NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.post-trib.com/news/123108,PollackArt.article

The article has a picture of the painting.

I don't know how it is that someone will pay that much for paint splatters. It doesn't look like anything, anyone could probably do that given the materials.. so seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people?

http://www.post-trib.com/news/123108,PollackArt.article

The article has a picture of the painting.

I don't know how it is that someone will pay that much for paint splatters. It doesn't look like anything, anyone could probably do that given the materials.. so seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people?

The you know nothing about Jackson Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock). He is an acquired taste, I will admit, but a great American artist.

The you know nothing about Jackson Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock). He is an acquired taste, I will admit, but a great American artist.
I know nothing about the man because anyone could splatter paint on a canvas in a nonsensical fashion?

I'm not saying it doesn't look interesting, but I could make something similar at home and wouldn't pay 140 million for that.

I'm not a fan of modern art, but I have to admit that Pollock is quite good. Analysis of the patterns of his paint-splatters reveal intricate, fractal-like patterns and designs which no one has been able to reproduce. You could try just flicking paint at a canvas, but I guarantee that it would lack a certain aesthetic quality. It's definitely more than meets the eye...

Art is quite an effective way of conning the rich out of their money. In that sense I suppose it is good for keeping the economic cycle spinning.

Oh Jackson Pollock - I was hoping it was a painting by a talented fish.

http://www.post-trib.com/news/123108,PollackArt.article

The article has a picture of the painting.

I don't know how it is that someone will pay that much for paint splatters. It doesn't look like anything, anyone could probably do that given the materials.. so seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people?
See - that's sometimes what makes someone a great artist - and is hard for the average joe to understand. That they do something that looks so simple 'anybody' could do it.
Thing is, they're the first person to do it - and therein lies their genius.

See - that's sometimes what makes someone a great artist - and is hard for the average joe to understand. That they do something that looks so simple 'anybody' could do it.
Thing is, they're the first person to do it - and therein lies their genius.
No, there are other artists where it would take years of practice and dedication to learn to paint like that. I wouldn't claim that I could paint like Dali or Van Gogh...

That settles it. I'm not going back to work ever again. I'm gonna take a dump on a canvas, throw on some gloves and smear it around. I'm sure I can find some pretentious arse who thinks it's art and will pay me for it.

I'm not a fan of modern art, but I have to admit that Pollock is quite good. Analysis of the patterns of his paint-splatters reveal intricate, fractal-like patterns and designs which no one has been able to reproduce. You could try just flicking paint at a canvas, but I guarantee that it would lack a certain aesthetic quality. It's definitely more than meets the eye...

Indeed, indeed. Generally, those who claim "anyone could do that" have little idea what is actually involved.

Indeed, indeed. Generally, those who claim "anyone could do that" have little idea what is actually involved.

No, we're just not so pretentious that we feel we must read some "deeper meaning" into crap.

That settles it. I'm not going back to work ever again. I'm gonna take a dump on a canvas, throw on some gloves and smear it around. I'm sure I can find some pretentious arse who thinks it's art and will pay me for it.

Just cover a crucifix in it and stick a couple of American flags with Bush's face on the part where the field is on the thing and you've got a piece of art.

No, we're just not so pretentious that we feel we must read some "deeper meaning" into crap.

Last time I commented on art here I was a philistine with no taste. Now I'm a pretentious twat. My taste haven't changed.


And if you, or anyone else, honestly belives anyone can do that crap, go for it. I challenge you here and now to do so.

No, there are other artists where it would take years of practice and dedication to learn to paint like that. I wouldn't claim that I could paint like Dali or Van Gogh...
Why would you want to paint like Dali? He was a self-indulgent hack with a bloated sense of his own self-importance.

Anyway, you missed my point: Sometimes genius isn't as readily apparent as DaVinci or Michelangelo. Sometimes it shows itself from a person doing something that nobody considered as 'Art', yet is so simplistic that the first thought is, "But anyone could do that".
The fact no-one up to that point did is what makes it a piece of Artistic genius.

Like that piece some artist did years ago of a few bricks. Or Piero Manzoni's 'shit in a can' (literally: he canned 90 tins of his own crap). It provokes debate as to what is 'art', which is the whole point of such installations.

Indeed, indeed. Generally, those who claim "anyone could do that" have little idea what is actually involved.
Once I saw a painting at a gallery that had cost $500,000. The top half was yellow, the bottom half was red. It was car paint on canvas.

Yeah, there's so much involved in painting half of something red and half of it yellow.

