I'll be the first to admit I don't understand modern art, I'm more interested in Impressionism. Having said that, what exactly is it about Jackson Pollock that is supposed to be impressive. Seriously, can you even be a painter if you don't even paint your work? If I threw paint at the floor, would that be considered art? Actually, the film about his life is far more interesting than any painting I've ever seen of his.
sharedid you not watch this movie?
pollock didnt just splatter paint on the floor. he painted precise things with dripping paint. as he says in the movie, his goal is to represent things by not showing them pictorially. what you dont seem to understand is that line can be used for things other than contour. take an art history class, then youll learn why pollock is considered a great artist. im not saying you have to like him, but you shouldnt be an ignorant douchebag and compare his work to bleeding or childrens fingerpainting.
When my Modern Literature and the Arts teacher first showed our class a Pollock painting, I'll admit my reaction was that I thought the "art" was ugly and stupid and something that I could have done.
After spending the last two months researching Abstract Expressionism, and more specifically Jackson Pollock, I appreciate his work so much more. It was more than throwing paint on a canvas. Pollock used his art to express his emotions. He was a very introverted, sometimes even nonverbal, individual. His painting was a way that he could show all of his emotion.
I understand and admire Pollock now especially since I've tried painting like Pollock on a smaller scale. It really is enjoyable to just paint your feelings out like Pollock. I haven't been quite sure how to define how I feel lately, but my Pollock-like painting captured it perfectly. And the novel thing about painting like Pollock is that it is so hard to perfectly recreate a drip painting. To get the lines and the texture of the paint just right would be nearly impossible.
Who cares why? It moves people. No need to try to deconstruct why. I'm not a fan of painting, and I know very little about it, but I do detest it in any form of art when people take conventions too seriously. Conventions are good, becase they're a structure that's been proben to work, but freedom of expression unconscious expression can be beautiful too. If you got it you'd just get it. Stop trying to figure out why.
share"What Pollock did was revolutionary, you may not think it is. But honestly, would you have ever thought of splattering paint about a canvas like that and then presenting it as art. Probibly not. What was so revolutionary about it was that it was "action painting", he was physically moving his entire body to paint the canvas, he was interacting with his painting in a way no other artist had before. He was also using unussual mediums, like wall paint."
Oh my God, I'm sorry, but you can't honestly believe that if Pollock didn't hurl random colors at a canvas that no one else would. I have to point it out, but that's a pretty easy way to get famous. I honestly could believe that it is a scam. Seriously, just be a complete mystery and everyone will be interested in you. Then, you're famous.
[deleted]
I've seen at least 5 of his pictures in person (most impressively, his mural for Peggy Guggenheim in Iowa City) and they are amazing to look at. No reproduction will ever do justice to the depth of these works.
shareso true.
whether or not a person likes the work is their own opinion, but i don't think that anyone can deny the significance of jackson pollock in the history of art, specifically american art.
before pollock, american artists were considered extremely unsophisticated when compared to their european counterparts. the abstract expressionists, or new york school, was the first group of american artists to be considered artistically significant.
I'll join this favorable panel. Pollock's "drip" series isn't something that just anyone with a can of paint and a pulse could do. There are exquisite passages of line, form, composition, and texture in those works. When seein "in person," ome drips coagulate or crust-up in a fascinating way, others suggest thin, liquid, sensual curves and the flowing, unfettered lines of pure artistic freedom. You can feel the speed and pressure of each drip's application.
As for the Pollock figuratives, those are more accessible than you'd think, and a little less complicated. Pollock could paint human musculature like no other. "Stenographic Figure" is an etude of pure color on one level, and a challenging figurative enigma that has been debated in academic circles for over a half century on another. Peggy Guggenheim's "Mural" is a marvel of serial composition, and an exciting expression of action. "Mural" foreshadowed the drips to come.
Just as Pollock said himself, all you have to do is look at the paintings like you would flowers in a garden. You don't question the flowers' existence, you just admire their colors and shapes. It's really not that tough to understand.
Impressionism is modern art.
"I'll be the first to admit I don't understand modern art, I'm more interested in Impressionism."
One of the things that I've learned in my college education at a prestigious Art School was, that it is not WHAT you do, or HOW you do it! Maybe, for the uneducated masses, he was just spilling and dripping paint; but for those of us who have spent our lives creating works of Art, it not the HOW -- it is the fact that Jackson Pollack knew WHERE to spill and drip his paint!
I've found his work, for the most part, exciting and bracing! Painting isn't just putting a brush to canvas. That what it USED to be! If the uneducated ever spent any time in a great museum of modern art, they might find that objects are are used and attached, spray paint, collage, assemblies, sculptures -- all on a wall, hanging as an Art form.
Art isn't a just a nice scenic picture that you can frame nicely, and then hang over the couch, that also helps to hide that crack in the plaster -- Art IS an end in itself!
Art, like any of the sciences, doesn't mean a great deal to the uninitiated. To understand any particular science, you have to be knowledgable of it. The same thing has to be said about Art. You have to understand what Art IS -- it's function in society!
Personally, I've painted, drawn, designed logos for corporations, designed floor plans for manufacturing companies. I've designed letterheads, computer controls, signage, sculpture, catalogues, brochures, business cards, magazine print advertising, delivery truck panel designs, airplane graphics, and many, many other commercial products. Everything you touch in your life -- someone had to design it! It didn't somehow just spring to life fully-formed!
I worked my butt off to get my degree (even though I WAS working in my field as a professional designer since the age of 15), and I KNOW what I'm doing -- and it has provided a splendid life for myself, my wife and two (now middle-aged) sons.
To read what ignorant people say while passing judgement on an artist's work, is a shame. What Pollack had, was both a talent AND a remarkable skill.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was gonna say the opposite. The art was more interesting than the man.
Except, one thing: The man really redefined being drunk. He was like perpetually hammered.
I don't know if you could legally say he cheated on his wife because it was all part of one drunken binge and he probably wasn't even aware of it.
How he even got her to marry him in the first place, i don't know
www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner