Is Jackson's work art or simply paint dribbles?
I'm going with dribbles.
shareConcur... (but then I don't fancy this style).
Knot2nite
MovieChat Forums > Pollock (2001) Discussion > Is Jackson's work art or simply paint dr...
I really like "Blue Poles" and I like his art.
But the question definitely has merit. The painting found by that truck driver lady (Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?) was not, if I recall correctly, the only drip painting to be claimed as a Pollock -- an entire trove turned up somewhere in the midwest or somewhere, can't remember. The truck driver lady's "Pollock" was eventually found to be a forgery because the paint was some type of material that wasn't invented until after Pollock's death. Critics debated for YEARS before it was settled by chemical forensics! They couldn't authenticate it based on its artistic merit or beauty, which means that Pollock art is hardly knowable or inimitable! "This painting is worth either 5 cents or $50 million" would have been the state of it for years.
~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.
Watching the movie, I told my wife, "I wish I could make a mess and sell it". I bet Pollock laughed all the way to the bank. I'll take Van Gogh any day.
shareNeither Van Gogh or Pollock were really appreciated while alive... and he never had much money to show for his success. An issue clearly depicted in the film.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
That's like asking, "Is Chopin's work music or simply piano chords?"
shareLike he says in the film. IF you look at a bunch of flower you appreciate it for its appearance... you don't look for meaning.
Those dribbles form patterns that are mesmerizing.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
Well said. Whether paint is put to canvas directly or inches above it makes no difference. It either looks great or it doesn't which remains subjective nonetheless.
shareI also feel that photography has liberated the artist from having to depict things... cameras do that quite well
so the artist is thus free to make up things and push out the boundaries of beauty.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
I agree with ntsci.
Jackson Pollock merely found a way to document his experience of art making in his purest form. It's not dribbles, it's a map of his energy and expression. How much value one puts into those markings he made to record his emotions, feelings, and psyche is entirely up to them. Obviously there was a consensus built that his work was worthwhile, but you don't have to buy into it if you so choose. The point is, art is totally subjective for each indiviidual, but "dribbles' is about something else. Dribbles seems to point to a mechanical process. Pollock's process was far from mechanical, it was emotional, joyous, painful, experential, searching, imaginative. He was breaking boundaries no one dared to before him. In this sense, objectively, whether one likes his work or not, no one can say they are merely "dribbles." To say that is to not understand the work at all, and that's fine, but that's opinion, and has nothing to do with the truth of his art, the movement he was a part of, or the times he lived in.
shareJackson Pollock merely found a way to document his experience of art making in his purest form. It's not dribbles, it's a map of his energy and expression.
Most people could have done the same. No two person's "dribbles" would be the same; it would be a "map of their energy and expression," same as Pollack's.
Obviously there was a consensus built that his work was worthwhile, but you don't have to buy into it if you so choose. The point is, art is totally subjective for each indiviidual, but "dribbles' is about something else. Dribbles seems to point to a mechanical process. Pollock's process was far from mechanical, it was emotional, joyous, painful, experential, searching, imaginative. He was breaking boundaries no one dared to before him.
Obviously yes, that's so, and I agree no one has to buy into it and that art is largely subjective. As someone who was a painter for many years, I have serious doubts about his talent (see link below as an example). I personally don't see his work as any of the above, but that is my personal, professional, and also subjective opinion. Mechanical? No, not in my opinion, but also not breaking any great boundaries, or evidence of any significant talent.
http://www.db-artmag.com/archiv/assets/images/306/62.jpg share
Go ahead and take a canvas to your garage. Drip paint all over it. Then, put it side by side with a Jackson Pollock and see what you think.
shareArt....but then again, I LOVE abstract art so...yeah
share