It's amazing how people with little knowledge of art claim that they know what isn't art.

Why would you want to paint like Dali? He was a self-indulgent hack with a bloated sense of his own self-importance.
But his paintings actually looked like something. They may have been weird, distorted somethings...

(on a side note, I would love to be able to paint like Van Gogh... impressionism is so pretty)

Anyway, you missed my point: Sometimes genius is as readily apparent as DaVinci or Michelangelo. Sometimes it shows itself from a person doing something that nobody considered as 'Art', yet is so simplistic that the first thought is, "But anyone could do that".
The fact no-one up to that point did is what makes it a piece of Artistic genius.

Like that piece some artist did years ago of a few bricks. Or Piero Manzoni's 'shit in a can' (literally: he canned 90 tins of his own crap). It provokes debate as to what is 'art', which is the whole point of such installations.
Yes, I suppose I just have to come up with something stupidly simple and sell it for millions for it to be art.

How about I take a pizza box and draw a kitty on it in crayon?

It's amazing how people with little knowledge of art claim that they know what isn't art.

Art is fundamentally subjective. In my opinion, the classification of things as objectively art is ridiculous to begin with; frankly, I think it stifles artistic expression. If you think it is art, it is art to you, and if others think it is art, it is art to them.

In fact, art could be classified as the ultimate example of subjectivity in culture.

It's amazing how people with little knowledge of art claim that they know what isn't art.
I didn't say it wasn't art, I said it was way too much money to spend on paint splatters. Anything can be called art, doesn't mean it's good or worth millions.

Last time I commented on art here I was a philistine with no taste. Now I'm a pretentious twat. My taste haven't changed.


And if you, or anyone else, honestly belives anyone can do that crap, go for it. I challenge you here and now to do so.

Cripes, mate, my girlfriend's daughter, when she was five (she's nine now), did stuff that didn't look much different from that. Let's put that silly splatter shite up against pieces that require talent. I'll throw out a random three:

Dali's Soft Construction With Boiled Beans (http://www.physics.miami.edu/~chris/art/dali/beans.jpg)

Monet's The Japanese Bridge (http://www.impressionist-art-gallery.com/images/MGJapBridge.jpg)

Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights (http://www.boschuniverse.org/hisworks/garden_of_earthly_delights/large.jpg)

Splatterboy compares to these how exactly?

And I'm not even dipping back into the Renaissance...

Once I saw a painting at a gallery that had cost $500,000. The top half was yellow, the bottom half was red. It was car paint on canvas.

Yeah, there's so much involved in painting half of something red and half of it yellow.

Cripes, mate, my girlfriend's daughter, when she was five (she's nine now), did stuff that didn't look much different from that. Let's put that silly splatter shite up against pieces that require talent. I'll throw out a random three:

Dali's Soft Construction With Boiled Beans (http://www.physics.miami.edu/~chris/art/dali/beans.jpg)

Monet's The Japanese Bridge (http://www.impressionist-art-gallery.com/images/MGJapBridge.jpg)

Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights (http://www.boschuniverse.org/hisworks/garden_of_earthly_delights/large.jpg)

Splatterboy compares to these how exactly?

And I'm not even dipping back into the Renaissance...

I'll belive either of you when you take up my challenge instead of sitting back claiming you can do the same.

I'll belive either of you when you take up my challenge instead of sitting back claiming you can do the same.

Buy me a canvas, and I'll be happy to smear my feces all over it. There's a difference between understanding art and being able to create it. Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art, unless, of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt.

Cripes, mate, my girlfriend's daughter, when she was five (she's nine now), did stuff that didn't look much different from that. Let's put that silly splatter shite up against pieces that require talent. I'll throw out a random three:

Dali's Soft Construction With Boiled Beans (http://www.physics.miami.edu/~chris/art/dali/beans.jpg)

Monet's The Japanese Bridge (http://www.impressionist-art-gallery.com/images/MGJapBridge.jpg)

Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights (http://www.boschuniverse.org/hisworks/garden_of_earthly_delights/large.jpg)

Splatterboy compares to these how exactly?

And I'm not even dipping back into the Renaissance...

Why would you compare any of these to pollock? they are compleatly different styles

Buy me a canvas, and I'll be happy to smear my feces all over it. There's a difference between understanding art and being able to create it. Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art, unless, of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt.

Nice ... not a skillfull one at debating are you

Im sorry I dont peticularly care for this type of art but seting up a false dicodomy of either agreeing with you or being a "pretentious arsehole" seems even more silly then this art does to me

Why would you compare any of these to pollock? they are compleatly different styles

Of course, they are. They are styles that require talent, which differentiates them from the "art" produced by Pollock. Therein lies my point, which, obviously, you missed.

