflA2U/Rna5X4VuoRI/AAAAAAAAASw/YeEhwe1Mam4/s400/Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg

Chad

Lots more to it.

Money.... lots of money!

JimD
08-25-2009, 06:23 PM
There is a movie on about him that I'm kinda half watching. Maybe I should pay more attention to it and try to figure out what is so special about him.

Chad

Ed Harris as Pollock. A good film that as I recall only got made because Harris pushed so hard to get it made, but probably not very interesting for anyone not interested in that period of art history or modern art in general.

Chris Coose
08-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Ed Harris plays Pollock well in that movie.
People liked Pollock because he was a tortured drunk.

But beyond the timing and marketing (which is what today's hugely succesful painted art has been all about, with a few exceptions) you stand before a Pollock and it'll bring on some emotion. In his case, the emotion emptied pocketbooks right out of the gate.

I prefer realism in painting but Pollock is one I like pretty well. If he hadn't hit it big he'd have probably repainted his canvases and died without us knowing.

cs
08-25-2009, 06:30 PM
I understand that his style is more of an expression of his inner turmoil, and he definitely had plenty of that. I like abstract, but I can't quite get his, though I am trying.

Chad

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 07:12 AM
Arrrrrrg I'll post later when I have time - you guys are barely scratching the surface and just looking at it through your own esthectic. FWIW like most great modern abstact artist that get the "geee I could do that crap comment" you are forgetting two things

# 1 Pollock could paint & draw REALISTICLY enough to knock Chad and those that don't like his true works socks off. He CHOSE to expand and develope ACTION painting. It was monumental quinticentiL American art movement akin to jazz.

#2 For those that think they can do a Pollick by simply dripping paint my advice is TRY TO. You will fail miserably, then go look at a life size Pollock and you might get it.

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 07:14 AM
FWIW it had nothing to do with his inner turmoil just as Einstiens social life had nothing to do with E=mc2

Paul Pless
08-26-2009, 07:14 AM
quinticentiL

????

mmd
08-26-2009, 07:19 AM
FWIW, I face the same challenges with Pollock, Chad. I went through similar angst over modern "art" photography when I was studying commercial photography. At the time, such photography was experimenting with various chemistries in films and processing, optics, and presentation media. One of the more famous photographs of the time was done by a world-famous photographer from New York who employed a wonderfully exotic camera and lens using a hand-made photo emulsion on glass plates and printed the photos on platinum-emulsion paper to achieve B&W pictures with amazing tonal range encompassing deep, velvety blacks and shimmering, almost irridescent highlights of... cigarette butts he picked up off the street outside of his studio. I never got the "art" of it. I decided then that if the artist has to explain the technical challenges of his art in order for his audience to appreciate it, he failed in the attempt to create art.

One of my photo instructors said what I though was the best definition of good print art: Place a series of pictures at eye height along a long public hallway. The good picture is the one that people stop to look at.

Jackson Pollock? I dunno... musta had a good manager/PR guy.

EDIT TO ADD: JimD, could you expand on your comment "The art of those years was essential to history... ", please? How was the art essential to history? I don't follow the thought.

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 07:32 AM
????

You try posting from your phone at the gym LOL :)

willmarsh3
08-26-2009, 07:34 AM
After looking at this for a few minutes I can almost see people chatting at a party. Maybe this is some of the essence of the work. I don't think it has anything to do with paint slinging.

TerryLL
08-26-2009, 08:49 AM
My particular favorite.

http://www.farnorthscience.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/walpolpile-1.jpg

huisjen
08-26-2009, 08:55 AM
That reminds me of my bucket of turkey heads.

Dan

oznabrag
08-26-2009, 08:59 AM
Jackson Pollock was known as Jack the Dripper.

Mrleft8
08-26-2009, 09:17 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r73fNGflA2U/Rna5X4VuoRI/AAAAAAAAASw/YeEhwe1Mam4/s400/Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg

Chad This is your brain on drugs and alcohol... :D
Actually, Pollock was a very accomplished figure and landscape painter. Apparently he became bored with the literal world. He hated the people who bought his paintings, so he charged what he considered outrageous insane prices. This only made the people he hated want them more. In an attempt to drive these people away, he started painting more abstractly, which made the people he hated feel all the more sophisticated. One day a patron came in to the studio and was studying a drop cloth that pollock had hanging on the wall to dry. The patron stood, hand on chin, squinting at a drop cloth. Finally the patron asked the price. Not for sale. The patron made an offer. Not for sale. The patron doubled the price. Not for sale. The patron doubled it again. Finally Pollock said "It's not finished, come back next month".

Vince Brennan
08-26-2009, 09:32 AM
Geez. I'd hate to see what you all think of Rothko!http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_obvQUTP1ifY/R1etBzMsnFI/AAAAAAAAAKI/_KJ6ndAzyb4/s400/Mark-Rothko-No-14-1960-7893.jpg

George Roberts
08-26-2009, 09:42 AM
One of my photo instructors said what I though was the best definition of good print art: Place a series of pictures at eye height along a long public hallway. The good picture is the one that people stop to look at.

Jackson Pollock? I dunno... musta had a good manager/PR guy.

In art it is not the work that is important, it is the thought it stirs in the viewer.

Pollock does not stir any thoughts for me.

On the other hand there was a small 17th(?) century painting of a sailing vessel that still stirs my thoughts. Moves me. It has been on loan for a long time. I should visit it one day.

Kaa
08-26-2009, 09:51 AM
One of my photo instructors said what I though was the best definition of good print art: Place a series of pictures at eye height along a long public hallway. The good picture is the one that people stop to look at.

I tend to think that good photographs must possess two qualities, let's call them impact and depth.

Impact is the stopping power. It draws your eye, makes you stop, look, and go "Wow!"

Depth is the holding power. It makes you stay in front of the image, spend time looking at it, consider it, think about it.

Just impact is not enough, for it's fleeting, it's usually (but not always) over in a few seconds, and you walk away to another photo.

I think that achieving depth is harder than achieving impact.

Kaa

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 09:57 AM
it's art alright...con-art (I'd hate those walking egos too)

mmd
08-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Kaa - agreed. Impact makes them stop, depth makes them linger to contemplate. Sort of my thinking on B&W vs colour - it's easy to dazzle with colour, but to have impact & depth in B&W requires mastery of the whole image - subject, composition, media, exposure, processing, printing, & mounting. More subtle, more demanding.

Mrleft8
08-26-2009, 10:18 AM
I far prefer B&W photography. Depth, detail, contrast, are all compromised to some extent with the addition of color.
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo23/Mrleft8/Icestorm011.jpg

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:26 AM
Sort of my thinking on B&W vs colour - it's easy to dazzle with colour, but to have impact & depth in B&W requires mastery of the whole image - subject, composition, media, exposure, processing, printing, & mounting. More subtle, more demanding.

Interesting. My thinking is exactly the opposite -- I consider B&W to be easier than color :-)

I would argue this by pointing out that in color you have more degrees of freedom than in B&W -- you have to manage everything you have in B&W plus you have to manage color. That makes color harder.

Making a color image does not free you from having to get the right detail, contrast, tonality, etc., you still have to do this and worry about the color, too.

Nowadays there is an artsy flavor to B&W -- it must be deliberate as all the snapshots are in color -- but that doesn't mean it's harder to pull off.

Kaa

Paul Pless
08-26-2009, 10:28 AM
Depth, detail, contrast, are all compromised to some extent with the addition of color.
yeah . . .

http://www.bghooke.com/images/photographs/A-2006-08-N13-16.jpg

Paul Pless
08-26-2009, 10:28 AM
http://www.bghooke.com/images/photographs/A-2008-04-N18-30.jpg

JimD
08-26-2009, 10:31 AM
... JimD, could you expand on your comment "The art of those years was essential to history... ", please? How was the art essential to history? I don't follow the thought.

One would have to write a book to do the subject justice, but essentially, with the invention of the camera in the 1830s painting was freed from its traditional role of creating literal visual records of the world. Eventually, artists - and as The Painted Word so humourously points out - art critics, had a blinding flash of the obvious and realized that what separates a painting from a photograph is that a painting is made out of paint. And so the race was on to explore all the ways that the subject of a painting could be the paint itself. Pollock's principal contribution was to get rid of the brush and if he hadn't someone else would have had to to complete the story of painting as paint. That's the short version.

Robert L E
08-26-2009, 10:32 AM
I tend to think that good photographs must possess two qualities, let's call them impact and depth.

Impact is the stopping power. It draws your eye, makes you stop, look, and go "Wow!"

Depth is the holding power. It makes you stay in front of the image, spend time looking at it, consider it, think about it.

Just impact is not enough, for it's fleeting, it's usually (but not always) over in a few seconds, and you walk away to another photo.

I think that achieving depth is harder than achieving impact.

Kaa

Well said. That given, the Pollock example in this thread looks like one he painted when he was short of money and time. It does not have the holding power. A Pollack knock off of a Pollack, if you will.

I've seen Picasso art that gave me the same impression. ALL Rothko art leaves me with the feeling that there is proof of the old adage, "A sucker is born every minute."

Many Pollock and Picasso works do have holding power but too many people seem to just buy the names.

Bob

mmd
08-26-2009, 10:35 AM
Kaa, maybe it's my enjoyment in controlling the entire "picture-making" process - selecting film, evaluating exposure, processing for range, selecting paper & chemistry, printing for effect, mounting, matting, & framing - that is skewing my viewpoint. In doing environmental portraits, I always found that I could get lazy with colour and still impress the client, but with B&W I had to be more on my game, and that the end result was a more powerful image. Different strokes, I guess.

BTW, I do enjoy the images that you post here. Unfortunately, I can't reciprocate as I haven't yet found out how to translate 4x5 B&W film to digital image with sufficient tonal range...

As for abstracts in the photo media, I've always leaned toward realism from an inordinary viewpoint to creat a "what is it" moment. A poor example from a poor camera is my impromptu lunch photo:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d19/mmd_ns/DSC00005.jpg

Mrleft8
08-26-2009, 10:37 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3264751685_a1ce1085cc.jpg

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:53 AM
I always found that I could get lazy with colour and still impress the client, but with B&W I had to be more on my game, and that the end result was a more powerful image.

Yep, that's a valid point. Let me try putting it this way: it's usually easier to make an OK image with color, yes, the color will cover the slop and make the image "good enough". But it's harder to make a great image with color for the reasons I mentioned -- you have more degrees of freedom to play with and it's not as easy to achieve harmony.


BTW, I do enjoy the images that you post here. Unfortunately, I can't reciprocate as I haven't yet found out how to translate 4x5 B&W film to digital image with sufficient tonal range...

Thanks :-) As to tonal range, it's a function of the medium. B&W negatives have an excellent tonal range, the problem is what to reproduce it on. Photographic paper has very lousy dynamic range and one of the most important jobs of the printmaker is to map the wide tonal range of the negative into the narrow tonal range of the print. But paper is still very limited -- it has good blacks, but very bad highlights.

Computer screens actually have much better dynamic range than photo paper. They achieve it by having much brighter whites and sacrificing a bit in the blacks. CRT monitors, nowadays pretty much impossible to find, have good blacks, but LCD monitors do not. People who prefer prints to computer screens usually point out to much deeper blacks on the print. However the trade-off is that the print is not in the same ballpark as the computer screen with regard to highlights.

So, technically speaking, screens have more tonal range than paper. But if you value deep blacks above bright whites, you might still prefer prints :-)

Kaa

Kaa
08-26-2009, 11:08 AM
Speaking of B&W abstracts...

Homage to Giger:

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm161/kaa_photobucket/14_20021130_0062_Giger.jpg

Kaa

cs
08-26-2009, 12:34 PM
I think that now that maybe I understand a bit more. Pollock's work doesn't necessarily give you a glimpse of the what the artist saw, but rather it allows the viewer to see what they want to see. When I look at Pollock I will see something different than what you see. It seems to go much deeper than the visual. The visual allows you to see into the depth of your own soul rather than the soul of the artist.

I still believe that the work of Pollock comes from his inner turmoil. If he had been content with himself and a bit more secure with himself he may have never ventured down this road. If as Joe says he does great realistic paintings, than if he was at peace with himself than he might have stayed with the "norm". But these conflicts pushed him down the road which led to this modern abstracts. I feel that in his attempt to express his frustrations, addictions, & insecurities he started this abstract means. In it he found a glimpse of the inner peace that had alluded him up to that point. My opinion only.

Chad

David G
08-26-2009, 12:50 PM
I like a wide variety of styles - including modern art. I think Kaa's comments on impact and holding power are a good first take. Then I wonder what gives a painting or image either of those qualities.

I'm not interested in the art scene enough to spend a lot of time analyzing such things, and the small bits of critiicism and analysis I've read don't seem to add much to my understanding. I have a psychologist friend, however, who did say something about Pollock that did make sense - or at least was intriguing. He said that we are hardwired for various things. In food and flavors, for instance, we're hard-wired to like and crave, and relish fat, sugar, and salt. When it comes to visuals - recent research suggests that we're hardwired to be attracted to certain patterns and colors. It's a visceral thing. Perhaps - he speculated - even tied into Jungian archetypes. I've not heard any further takes on why certain patterns are attractive and others not. My friend likened it to the fascination some folks have with fractals... but on a more gut level.

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 12:57 PM
I still believe that the work of Pollock comes from his inner turmoil. If he had been content with himself and a bit more secure with himself he may have never ventured down this road. If as Joe says he does great realistic paintings, than if he was at peace with himself than he might have stayed with the "norm". But these conflicts pushed him down the road which led to this modern abstracts. I feel that in his attempt to express his frustrations, addictions, & insecurities he started this abstract means. In it he found a glimpse of the inner peace that had alluded him up to that point. My opinion only.

Chad

GOD what a HORRIBLE opinion :(

"If as Joe says he does great realistic paintings, than if he was at peace with himself than he might have stayed with the "norm"."

Simple words can not fully express or digest how as an artist, how aweful I find that sentence.

Stayed with the norm ?? The norm is SAFE the norm is boring, the norm is not what an artist every tries to achieve. The norm is a rut, a block, a place to move from. Pollack and ALL major movements in art that make them GREAT are because the broke from the norm. Otherwise all you would see in museums is hand prints on caves. Just cause it dosen't strike your fancy as normal does not mean it was because of Pollacks interpersonal life did not lend him to be NORMAL. Pollack was so secure in his art he moved from the norm to explore and define his own perspective. He was FAR from insecure regarding his work.

OMG I just cant even contribute to this thread anymore this perspective that Chad is putting out there offends me to much.

JimD is as close to understanding Pollack as anyone yet on this thread I will leave it to others to bring what he is about to light. With the above comments I cant even open this thread anymore.

Kaa
08-26-2009, 01:04 PM
Ah, Joe, you're so sensitive :D

Kaa

mmd
08-26-2009, 01:04 PM
Awww, jeez, Joe! <wink, grin>

Reading your comments above I get a mental image of a shrill, mincing, art doyenne shreiking at the Phillistines of the world. It just doesn't fit with my knowledge of your person & voice.

But I found the momentary image rather funny...

<just joshin', OK?>

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 01:24 PM
Ya know mmd reading my above comment I can see your point LOL :)

Lets try again. This is the way you are supposed to look at Pollock

http://www.artsz.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jackson-pollock-painting.jpg

Its about the ACTION the ACT of painting. It's more about the dance of painting. Pollack broke away from conventional painting and used his body as a brush. He controlled every flick and drip. There is a brilliant news film of him where you can see the ART in action. This is a time and place that is uniquely American. Think Merce Cunningham, John Cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage) and David Tudor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tudor), artists Robert Rauschenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg) and Bruce Nauman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nauman), designer Romeo Gigli, and architect Benedetta Tagliabue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedetta_Tagliabue). Works that he produced with these artists had a profound impact on avant-garde art beyond the world of dance.

The act of applying paint to canvas and a psychological shift that it took to dare to do that is the awe inspiring part of the human condition and what made Pollack so great. He dared to explore and he did it just so well.

Chad the only way to fully appreciate a Pollack is to find a big good one and sit in front of it for a good long time. Let your preconceived mind and NORMAL response rest. Look at the layers look at the rhythm look at the jazz, look at the action, feel the dance. A living human thought about all those moves and it is the equivalent of a snapshot of a beautiful dance with art.

mmd
08-26-2009, 01:31 PM
Here's my point about avant garde/modern art, Joe, using your description of Pollock's work as the metaphor: If the viewer knows nothing of the background of the artist, his times, and his motivations, but is approaching the artwork as a strictly visual image, is his appreciation of the piece lessed by his ignorance of the process? In other words, does one have to have a knowledge of the artist to appreciate the art? If so, is the visual image not reduced to merely a relic of a performance art piece, and not the art piece in and of itself?

JimD
08-26-2009, 01:37 PM
Ya




The act of applying paint to canvas and a psychological shift that it took to dare to do that is the awe inspiring part of the human condition and what made Pollack so great. He dared to explore...

Absolutely. And at the risk of sounding like Joe ;) it can be very hard for the unartistic to appreciate just what a leap it was. This was thinking outside the box at its finest. The flash of genius that brings something genuinely new to the table. All the great advances in human endeavor have been the result of comparable leaps of creativity. Pollock just happened to do it with paint and canvas.

mmd
08-26-2009, 01:53 PM
<poking a bit of fun here, folks; no need to get huffy, OK?>

So why is it that you modern art lovers who are so appreciative of "breaking out of the box" so damnably narrow in your thinking of what is an attrractive yacht? Why are you such hide-bound traditionalists?

<teasing over... grin!>

JimD
08-26-2009, 01:55 PM
Here's my point about avant garde/modern art, Joe, using your description of Pollock's work as the metaphor: If the viewer knows nothing of the background of the artist, his times, and his motivations, but is approaching the artwork as a strictly visual image, is his appreciation of the piece lessed by his ignorance of the process? In other words, does one have to have a knowledge of the artist to appreciate the art? If so, is the visual image not reduced to merely a relic of a performance art piece, and not the art piece in and of itself?

If you had never seen a sunset before would your experience of it be lessened by the fact that you didn't know the sun was a star 93 million miles away vanishing from sight as the point of Earth you were standing on turned away from it? Possibly, but not necessarily. Or as a certain naval architect I know likes to say 'it depends'. Intellectually, your appreciation of a sunset might be enhanced by knowledge of the sun. But artistically it makes no difference. The main thing is one has to view art with an open mind and few do. Many viewers spend far too much time trying to understand a painting rather than just experiencing it. That's the best way to 'get' it.

JimD
08-26-2009, 01:57 PM
<poking a bit of fun here, folks; no need to get huffy, OK?>

So why is it that you modern art lovers who are so appreciative of "breaking out of the box" so damnably narrow in your thinking of what is an attrractive yacht? Why are you such hide-bound traditionalists?

<teasing over... grin!>

A valid point. :D

mmd
08-26-2009, 02:04 PM
"Intellectually, your appreciation of a sunset might be enhance (sic) by knowledge of the sun. But artistically it makes no difference." - JimD

But the evidence presented by artists such as yourself and Joe in defense of avante garde art is usually parsed in terms of needing to know the back-story behind the art, and not in just viewing and appreciating the visual image. Why do we need to know that Pollock was breaking the boundaries of staid artistic norms to appreciate what he has created? Why can't we unwashed masses merely view - and judge - an image by viewing it in the bliss of ignorance?

EDIT TO ADD: To use the same argument against the excesses of modern photo art, why do I need to know what camera, lens, process, and/or chemistries were used to produce the image? I don't care whether the photographer risked life, limb, or equipment; I just want to appreciate a provocative image (or not).

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 02:06 PM
Here's my point about avant garde/modern art, Joe, using your description of Pollock's work as the metaphor: If the viewer knows nothing of the background of the artist, his times, and his motivations, but is approaching the artwork as a strictly visual image, is his appreciation of the piece lessed by his ignorance of the process? In other words, does one have to have a knowledge of the artist to appreciate the art? If so, is the visual image not reduced to merely a relic of a performance art piece, and not the art piece in and of itself?

mmd long before I became an art snob ;) I enjoyed going to MoMa and looking at the Pollocks as a boy. I think I could see the joy, the movement. I LOVED the SIZE they were HUGE. I could look at them for hours. I saw and imagined HOW it was done, I could see the ACTION and see the multiple layers of drips and pours. Thats the thing you loose with a photograph of one of his paintings they are so multi layered and deep. You can actualy see the whole process and thinking.

I do like the look of them. If I owned a big house and had all the money in the world I would love to have Jackson Pollock lavender mist

JimD
08-26-2009, 02:36 PM
But the evidence presented by artists such as yourself and Joe in defense of avante garde art is usually parsed in terms of needing to know the back-story behind the art, and not in just viewing and appreciating the visual image. Why do we need to know that Pollock was breaking the boundaries of staid artistic norms to appreciate what he has created? Why can't we unwashed masses merely view - and judge - an image by viewing it in the bliss of ignorance?

EDIT TO ADD: To use the same argument against the excesses of modern photo art, why do I need to know what camera, lens, process, and/or chemistries were used to produce the image? I don't care whether the photographer risked life, limb, or equipment; I just want to appreciate a provocative image (or not).

Strictly speaking you don't need to know what Pollock was up to in order to appreciate his painting. Arguably its better if you don't. At least as far as experiencing it goes. Or not. Its a bit like boats. Which is the more significant boat, Trekka or Rosinante? If you're just looking at them you'd probably argue in favour of the Herreshoff. If you know the history of Trekka you might argue in its favour. A lot of this modern art is more like Trekka. Not much to look at for the casual observer but in terms of accomplishment very significant. And of course a naval architect can never look at a boat quite the way the average person does. Personally I think Pollock did both. His paintings are both visually captivating and historically relevant. Trekka and Rosinante rolled into one.

Mrleft8
08-26-2009, 02:59 PM
Reading Joe commenting on art, is like listening to Dubya talking about edjumacation....:rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 03:00 PM
ah...Lefty...I think I remembver Joe saying that he spent time studying art...

mmd
08-26-2009, 03:04 PM
Of course, we here in Canada are not without our questionable art purchases. To whit:

A modern-art painting by Barnett Newman was purchased by the National Art Gallery of Canada for CDN$1.8 million because of it's intense meaning and symbolism that is relevant to our national identity and our struggle to eixist as a country with two distinct cultures. From the NAG assistant gallery director:

"As we struggle nationally and internationally with out individual and collective identities, it is a timely reminder for each of us what it is to be independent and free of oppression while at the same time part of a larger world."