Buy me a canvas, and I'll be happy to smear my feces all over it. There's a difference between understanding art and being able to create it. Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art, unless, of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt.

If you are so sure you can "take a dump on a canvas, throw on some gloves and smear it around" and "find some pretentious arse who thinks it's art and will pay me for it," why would I need to buy you a canvas.

Here you go: http://www.cheapjoes.com/art-supplies/4844_fredrix-canvas-rolls.asp

Get back to me when you sell something...

Buy me a canvas, and I'll be happy to smear my feces all over it. There's a difference between understanding art and being able to create it. Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art, unless, of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt.

Nice ... not a skillfull one at debating are you

Im sorry I dont peticularly care for this type of art but seting up a false dicodomy of either agreeing with you or being a "pretentious arsehole" seems even more silly then this art does to me

Of course, they are. They are styles that require talent, which differentiates them from the "art" produced by Pollock. Therein lies my point, which, obviously, you missed.

But my point that eluded you apparently is how exactly do you compare them directly

How do you compare a statue to a drawing? other then your precived skill (which is not always apparent)

Sorry but sometimes the non flashy things are what require more tallent then churning out surface asthetics

Nice ... not a skillfull one at debating are you

Im sorry I dont peticularly care for this type of art but seting up a false dicodomy of either agreeing with you or being a "pretentious arsehole" seems even more silly then this art does to me

Not to mention his misuse of pretentious...

Wow...just, well...wow...

The number of pseudo-intellectuals here is downright overwhelming.

Buy me a canvas, and I'll be happy to smear my feces all over it. There's a difference between understanding art and being able to create it. Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art, unless, of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt.
I don't know much about receipts, but when it comes to grocery lists (http://www.grocerylists.org/) ...

Nice ... not a skillfull one at debating are you

Im sorry I dont peticularly care for this type of art but seting up a false dicodomy of either agreeing with you or being a "pretentious arsehole" seems even more silly then this art does to me
I agree with UT. You aren't required to like it, Cluich. And people who do are not pretentious areseholes, thank you very much.

I agree with UT. You aren't required to like it, Cluich. And people who do are not pretentious areseholes, thank you very much.

No, you're not required to like it, but when your child does the same thing, you're kinda obligated to stick it up on your fridge.

Wow...just, well...wow...

The number of pseudo-intellectuals here is downright overwhelming.

Are you willing to defend your claim or have you conceded by reducing yourself to argumentum ad personam?

No, you're not required to like it, but when your child does the same thing, you're kinda obligated to stick it up on your fridge.

Oh, well, sure, that's true. ;) And save them, you never know ...

The you know nothing about Jackson Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock). He is an acquired taste, I will admit, but a great American artist.

Pfft. Tchaikovsky is a great musical artist, but ya know, people aren't going to pay 140 million to see a concert.

All it's about is Name Brand Recognition. Jackson Pollock is a Name Brand. And the high price means you can say, "Hey, I'm rich, I have a Jackson Pollock" as a means of wealth assertion. Nothing else.

Don't give me that crap about what a great artist he is. I've seen better artists scrounging for dimes on the streets. They don't have Name Brand Recognition. They don't Market themselves as well. Owning their stuff doesn't make you Rich And Important. That's the only difference.

Pfft. Tchaikovsky is a great musical artist, but ya know, people aren't going to pay 140 million to see a concert.

All it's about is Name Brand Recognition. Jackson Pollock is a Name Brand. And the high price means you can say, "Hey, I'm rich, I have a Jackson Pollock" as a means of wealth assertion. Nothing else.

Don't give me that crap about what a great artist he is. I've seen better artists scrounging for dimes on the streets. They don't have Name Brand Recognition. They don't Market themselves as well. Owning their stuff doesn't make you Rich And Important. That's the only difference.

Okay, like I said above, you aren't required to like Pollock's work. I do. I grant you, $140,000,000 for one painting is a tad pricey and it does smack of "Look at me! I just spent a hundred forty million dollars for one painting! I'm so cool!" Still, the fact that the painting sold for an outrageous amount of money doesn't make it suspect, and the fact that you and some other folks don't care for it doesn't make the folks who do like it pretentious. As for the artists on the street, I think Pollock, if he were alive and in his right mind, would probably agree with you.

Wow...just, well...wow...

The number of pseudo-intellectuals here is downright overwhelming.
You can get the same ammount of meaning out of abstractions as you can from the impression of a bridge, or from a person caressing an owl (btw, just for the record, I love the monet, but absolutly abhor the Bosch).

Going by you're definition of pretention, all art is. Art has no intrinsic meaning. The artist had his intentions, yes. But that is hardly the rule. We reflect ourselves upon art, be it photorealism or abstract. I find a great deal more meaning in random paint splatters than I do in a portrait, even one as technically masterful as this (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/18/NG189/eNG189.jpg). Technical skill doesn't translate to inherent meaning. It is simply one more tool to interpret the art in question.

Ironically, I can't help but think Pollock would be pissed about the sale of his art for such a high price, but would be ecstatic about the conversation it has sparked.

More money than sense.

I grant you, $140,000,000 for one painting is a tad pricey and it does smack of "Look at me! I just spent a hundred forty million dollars for one painting! I'm so cool!"

A "tad pricey?"

and the fact that you and some other folks don't care for it doesn't make the folks who do like it pretentious.

It makes the folks who pay 140 million for a painting are just rich cocksuckers who don't know what to do with their money.

Pollock, were he alive and in his right mind, would be also a rich cocksucker, so you have a situation where rich cocksuckers are paying other rich cocksuckers in order to show off what rich cocksuckers they are.

It's not "pretentious," it's vomitous! It makes me want to defecate!

Pfft. Tchaikovsky is a great musical artist, but ya know, people aren't going to pay 140 million to see a concert.

All it's about is Name Brand Recognition. Jackson Pollock is a Name Brand. And the high price means you can say, "Hey, I'm rich, I have a Jackson Pollock" as a means of wealth assertion. Nothing else.

Don't give me that crap about what a great artist he is. I've seen better artists scrounging for dimes on the streets. They don't have Name Brand Recognition. They don't Market themselves as well. Owning their stuff doesn't make you Rich And Important. That's the only difference.

People would pay 140 million for the original scores, however.

Supply and demand. There is a never ending supply of orchestras performing Tchaikovsky. There is only one of this painting.
Yes, it is showing off. Yes, it is extremely ironic, and I doubt the purchaser gets that.

And owning the stuff by the no name guy just makes you edgy;)

A "tad pricey?"



It makes the folks who pay 140 million for a painting are just rich cocksuckers who don't know what to do with their money.

Pollock, were he alive and in his right mind, would be also a rich cocksucker, so you have a situation where rich cocksuckers are paying other rich cocksuckers in order to show off what rich cocksuckers they are.

It's not "pretentious," it's vomitous! It makes me want to defecate!

As far as I can tell you have difficulty recognizing sarcasm, you dislike rich people very much, you aren't rich yourself, and abstract art doesn't appeal to you. Thanks for playing, and the restrooms are on the right as you go out.

As far as I can tell you have difficulty recognizing sarcasm

Well, sarcasm is indeed very easy to spot in written text, especially when you don't know the writer.

you dislike rich people very much

I dislike people who buy status symbols. Vanity is a sin, you know.

you aren't rich yourself

Uh oh, I'm guilty as charged.

and abstract art doesn't appeal to you.

That's irrelevant since I would say the same thing if it was non-abstract art.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of sploshy bullshit art. Or art in general. I'm a low-brow. I prefer music and other things that are sexy and four dimensional and emotional.

People would pay 140 million for the original scores, however.


And for Charles Manson's tooth.

People are assholes.


Supply and demand.

I'm well aware of that.

And for Charles Manson's tooth.


Why pay for it when I'm sure the prison guard would let you beat it out of him yourself?

Wow...just, well...wow...

The number of pseudo-intellectuals here is downright overwhelming.

More name calling rather then argument.

So is it better to be a psudo- intellectual or just a non-intellectual?

You may not find it a highly regarded piece of art, you may find it just a regular canvas with splashes of paint on it, but to someone that canvas with splashes of paint on it is something that they highly regard. To someone, that is art. Art isn't always about how an artist employs their methods or how 'easy' it can be to make something, its beyond that.

Why pay for it when I'm sure the prison guard would let you beat it out of him yourself?

Pfft. For free? Come on, they'd demand a finder's fee at the very least.

But probably not 140 million.

Once Manson is dead, though. Then we might see the price go up.

Are you willing to defend your claim or have you conceded by reducing yourself to argumentum ad personam?

More name calling rather then argument.

You essentially just proved my point, Daistallia, by unnecessarily using at Lain phrase to say pretty much what the Thrusty guy said. Thanks. :p

So is it better to be a psudo- intellectual or just a non-intellectual?