The painting that reflects this clash of ideology and a hope for a better world?

.

.

.

.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Voice_of_Fire.jpg/178px-Voice_of_Fire.jpg


<I don't get it either, even with the explanation by someone who knows more about art than me...>

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 03:05 PM
con art...live with it

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 03:23 PM
Reading Joe commenting on art, is like listening to Dubya talking about edjumacation....:rolleyes:

BFA in fine art Sculpture & Painting from SVA NYC with a minor in 20th century fine art. Post grad work in industrial design at The Cooper Union.
Studied with Paul Waldman,
Summer intern with Ginzel & Jones.

Selected group shows,

O roe Gallery - Hoboken
FULLSCALE - NYC
Art et Industry Gallery - NYC

Selected publications

"Furniture of the 20th Century" - JoJo Chair
Italian Vogue - Wishbone Chair.
I-D Magazine - Kelly Lamp

Selected Awards

I-D 30 under 30 top designs - Kelly Lamp
Graphics
Print
etc.

But I don't know nothing 'bout makin no art ;)

ishmael
08-26-2009, 03:25 PM
I have some of the same complaints, Chad. What is the fricken point? A bunch of dribbled paint.

I went to an exhibition of Pollock, maybe twenty years ago. I can't say to have made sense of them, but they were definitely more than dribbled paint.

Was he ever trained in the classics, ya know portraiture and the like?

My only jump in the water is in furniture. I saw stuff win awards at national shows which no on would want in their living room save a nut job. Stuff that didn't work. If you want to bend it, make it different, I'm ready. But it better work.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-26-2009, 03:31 PM
Pollocks?

Yer basic elementary spelling mistake.

JimD
08-26-2009, 03:44 PM
Of course, we here in Canada are not without our questionable art purchases. To whit:

A modern-art painting by Barnett Newman was purchased by the National Art Gallery of Canada for CDN$1.8 million because of it's intense meaning and symbolism that is relevant to our national identity and our struggle to eixist as a country with two distinct cultures. From the NAG assistant gallery director:

"As we struggle nationally and internationally with out individual and collective identities, it is a timely reminder for each of us what it is to be independent and free of oppression while at the same time part of a larger world."

The painting that reflects this clash of ideology and a hope for a better world?

.

.

.

.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Voice_of_Fire.jpg/178px-Voice_of_Fire.jpg


<I don't get it either, even with the explanation by someone who knows more about art than me...>

There is an interesting book you might like, Pollock and After:The Critical Debate. Its a collection of essays mainly, concerning the ideological aspect of these paintings, including the assertion that even the CIA was involved in promoting them as evidence of Western freedom of expression and creative individuality, in contrast to the moribund Socialist Realism art of the Soviet block.

http://members.surfeu.at/horvath/vladi.jpg

In the Communist sphere the role of the artist was reduced to banal propaganda, ironically promoting the progress and development of Communist society with art that was as unprogressive as could be imagined. Some very interesting reading.

Milo Christensen
08-26-2009, 03:49 PM
This is Joe's brain, on drugs:

http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/images/(pollock)-lavender-mist.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Ahhh Lavender Mist nice choice Milo ;)

cbcc
08-26-2009, 04:02 PM
BFA in fine art Sculpture & Painting from SVA NYC with a minor in 20th century fine art. Post grad work in industrial design at The Cooper Union.
Studied with Paul Waldman,
Summer intern with Ginzel & Jones.

Selected group shows,

O roe Gallery - Hoboken
FULLSCALE - NYC
Art et Industry Gallery - NYC

Selected publications

"Furniture of the 20th Century" - JoJo Chair
Italian Vogue - Wishbone Chair.
I-D Magazine - Kelly Lamp

Selected Awards

I-D 30 under 30 top designs - Kelly Lamp
Graphics
Print
etc.

But I don't know nothing 'bout makin no art ;)


Can you show us your chairs? That's cool you've got that background.

Milo Christensen
08-26-2009, 04:03 PM
Please don't encourage Joe. Thank you.

mmd
08-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Cool concept, JimD! Avante garde art as an anti-communist plot! Who'd a' thunkit? <wink, grin>

Keith Wilson
08-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Y'know, I think there might be some middle ground between this:

http://www.izo.com/images/2007/09/27/070928nkorea.jpg

and this:

http://www.bagatellen.com/images/newman_mitternachtblau.jpg

You think?

mmd
08-26-2009, 04:10 PM
I don't understand the second image, Keith. Could you explain to me what the artist was thinking as he created it, and what it's meaning is within the millieu of our post-modern, decaying industrial society, please? <wink>

ishmael
08-26-2009, 04:23 PM
A small portrait, not sure of whom, sat right over my toilet. Paul Klee. He really captured the abstract expressionist movement.

I was terribly lucky to live in a house with an actual Klee hanging over the loo. Not a print, this was a painting.

Some day, probably not this time around, I'll be so blessed again.

Keith Wilson
08-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Could you explain to me what the artist was thinking as he created it, and what it's meaning is within the millieu of our post-modern, decaying industrial society, please? No.

:D

mmd
08-26-2009, 04:30 PM
Damn. Now I'll never understand art. <sigh>

I guess I'll just buy pictures that I like - boats, mostly...

cs
08-26-2009, 04:43 PM
GOD what a HORRIBLE opinion :(

"If as Joe says he does great realistic paintings, than if he was at peace with himself than he might have stayed with the "norm"."

Simple words can not fully express or digest how as an artist, how aweful I find that sentence.

Stayed with the norm ?? The norm is SAFE the norm is boring, the norm is not what an artist every tries to achieve. The norm is a rut, a block, a place to move from. Pollack and ALL major movements in art that make them GREAT are because the broke from the norm. Otherwise all you would see in museums is hand prints on caves. Just cause it dosen't strike your fancy as normal does not mean it was because of Pollacks interpersonal life did not lend him to be NORMAL. Pollack was so secure in his art he moved from the norm to explore and define his own perspective. He was FAR from insecure regarding his work.

OMG I just cant even contribute to this thread anymore this perspective that Chad is putting out there offends me to much.

JimD is as close to understanding Pollack as anyone yet on this thread I will leave it to others to bring what he is about to light. With the above comments I cant even open this thread anymore.


You would think that someone that claims to be so "artistic" would have a more open mind to others' opinions.

My point in that statement is that who we are today is a direct result of what came before. My stance is that if Pollock was content and happy with himself that maybe he wouldn't have went down the path that he chose. His chemical addictions made up a big part of who he was. Chemical addictions at that level tend to indicate a high level of insecurities and inner turmoil. I'm not saying his paintings were a direct result of being high or drunk, but rather his paintings expressed who he was. And who he was in part was defined by his problems.

Unlike some, I try and keep an open mind when asking questions and looking for answers.

Chad

JimD
08-26-2009, 05:09 PM
Y'know, I think there might be some middle ground ...

Of course there's some middle ground. Piles of it everywhere you look (or step). The great majority of us are quite content to be in the middle. But avante garde means leading edge, not middle of the road. It means pushing the envelope. Shall we stop here and turn around or go farther? Look at any other field of human endevour and ask yourself where would we be if our great thinkers and doers had said 'Ok, this is far enough. Let's stop here? These were artists who took it as far as it could be taken.

mmd
08-26-2009, 05:25 PM
Ahh, yes, pushing the envelope; stepping over the borders; going where no man...

However, just because you stepped over the boundaries and discovered new land doesn't mean that what you discovered is worth squat. New doesn't necessarily mean good. But I guess you wouldn't be able to make that value decision unless you have something to compare...

I guess that is the nub of my argument. I am not against new artistic endeavours, I just seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to those whom instantly lionize the new as good because it is new. It's not so much the art, but the hype associated with it that bugs me. That, and the necessity of having to explain why it is important instead of it's importance being self-evident.

I have come to the end of my time to participate in this debate - the docking plan drawing is complete except for formatting (which I will do tomorrow) and it is close to my suppertime, so I will bid adieu. And, in closing, I will now admit to my worthy opponents here that I do like Jackson Pollock, though I am much less enamoured with Barrett Newman and his ilk. Phillistine, I am. Joe should flutter his hands and shreik... <grin>

Keith Wilson
08-26-2009, 05:30 PM
Oh, I know that. I was mostly being sarcastic. I actually deleted the initial minimalist image because I liked it too much.

Innovation is valuable, but most extreme experiments simply don't work, whether in art, science or engineering. The few that do, OTOH . . .

JimD
08-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Ahh, yes, pushing the envelope; stepping over the borders; going where no man...

However, just because you stepped over the boundaries and discovered new land doesn't mean that what you discovered is worth squat. New doesn't necessarily mean good. But I guess you wouldn't be able to make that value decision unless you have something to compare...

I guess that is the nub of my argument. I am not against new artistic endeavours, I just seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to those whom instantly lionize the new as good because it is new. It's not so much the art, but the hype associated with it that bugs me. That, and the necessity of having to explain why it is important instead of it's importance being self-evident.

I have come to the end of my time to participate in this debate - the docking plan drawing is complete except for formatting (which I will do tomorrow) and it is close to my suppertime, so I will bid adieu. And, in closing, I will now admit to my worthy opponents here that I do like Jackson Pollock, though I am much less enamoured with Barrett Newman and his ilk. Phillistine, I am. Joe should flutter his hands and shreik... <grin>

I saw a rock in a museum once. The label said an astronaut brought it back from the moon. So I sez to myself. All that for a rock? I got rocks in my garden if you need some rocks. ;)

JimD
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
Oh, I know that. I was mostly being sarcastic. I actually deleted the initial minimalist image because I liked it too much.

Innovation is valuable, but most extreme experiments simply don't work, whether in art, science or engineering. The few that do, OTOH . . .

That's the thing about art. You can't really say if it worked or didn't work like it was a new bilge pump when all it does is hang there on a wall taking up space. It is what it is for what its worth to the viewer,eh? Now leggo my leg, will ya?

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 06:36 PM
You would think that someone that claims to be so "artistic" would have a more open mind to others' opinions.

My point in that statement is that who we are today is a direct result of what came before. My stance is that if Pollock was content and happy with himself that maybe he wouldn't have went down the path that he chose. His chemical addictions made up a big part of who he was. Chemical addictions at that level tend to indicate a high level of insecurities and inner turmoil. I'm not saying his paintings were a direct result of being high or drunk, but rather his paintings expressed who he was. And who he was in part was defined by his problems.

Unlike some, I try and keep an open mind when asking questions and looking for answers.

Chad

Is it open or just NORMAL ?

htom
08-26-2009, 06:39 PM
I thought that most of "modern art" was ... useless at best, perhaps fraud, until we went to a Picasso exhibit in Montreal. I had heard how great he was, studied the photos of the paintings, the sculptures, ... and here were the real things. Spice dragged me in, and had to drag me out when they closed. The photos don't do his works justice. Just does not translate to the page.

Went to a Georgia O'Keeffe exhibit here in Minneapolis a few months ago. I'd actually admired her work, but, again, the reproductions are a candle to her sun.

Go and see the original works. Your opinions may change.

(btw, there are great photos in this thread, thank you for sharing.)

S B
08-26-2009, 06:40 PM
You mean Pollock's work? The drip paintings are sort of collaberation between Pollock and Clement Greenberg(modern art critic of the time).Greenberg would state the direction modern art should go, Pollock painted it and Greenberg announced that it was great, repeat sequence. Win/win situation. The paintings were never meant to be appreciated in any aesthetic sense, "beautiful". IMHO his contribution to art history is overated.

Joe (SoCal)
08-26-2009, 06:46 PM
FWIW
"Girl in Black and White"
Oil on canvas 2'x3'
By: Joseph Foster

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m320/fosterhere/photo-2351.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m320/fosterhere/photo-1041.jpg

Sorry for the poor quality I just shot it with my cell phone.

I don't paint realistically anymore I guess its my chemical imbalance :rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 07:11 PM
FWIW
"Girl in Black and White"
Oil on canvas 2'x3'
By: Joseph Foster

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m320/fosterhere/photo-2351.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m320/fosterhere/photo-1041.jpg

Sorry for the poor quality I just shot it with my cell phone.

I don't paint realistically anymore I guess its my chemical imbalance :rolleyes:

Hey Joe...I took up fer ya...nice work BTW...good mood...I like it

S B
08-26-2009, 08:25 PM
Ahh, yes, pushing the envelope; stepping over the borders; going where no man...

However, just because you stepped over the boundaries and discovered new land doesn't mean that what you discovered is worth squat. New doesn't necessarily mean good. But I guess you wouldn't be able to make that value decision unless you have something to compare...

I guess that is the nub of my argument. I am not against new artistic endeavours, I just seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to those whom instantly lionize the new as good because it is new. It's not so much the art, but the hype associated with it that bugs me. That, and the necessity of having to explain why it is important instead of it's importance being self-evident.

I have come to the end of my time to participate in this debate - the docking plan drawing is complete except for formatting (which I will do tomorrow) and it is close to my suppertime, so I will bid adieu. And, in closing, I will now admit to my worthy opponents here that I do like Jackson Pollock, though I am much less enamoured with Barrett Newman and his ilk. Phillistine, I am. Joe should flutter his hands and shreik... <grin>
The explaination is the " work" the object is something to make money from,hang on the gallery wall or give evidence that the idea existed.

PatCox
08-26-2009, 10:09 PM
Pollack was a charlatan. Not worth discussing.

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 10:18 PM
Pollack was a charlatan. Not worth discussing.

see Pat...we CAN agree on something

(The Emporer has no clothes)

The Bigfella
08-26-2009, 10:20 PM
I'm fairly sure this is the only Pollock painting that I've ever seen... its a massive 7' x 16' btw

http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g001b_pollock_blue-poles.jpg

There was huge controversy when it was bought by our National Gallery in the early 70's for what was then considered to be an outrageous sum... about $1.3m IIRC.

It got me into an art gallery for the first time ever - admittedly I'd only just moved to the city from the bush, but I still recall the visit, and I still recall arguing at the time that it was money well spent.

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 10:22 PM
well, it's nice to know he didn't have to look at the prices when he ordered breakfast

The Bigfella
08-26-2009, 10:28 PM
Nah - we bought it 17 years after he died. Its currently valued at about $200 million

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 10:32 PM
Nah - we bought it 17 years after he died. Its currently valued at about $200 million

A fine (arts) example of the "greater fool" theory

Vince Brennan
08-26-2009, 11:36 PM
A fine (arts) example of the "greater fool" theory

Ay, you'd probably prefer summat by Schultz, then?