To answer your question, since you can actually pose a question without being a poseur (ugh, how I loathe that term, but in this case, it's horrifyingly appropriate), frankly, I'd rather deal with a non-intellectual. A non-intellectual doesn't pretend to have knowledge about subjects that he doesn't, whereas a pseudo-intellectual tries to fake knowledge by using big words or phrases from foreign or archaic languages like Latin (and on teh intarwebs, facts quickly snatched from sites like wiki).

You essentially just proved my point, Daistallia, by unnecessarily using at Lain phrase to say pretty much what the Thrusty guy said. Thanks. :p


snip

And you essentially just proved my point. Rather then providing any real insight into the topic at hand you just try to further justify name calling or “argumentum ad personam” which is the actual classification of the logical fallacy (he was more correct then I was)

Using big fancy words to draw away from your point is a bad thing, using them to correctly classify (what is in this case) an error is a good example of how to use them.

And you essentially just proved my point. Rather then providing any real insight into the topic at hand you just try to further justify name calling or “argumentum ad personam” which is the actual classification of the logical fallacy (he was more correct then I was)

Using big fancy words to draw away from your point is a bad thing, using them to correctly classify (what is in this case) an error is a good example of how to use them.

And you just joined him in the pseudo ranks. "Oh, he used the big Latin term that I wish I'd used." Congrats.

I'm done here. Enjoy your kindergarten fingerpainting and stick it up on your fridge. Enjoy your paint splatters all you like, and, hell, call it "art" if you like and pay a few million dollars for it. The former makes you a proud parent. The latter makes you a pretentious fool.

I'd buy it.

And you just joined him in the pseudo ranks. "Oh, he used the big Latin term that I wish I'd used." Congrats.

I'm done here. Enjoy your kindergarten fingerpainting and stick it up on your fridge. Enjoy your paint splatters all you like, and, hell, call it "art" if you like and pay a few million dollars for it. The former makes you a proud parent. The latter makes you a pretentious fool.

Ok… I still don’t see on what basis you assign “pseudo” to either of our points.

Was it the part where he correctly used what happens to be a word that stands for the correct classification of a logical fallacy? Or was it at the part where he cares for art that you don’t agree with.

It’s hard to tell with all the names you have thrown around instead of valid arguments.

And as stated before I don’t really care for this sort of art, but apparently I am able to discuss things that I don’t agree with without false dichotomies and name calling.

I'm not a fan of modern art, but I have to admit that Pollock is quite good. Analysis of the patterns of his paint-splatters reveal intricate, fractal-like patterns and designs which no one has been able to reproduce. You could try just flicking paint at a canvas, but I guarantee that it would lack a certain aesthetic quality. It's definitely more than meets the eye...

Oh, please. I've watched videos of him working, he does nothing my 2-year-old niece couldn't do. he literally stood over the canvas and flicked paint on it. Hardly something that takes a lot of skill or talent.

Sorry, but doing something "anyone" can do, does not make one a genius. It just means he was to drunk to do anything more complicated or artistic.

I am with Cluich and Trostia. Nothing Pollock did is worth 140 million.

Sorry, but splattering paint on a canvas isn't art,
Art
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (It's pretty)
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. (It is a painting)
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. (t's visual art/painting)
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture. [b/]
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
[b]6.(in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story? decorative
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

So to anyone how follows the dictionary/speaks the english language it's art. You may not like it, or appreicate the time/his originality/its appeal to the eye (because it is interesting to look at. As for "of course, you're one of those pretentious arseholes who can find a "deeper meaning" in everything down to a supermarket receipt" I don't look to Pollock for a deeper meaning I think it's pretty, interesting and original. The layering in his work is supposed to be amazing so its better when you actually see how thick it is.

Although I do agree that spending that amount of money on anything is ridiculus if you have that much money for a decoration (however cool) donate to charity, this is why I am for higher taxes for the rich.

I've held a Jackson Pollock in my hands. Not that expesive, as it was much smaller, but still cool. And I'm helping transport a private collection of early Van Goghs for my dads job in a couple of weeks :p .

And Pollock is amazing. Although I admit I wouldn't pay that much money for one. He dosn't just splatter it, I believe. I (think I) read somewhere that he does a lot more after splattering the canvas to achieve the final product. And a painting is worth exactly what it is sold for, because that is how much someone is willing to pay for it on the open market.

I'm starting to hate people who have opinions on subjects of which they have no understanding... look, I don't know shit about art. People in the art community give Pollock props. I'll go to a museum and look at it and try to figure out why and maybe watch the movie and maybe read a book about it but I'm not going to argue that its crap when it clearly isn't to people who actually study it. It's like me saying I prefer Harry Potter over Shakespeare so therefore JK Rowling is the stronger writer... lets see how far that gets me in life...

And you just joined him in the pseudo ranks. "Oh, he used the big Latin term that I wish I'd used." Congrats.

I'm done here. Enjoy your kindergarten fingerpainting and stick it up on your fridge. Enjoy your paint splatters all you like, and, hell, call it "art" if you like and pay a few million dollars for it. The former makes you a proud parent. The latter makes you a pretentious fool.

So you support dumbing down language to avoid latinate wording? The latin is the proper, and more accurate term. Therefore, it is the appropriate term to use for the sake of brevity and accuracy. Word choice means everything, as there are very few true synonyms (if any). The connotation and denotation of words makes it vital to choose more specifically. There IS a subtle difference between "You're calling people names" and "argumentum ad personam"

Feel free to lable me a pseudo-intellectual, but yeah, I study English. I can proide a great example of the importance of word choice if need be.

Oh, please. I've watched videos of him working, he does nothing my 2-year-old niece couldn't do. he literally stood over the canvas and flicked paint on it. Hardly something that takes a lot of skill or talent.a) your 2 year old niece didn't. Jackson Pollock did.
b) Art goes beyond technique. As I pointed out, this (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/18/NG189/eNG189.jpg) painting is clearly astounding in technique. Does that make it better than a painting that merely implys its subject matter, such as this (http://monet.uffs.net/monet.japanese-bridge.jpg) or this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/Seurat.jatte.750pix.jpg/737px-Seurat.jatte.750pix.jpg)? How about this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b5/L'Accordéoniste.jpg)? No. They are all completely different styles with completely different aims. Monet didn't want to portray things as they were. They are using different styles to portray different ideas.

Art has very little to do with how it is done, and much more to do with why. Yes, a 2 year old can splatter paint. But a two year old can't tell you why he put this splatter here, and that one there. He can't explain how he was experimenting with the play of gravity contrasting with the absorbtion of canvas, mostly because he wasn't.

Great!

Maybe I can sell this jpeg that I just created for like $20,000.01 - I could use a little cash and paint splatters seems pretty easy so far.

I call this one the fall of rome:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/fallofrome.jpg

Years back, Andy Warhol and his followers produced a series of "artworks" that received considerable critical acclaim. It was called the "Oxidation Series", and it used sheet metal with Pollock-like drips and streaks that was then left out in the sun to dry and oxidize. It later turned out that Warhol and company had produced the "artworks" by pissing on the metal sheets.

So much for "action painting", modern art, and modern art criticism :p

Years back, Andy Warhol and his followers produced a series of "artworks" that received considerable critical acclaim. It was called the "Oxidation Series", and it used sheet metal with Pollock-like drips and streaks that was then left out in the sun to dry and oxidize. It later turned out that Warhol and company had produced the "artworks" by pissing on the metal sheets.

So much for "action painting", modern art, and modern art criticism :p

That's quite clever,actually. I'll say again, just because you don't like modern art doesn't mean it's crap. Not like, say, country music, which is crap. :p

I've always liked Pollock. But not as much as I love Mondrian.

I STILL need to see the Ed Harris Pollock biopic.

I know nothing about the man because anyone could splatter paint on a canvas in a nonsensical fashion?
Before him nobody did, so "anyone can do it" is the most bs excuse ever for bashing art. It's meant to be abstract. It is not nonsensical, for he had to think about colours and method.

I'm not saying it doesn't look interesting, but I could make something similar at home and wouldn't pay 140 million for that.
Neither would I, but Jackson Pollock is a good investment.

No, there are other artists where it would take years of practice and dedication to learn to paint like that. I wouldn't claim that I could paint like Dali or Van Gogh...
Of what consequence is technical skill to anyone but the artist? Why do you hold this ridiculous 19th century cultural baggage?

That settles it. I'm not going back to work ever again. I'm gonna take a dump on a canvas, throw on some gloves and smear it around. I'm sure I can find some pretentious arse who thinks it's art and will pay me for it.
Good luck with that. Getting rich as an artist is exceedingly near-impossible.

No, we're just not so pretentious that we feel we must read some "deeper meaning" into crap.
Who is pretending that their is a deep meaning? I love how in debates on art, the conservative side always immediately descends into irrational screaming.