Pollack, Rothko, Mondrian, DeKooning and the rest are worth to the beholder what the beholder sees in them. The beholder needs imagination, empathy and some little taste to perceive even a bit of what the artist intended or serendipitously discovered in the work.

You, however, seem to be in the George Roberts school of Art Appreciation.

That's NOT a put-down!

Some people don't think Schoernberg was a composer, either.

Stalin had lots of problems with both Shostakovitch and Katachurian as well as the "dissonant garbage" of Schoernberg. . That music didn't "conform" to the "accepted" revolutionary "norm" (whatever that was) and so was not "de rigeur" for the Sovietsky Kulturny.

"Und So Wieder" for these artists.

The fact that you neither like (nor attempt to explore) their rigours casts no aspersions upon you.

I don't like wine.

That alone would make me a Philistine in an amazingly large proportion of the "educated classes" of many countries.

BUT: I can discourse for long periods on the virtues and foibles of Whiskys, both Scots and Irish: this redeems me in many circles.

We are what we like.

Selah.

paladin
08-27-2009, 03:26 AM
Art is subjective. Po;;ock I have no use for....
I do have three Picassos.....and I like them, and see the stark, utter simplicity in the lines to convey the thought.

George Jung
08-27-2009, 12:55 PM
I can appreciate a Pollock for what it is, but it doesn't do much for me, personally. Love Picasso, and esp. Chagall. Love the Impressionists.

Too bad on 'moving on', Joe - that's a really nice painting.

Antonio Majer
08-27-2009, 02:07 PM
Just out of curiosity I like him a lot. Anyway there is a fact that surprises me every time; that is: every fact, every action, every product, even the more stupid or insipid, sooner or later become history. It's strange for me. Even the stupid things acquire a new value, testimonies of past times; this is particularly evident with songs or fashions. So for me Pollock is - apart from his artistic value or from the fact one likes him or not - representative of a wonderful period of the Western culture, the postwar with all its hopes and apparent happiness, which had to disappear some years later, like Pollock himself

Mrleft8
08-27-2009, 02:23 PM
ah...Lefty...I think I remembver Joe saying that he spent time studying art... I seem to remember Dubya saying that he spent time studying..... No....I lie....:D

Just because someone spends time studying something doesn't mean that they learned anything, or that they're better positioned than anyone else to make a subjective statement about it.:rolleyes:

hokiefan
08-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Me personally, I'd rather have JCSOH's "Girl in Black and White" than any of the Pollocks shown in this thread. But art is personal, every person sees something different in each piece. To each his own.

Cheers,

Bobby

now Joe, don't go getting a big head or anything... I like your painting, but your response to Chad was a little over the top IMOH

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 02:37 PM
I seem to remember Dubya saying that he spent time studying..... No....I lie....:D

Just because someone spends time studying something doesn't mean that they learned anything, or that they're better positioned than anyone else to make a subjective statement about it.:rolleyes:

so...those diplomas don't mean anything? I didn't think so

ishmael
08-27-2009, 02:46 PM
When I lived in Baltimore the people sharing the flat next to me were artists. Both were kind, good people. I worked carpentry with the fellow occasionally. Pam could bake a helluva cake. Both painters, they had their basement fitted out as a joint studio. I'd wander in now and then to see what was what. Both of them were good painters. I wish, in retrospect, I'd had some money, because Jim in particular was on to it. If he hasn't gained some recognition by now I'd be surprised.

That, to me, is art. The unknown slugging away with the brush in the basement simply because they have no choice. They must keep after it, because it's as important to them as the air. One of the qualities in Jim was persistence.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 04:21 PM
To me the way to approach a Pollock is not to try to see it as an abstracted thing or scene (this is not a painting of or about some THING) and not to get wrapped up in Pollock's place in art history (art history can be interesting and is something an artist should know so they know what came before but I don't think it is necessary to enjoy Pollock's paintings), don't get wrapped up in how Pollock's personal life relates to the paintings unless you really feel like exploring that avenue. Instead just let the painting "wash over you." Let your eyes find the movement and patterns within the work. Pick out a detail and let your eyes and mind really take in that detail. See what is called to mind if you don't try to figure out what you think Pollock had in mind when he was making the painting...see what is in your mind when you see the painting. This is not a rational process where at the end you will know what it is a painting of or about, this is an abstract process that may well take you someplace new each time you look at the painting.

When you stand in front of a waterfall or a lovely brook you don't try to find meaning in the waterfall, you just let your eyes and mind be taken in by the movement of the flowing water. Understanding the geology that created the waterfall or any human history associated with the waterfall may add another layer to your understanding of the waterfall but is not necessary to enjoy it. Treat the painting like a beautiful waterfall...

I'd love to be able to create photographs as abstract but visually interesting (to me at least!) as Pollock's paintings. So far I haven't gotten there. I am pretty pleased with a photograph I made a week or so ago of seaweed on the Maine coast but it's a 2 1/4" square color transparency (slide) so I can't quickly put it up here for you all to see.

P.S., Thanks Paul for choosing two of my photographs to illustrate your point. I love both B&W and color and can see both sides of that debate...

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 06:14 PM
Bruce...one could do the same with a kaleidoscope
Both require the same amount of mental input (the emporer has no clothes)

davebrown
08-27-2009, 06:40 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2590/3863599284_5361baacdc.jpg
watch'yall think of this? it's called spirit lake, wi

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 06:57 PM
Bruce...one could do the same with a kaleidoscope
Both require the same amount of mental input (the emporer has no clothes)

To me there is a vast difference. A kaleidoscope gets boring after a few minutes whereas I can look at a Pollock for a long time and continue to see new things in it each time I look at it.

I also disagree that the level of mental input is at all the same. What may be confusing is that it is not the kind of mental input needed to, say, figure out how to build something (a very logical kind of input) but rather they kind of mental input needed to appreciate a great musical work such as a symphony (which calls for somewhat less linear thinking).

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 06:57 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2590/3863599284_5361baacdc.jpg
watch'yall think of this? it's called spirit lake, wi

Can we see the whole thing?

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 07:04 PM
You would think that someone that claims to be so "artistic" would have a more open mind to others' opinions.

My point in that statement is that who we are today is a direct result of what came before. My stance is that if Pollock was content and happy with himself that maybe he wouldn't have went down the path that he chose. His chemical addictions made up a big part of who he was. Chemical addictions at that level tend to indicate a high level of insecurities and inner turmoil. I'm not saying his paintings were a direct result of being high or drunk, but rather his paintings expressed who he was. And who he was in part was defined by his problems.

Unlike some, I try and keep an open mind when asking questions and looking for answers.

Chad

The question of whether "emotionally troubled" artists produce better artworks is a touchy subject. Certainly, the work of some artists has been deeply influenced by their emotional troubles, and at some level almost all really great people are a bit outside the norm in some way. However, overall I think people who have looked into this have concluded that in general emotional troubles tend to make artists less rather than more effective.

I am not in the least convinced that Pollock went the way he went because of his emotional troubles. If anything, emotional difficulties seem to push people to stick with what is known rather than pushing into the unknown and challenging conventions.

JimD
08-27-2009, 08:27 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2590/3863599284_5361baacdc.jpg
watch'yall think of this? it's called spirit lake, wi

I like it. You paint it?

cs
08-27-2009, 09:02 PM
"See what is called to mind if you don't try to figure out what you think Pollock had in mind when he was making the painting...see what is in your mind when you see the painting."

Bruce up above I said something real similar, that I think his work lets you see what you want and necessarily that of the artist. I think that each person will see something different each time they look at his work. Maybe it opens the mind and frees the spirit allowing each to explore the depths of his own soul. Maybe the artist is forgotten and all that is left is yourself and your intermost thoughts.

Of course this comes after visiting the NCO club and having some chemical influences, which might add more weight to the chemical theory I posted above.

Chad

cs
08-27-2009, 09:03 PM
BTW Phillip, open your mind a little and let the art speak to you from inside your soul. Free the mind and let the art work you.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:12 PM
BTW Phillip, open your mind a little and let the art speak to you from inside your soul. Free the mind and let the art work you.

Chad

oh but Chad...the art DOES speak to me...even a kid's stick figure is art and THAT speaks to me...in pollock's case, it's the con art that speaks to me...perfectly ligimate but still con art

THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES!

Paul Pless
08-27-2009, 09:13 PM
It got me into an art gallery for the first time ever - admittedly I'd only just moved to the city from the bush...

you used to be a hick?

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 09:15 PM
Bruce up above I said something real similar, that I think his work lets you see what you want and necessarily that of the artist. I think that each person will see something different each time they look at his work. Maybe it opens the mind and frees the spirit allowing each to explore the depths of his own soul. Maybe the artist is forgotten and all that is left is yourself and your intermost thoughts.

I like that.

Sorry I missed where you said it earlier. I came into this thread late and read most of the posts but probably missed some things because I was trying to take in the whole thread in one pass.

cs
08-27-2009, 09:16 PM
Paul you say that like it is a bad thing.

BTW you never responded on your trip through Chatt town. I was hoping we could have gotten together and went to Taco Mac and shared a couple of brewskiies.

Chad

cs
08-27-2009, 09:17 PM
I like that.

Sorry I missed where you said it earlier. I came into this thread late and read most of the posts but probably missed some things because I was trying to take in the whole thread in one pass.


Its rare, but sometimes I get to what I perceive is the truth of the matter. I will admit that I do have a better understanding of his work than I did when I started this thread.

Chad

Paul Pless
08-27-2009, 09:18 PM
Chad, hopefully next time. I'll be through about once a month. Next time will be middle of September...

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:19 PM
"See what is called to mind if you don't try to figure out what you think Pollock had in mind when he was making the painting...see what is in your mind when you see the painting."



If I must furnish the art then I get the money...optical illusions are avaliable at novelty shops and for a lot less money

cs
08-27-2009, 09:25 PM
Phillip his art, from what I can see, gives your mind a chance to explore regions that it would not have gone to without the stimuli.

Paul, I will be leaving on the 16th of Sept for a little bit better than 3 weeks to Camp Shelby MS. Let me know if you will be through prior to that.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:29 PM
Phillip his art, from what I can see, gives your mind a chance to explore regions that it would not have gone to without the stimuli.



Chad

I catagorically reject the notion that Jackson Pollock is needed to set Phillip's mind free...you can sing Hosanas to Pollock but I do not and may very well be able to swing wider latitudes in cogent thinking than those who get the vapors everytime someone is arragont enough to demand millions of dollars for a few hours work

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 09:35 PM
oh but Chad...the art DOES speak to me...even a kid's stick figure is art and THAT speaks to me...in pollock's case, it's the con art that speaks to me...perfectly ligimate but still con art

THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES!

The fact that many people (with no financial or other stake in the matter) genuinely find Pollock's paintings to be interesting and engaging artworks would seem to me to be pretty good evidence on its own the Pollock's paintings are functioning as good artworks should.

The fact that Pollock's work has gone on to influence a lot of other artists is another measure of the work being important in the context of art history.

To call it con art is to suggest that people can be convinced to find something interesting and engaging when it is actually boring, however even if people are that gullible, if the end result is that they find the work interesting and engaging then by definition it is not boring so where is the con?

If your contention is that anyone could make equally interesting artwork...well, a lot of people seem to disagree. Certainly, when people have tried to imitate Pollock's paintings they have, from what I've heard, failed miserably.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 09:40 PM
everytime someone is arragont enough to demand millions of dollars for a few hours work

Keep in mind that more often than not it is not the artist who gets the millions but rather those who first bought the artwork from the artist and then held onto it for a few decades until the artist became famous.

At the very least, when artists do get millions for their work, it is almost always after years of hard and relatively poorly paid work that finally, later in life, led to riches as a result of all that work finally paying off.

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:43 PM
The fact that many people (with no financial or other stake in the matter) genuinely find Pollock's paintings to be interesting and engaging artworks would seem to me to be pretty good evidence on its own the Pollock's paintings are functioning as good artworks should.



Earlier today, someone took Joe Foster to task because he wasn't "educated" enough in art to critique the artist...your "many people" are prolly less educated than Joe though there are undoubtedly exceptions

ya kain't have it both ways...

cs
08-27-2009, 09:44 PM
I've always appreciated art that stepped out of the "norm". I'm getting a better understanding of Pollock's work, but he is still not my favorite. My favorite is Van Gogh, who in my opinion was one of the first to step away from the traditional form of painting and venture outside the box.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:48 PM
I've always appreciated art that stepped out of the "norm". I'm getting a better understanding of Pollock's work, but he is still not my favorite. My favorite is Van Gogh, who in my opinion was one of the first to step away from the traditional form of painting and venture outside the box.

Chad
Vincent would cut off his other ear if he heard himself compared to that con artist

S B
08-27-2009, 09:49 PM
The fact that many people (with no financial or other stake in the matter) genuinely find Pollock's paintings to be interesting and engaging artworks would seem to me to be pretty good evidence on its own the Pollock's paintings are functioning as good artworks should.

The fact that Pollock's work has gone on to influence a lot of other artists is another measure of the work being important in the context of art history.

To call it con art is to suggest that people can be convinced to find something interesting and engaging when it is actually boring, however even if people are that gullible, if the end result is that they find the work interesting and engaging then by definition it is not boring so where is the con?

If your contention is that anyone could make equally interesting artwork...well, a lot of people seem to disagree. Certainly, when people have tried to imitate Pollock's paintings they have, from what I've heard, failed miserably.
Where they failed, was in attempting to imitate Pollock.Spattering paint and getting something interesting isn't difficult. Use the same technique as Pollock, lay pieces of canvass all over the floor, walk among them spilling paint as you wish, pick out the best of it and burn the rest.

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:51 PM
Where they failed, was in attempting to imitate Pollock.Spattering paint and getting something interesting isn't difficult. Use the same technique as Pollock, lay pieces of canvass all over the floor, walk among them spilling paint as you wish, pick out the best of it and burn the rest.



Or you could hire some nudes to writhe around in the wet paint

S B
08-27-2009, 09:58 PM
Or you could hire some nudes to writhe around in the wet paint
Tried by every art student at least once.:D

ishmael
08-27-2009, 10:06 PM
everytime someone is arragont enough to demand millions of dollars for a few hours work"

With all respect, you've missed something. I hate to bring him up because it starts to sound cliche, but Vincent Van Gough would have starved to death, damn near did a couple of times, save for his brother Theo, who was a reasonably successful business man. Vincent never demanded anything, but he would have liked a few phenigs, a few pence, for what are now considered some of the great masterpieces of western art. Does that have to happen? I don't know. I know great artists often suffer, whether financially or psychologically or both. It wasn't easy, and took more than a few hours, to paint his series of sunflowers. I can't look on their facsimiles without bowing my head.