But his paintings actually looked like something.
Irrelevant. I'm not much of an abstraction fan, but I don't think that representationalism is inherently superior just for being recognisable.

(on a side note, I would love to be able to paint like Van Gogh... impressionism is so pretty)
Well why don't you try? It's not that hard really.

Yes, I suppose I just have to come up with something stupidly simple and sell it for millions for it to be art.
If it's so stupid as you say then I'm sure you'll have no problem getting rich.

I doubt Pollock ever sold anything he made for millions. He died over 50 years ago.

How about I take a pizza box and draw a kitty on it in crayon?
Very original. :rolleyes:

Of course, they are. They are styles that require talent, which differentiates them from the "art" produced by Pollock. Therein lies my point, which, obviously, you missed.
Of what consequence is technical skill. Artists should have the technical skills, as Pollock probably did. That doesn't mean that they have any obligation to show them off. Technical skills are only useful so far as they are subservient to one's ideas.

All it's about is Name Brand Recognition. Jackson Pollock is a Name Brand. And the high price means you can say, "Hey, I'm rich, I have a Jackson Pollock" as a means of wealth assertion. Nothing else.

Don't give me that crap about what a great artist he is. I've seen better artists scrounging for dimes on the streets. They don't have Name Brand Recognition. They don't Market themselves as well. Owning their stuff doesn't make you Rich And Important. That's the only difference.
Are you attempting to argue in favour of the labour theory of value?

I STILL need to see the Ed Harris Pollock biopic.
It's a good film.

I'll belive either of you when you take up my challenge instead of sitting back claiming you can do the same.
Ok, If I had the right paper or canvas or really anything I could paint on that wouldn't wrinkle as it dried then I'd paint half of it red, half yellow and it would look just like the painting I saw in the art gallery in Ottawa.

Well why don't you try? It's not that hard really.
Paint and canvases cost money.

Very original. :rolleyes:
What? No one has tried to sell a kindergardener's art, have they?

Ok, If I had the right paper or canvas or really anything I could paint on that wouldn't wrinkle as it dried then I'd paint half of it red, half yellow and it would look just like the painting I saw in the art gallery in Ottawa.and yours would be just that: a duplicate.
Yes, anyone COULD do it. Only one person DID do it.

It isn't all about what is on the canvas. Something inspired the artist to paint it that way. Even if I hate the piece you are talking about (and I do), there is still signifigance

Well, sarcasm is indeed very easy to spot in written text, especially when you don't know the writer.



I dislike people who buy status symbols. Vanity is a sin, you know.



Uh oh, I'm guilty as charged.



That's irrelevant since I would say the same thing if it was non-abstract art.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of sploshy bullshit art. Or art in general. I'm a low-brow. I prefer music and other things that are sexy and four dimensional and emotional.



And for Charles Manson's tooth.

People are assholes.



I'm well aware of that.


Its only a sin if you believe the bible.

Sumamba Buwhan Great!

Maybe I can sell this jpeg that I just created for like $20,000.01 - I could use a little cash and paint splatters seems pretty easy so far.

I call this one the fall of rome:

OK, if you honestly think that's in the same catagory as Pollock's work, I hearby challenge yopu to take it to a gallery and sell it. (Or an art teacher, for a critique first. You'll get laughed at less.)

Ok, If I had the right paper or canvas or really anything I could paint on that wouldn't wrinkle as it dried then I'd paint half of it red, half yellow and it would look just like the painting I saw in the art gallery in Ottawa.

Paint and canvases cost money.

The link I provided Cluichstan has very reasonably priced canvases - $10-30 US. They also have reasonably priced paints there. Get back to us when you've sold your painting for $140 million....

Paint and canvases cost money.


What? No one has tried to sell a kindergardener's art, have they?
4 years old.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Dhanat+Plewtianyingthawee/9794.html

4 years old.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Dhanat+Plewtianyingthawee/9794.html

Thats way better than Pollock's

Are you attempting to argue in favour of the labour theory of value?

No, I'm expressing disgust at people who throw away money at art just to show off what rich assholes they are. Especially stupid art, and especially absurd quantities of money.

Sheesh. You mis-read what I write a lot of the time, first you insist I support Sharia law, now you think I'm a Marxist or something.

The link I provided Cluichstan has very reasonably priced canvases - $10-30 US. They also have reasonably priced paints there. Get back to us when you've sold your painting for $140 million....
Let's put it this way, my food budget is $20 a week. I'm not spending $30 on a canvas.

I do however think that my dinosaur tea party is more awesome than that particular painting by Pollock...