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:10 PM
everytime someone is arragont enough to demand millions of dollars for a few hours work"

With all respect, you've missed something. I hate to bring him up because it starts to sound cliche, but Vincent Van Gough would have starved to death, damn near did a couple of times, save for his brother Theo, who was a reasonably successful business man. Vincent never demanded anything, but he would have liked a few phenigs, a few pence, for what are now considered some of the great masterpieces of western art. Does that have to happen? I don't know. I know great artists often suffer, whether financially or psychologically or both. It wasn't easy, and took more than a few hours, to paint his series of sunflowers. I can't look on their facsimiles without bowing my head.

has avarice become a pre-requisite for becoming an artist these days

Joe (SoCal)
08-27-2009, 10:34 PM
Thank you Bruce
Thank you Chad for opening your eyes more.
And something tells me to thank God for the fact I have Phillip on ignore

cs
08-27-2009, 10:35 PM
Joe I've always thought I've had my eyes open. That is why I asked the question here, to help me understand more.

Chad

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 10:40 PM
Where they failed, was in attempting to imitate Pollock.Spattering paint and getting something interesting isn't difficult. Use the same technique as Pollock, lay pieces of canvass all over the floor, walk among them spilling paint as you wish, pick out the best of it and burn the rest.

All I can say is try it sometime. From what I've heard, everyone else who has tried it has found that in fact "spattering paint and getting something interesting" IS quite difficult.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 10:42 PM
Earlier today, someone took Joe Foster to task because he wasn't "educated" enough in art to critique the artist...your "many people" are prolly less educated than Joe though there are undoubtedly exceptions

ya kain't have it both ways...

Maybe it does not really matter how educated the people are who find Pollock's paintings interesting...

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:45 PM
then are you recinding your claim of enlightenment after Pollock exposure?

S B
08-27-2009, 10:59 PM
everytime someone is arragont enough to demand millions of dollars for a few hours work"

With all respect, you've missed something. I hate to bring him up because it starts to sound cliche, but Vincent Van Gough would have starved to death, damn near did a couple of times, save for his brother Theo, who was a reasonably successful business man. Vincent never demanded anything, but he would have liked a few phenigs, a few pence, for what are now considered some of the great masterpieces of western art. Does that have to happen? I don't know. I know great artists often suffer, whether financially or psychologically or both. It wasn't easy, and took more than a few hours, to paint his series of sunflowers. I can't look on their facsimiles without bowing my head.
Van Gogh is probably the most famous example of found genius,but he did all the work for it.There is the mountain of letters he sent to his brother Theo, wrote him every day. He was also very prolific, nobody wanted what he did and made away with himself. Perfect for the task. The works are worth millions because they are antiques, of finite number and the people with large collections contrived to increase their value. The suffering of artists for their genius is a fairy tale, the vast majority of famous artists were well rewarded for their work.

bobbys
08-27-2009, 11:06 PM
I dont understand Pollock but i dont understand people that put toppings on Pizza either.

Ok maybe pineapple and sausage or ham but just a little but dont smother the whole pie DANG IT!!!!!!

davebrown
08-27-2009, 11:34 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3864198118_8e032aa2fd.jpg
it seems that one prerequisite to be a good abstract painter is the ability to paint well technically. the conclusion from this jumping off point is that abstracts are not accidental. they are wilful and deliberate. i don't know whether this painting is either an abstract or evidence of technical ability, but it is deliberate. flash refelction detracts somewhat from it.

davebrown
08-27-2009, 11:36 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3864205452_fc784699c2.jpg

the flash on my crappy point and shoot makes this almost not worth posting. clearly not an abstract, but impressionism, and therefore derivative. nothing new going on here.

davebrown
08-27-2009, 11:38 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/3864204048_5bdde52347.jpg

hitting abstract. this is a painting of my cat. it is probably no. 10 of a series that started out reaslistic.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 11:39 PM
The suffering of artists for their genius is a fairy tale, the vast majority of famous artists were well rewarded for their work.

But quite commonly not until fairly late in life after many years of hard work. Yes, there are artists who hit the big time early and stay there, but there are a great many who only achieve fame and some measure of fortune late in life, and of course many, many more who never hit the big time at all, either during their life or after their death.

S B
08-27-2009, 11:42 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3864198118_8e032aa2fd.jpg
it seems that one prerequisite to be a good abstract painter is the ability to paint well technically. the conclusion from this jumping off point is that abstracts are not accidental. they are wilful and deliberate. i don't know whether this painting is either an abstract or evidence of technical ability, but it is deliberate. flash refelction detracts somewhat from it.
This would appear to be an abstraction because one can imagine it represents a real life vision. Pollock's work on the other hand is real because it represents nothing but itself.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 11:45 PM
then are you recinding your claim of enlightenment after Pollock exposure?

I don't think I ever made such a claim. All I claimed was that looking at a Pollock painting might prove interesting if you approached it in the right way.

Bruce Hooke
08-27-2009, 11:47 PM
This would appear to be an abstraction because one can imagine it represents a real life vision. Pollock's work on the other hand is real because it represents nothing but itself.

But it is also abstract in as much as it does not represent some thing. Note that "abstract" is not quite the same as "an abstraction."

davebrown
08-27-2009, 11:50 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3864204654_3025d53ab2.jpg

this one might be abstract. might not be. self portrat at the berkeley marina. it's a big painting, and i like it over my fireplace. what does this have to do with the original thread and the OP's idea? i think it is very difficult to describe, and even harder to define when you're trying this nonsense: abstract painters are painting a relationship between themselves (and i mean the interior landscape, where the spooky Self is hiding like a highwayman, in rags and with pistols drawn) and the outside world identified as "the subject of the painting". this one is a self portrait. i am identified as the brownish blob on the upper mid left, with the black and red. but i don't tell no one nothing about that. i just avoid talking about it.

it's all BS! you can't sail it around the bay, nor can you eat it. it's pretty wallpaper. the best thing i can say about it is it has occasionally had the effect of making a mini skirt come flying off.

oh, and it is much, much much harder to paint abstracts than realistic paintings. i have many times chuckled at the "it looks like a sixth grader painted it"...with realism, one has the anchor of the real world. with the abstract, well, to do it right--head way way down deep in the mine, past the skeletons and the glittering treasure, until you run into marlin brando reclining on the couch, talking about horror.

"four fathom five thy father lies; these are pearls that were his eyes..."

S B
08-28-2009, 12:06 AM
But it is also abstract in as much as it does not represent some thing. Note that "abstract" is not quite the same as "an abstraction."
If you paint an apple, for instance, regardless of how well you do it,it will never be an apple. That people see an apple depends on how well you have arranged the paint. It is regarded as real, because the reaction caused is a familiar one. The reaction is abstract. Pollock's work represents nothing therefore it has to be regarded as real and seen for what it is. It would appear,the problem with Pollock's work, is looking for what isn't there. Abstract was a term used to describe the work and has stuck,much like impressionism, cubism,etc.

ishmael
08-28-2009, 12:13 AM
It's one AM, and for some damn reason most of the pics still aren't coming through.

That's OK I guess. I'm off to toodle land. I hope you know I want the absolute best in your endeavors. We may not be a Pollock, but we can still do good in this world. Don't ever forget that.

davebrown
08-28-2009, 12:16 AM
i concur. but it is when you step away from the familiar representation into the reflection of the relationship between artist and object that you hit pollock. and many others. hence the infinitude of painting. it is as vast as the human experience, and as the known world.

i personally think this concept can be applied as a universal method of intererpreting art in every form: including literature, music, photography, painting, and other useless, intriguing and fascinating aspects of the human experience.

davebrown
08-28-2009, 12:17 AM
Good night, Ishmael!