Dinosaur Tea Party! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/vajaradakini/IMG_0879.jpg)

"In 1999, Professor Richard Taylor and his research team published the results of their scientific analysis that showed Pollock's dripped patterns to be fractal. Fractals consist of patterns which recur at finer and finer magnifications, building up shapes of immense complexity. Significantly, fractals are the basic building blocks of nature's scenery (for example, lightning, clouds, mountains and trees), earning the fractal the dramatic title of "the fingerprint of God". The eye-catching intricacy of even the most common fractal patterns, such as the tree shown in the left-hand figure, contrasts sharply with the simplicity of traditional man-made shapes such as circles, triangles and squares.

Christened by Taylor as "Fractal Expressionism," Pollock distilled the essence of natural scenery and expressed it on his canvases with an unmatched directness. By adopting nature's pattern generation processes, the resulting paintings didn't mimic nature but instead stood as examples of nature. The figures below compare Pollock's fractals to those found in nature. Remarkably, the analysis revealed a highly systematic fractal painting process perfected by Pollock over ten years."

http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/splash.html

Bah. I've never understood the BS that gets so much credit from modern art fans.

It's art, unquestionably (not too hard, given that art is just an act of creation that comes naturally), but is it good art?

My answer is no, but I haven't got a lot of use for the self-important nonrepresentational arts of the modern era.

Call me an old fashioned cook, I suppose, but I like art to have a meaning and a message, and not just be pretty colours. Picasso, for example, was great art. So too was Van Gogh. Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rafael? Yep.

Pollock?

Well... It's pretty.

Bah. I've never understood the BS that gets so much credit from modern art fans.

It's art, unquestionably (not too hard, given that art is just an act of creation that comes naturally), but is it good art?

My answer is no, but I haven't got a lot of use for the self-important nonrepresentational arts of the modern era.

Call me an old fashioned cook, I suppose, but I like art to have a meaning and a message, and not just be pretty colours. Picasso, for example, was great art. So too was Van Gogh. Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rafael? Yep.

Pollock?

Well... It's pretty.


I don't know the art jargon, but refuse like pollock's is, in a broader sense, postmodern art.

"Isn't it ironic, its just splatters, but it is art" &c.

Postmodernism is as much a cancer on art as it is on everything else it corrupts.

But, as with the asinine world of high fashion, some moneyed people will still perpetuate it as a matter of course.

OK, if you honestly think that's in the same catagory as Pollock's work, I hearby challenge yopu to take it to a gallery and sell it. (Or an art teacher, for a critique first. You'll get laughed at less.)


WHy? whats so bad about my art piece that you just had to bash it? I quite liked it. So yer not gunna buy it offa me I take it? Fine the price of any of my stuff is doubled for you. Besides my piece will only sell for a good profit once I die. :D

here are some other AWESOME pieces of mine :P

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/fuzzydreams.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/afishermanstale.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/4DIMENSIONS.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/motivat.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/Annsheadonapike.jpg

4 years old.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Dhanat+Plewtianyingthawee/9794.html

That kid is awesome!!!!! :)

Bah. I've never understood the BS that gets so much credit from modern art fans.

It's art, unquestionably (not too hard, given that art is just an act of creation that comes naturally), but is it good art?

My answer is no, but I haven't got a lot of use for the self-important nonrepresentational arts of the modern era.

Call me an old fashioned cook, I suppose, but I like art to have a meaning and a message, and not just be pretty colours. Picasso, for example, was great art. So too was Van Gogh. Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rafael? Yep.

Pollock?

Well... It's pretty.
That's the problem most ppl have with modern art - they compare it to previous generations of artists.
This is wrong - and not because modern artists aren't as skilled as previous artists, but because of a major technological development that occurred a bit over 100 years ago that effectively made realistic art (such as Rafael, DaVinci, Michaelangelo et al) pointless.

This was the invention of the camera.

There was no need to have someone paint your potrait anymore, when you could basically get the same effect much quicker at a much lower cost.

It was because of this (among other reasons) artists started experimenting with light, with colour and with what actually constitutes 'art'. They wanted to push the boundaries of art into areas where the camera couldn't go. Pollock's paintings reflect that - his use of colour, of light, of intensity is something a photo can't reproduce. This is what makes it great art.


Funny you should mention Picasso because he was once quoted that he spent his life trying to paint like a child.

Hey Cluichistan, here's some pictures I'm sure are more up your alley. None of that pretentious modern 'throw paint at a canvas' art crapola. Just good, decent portraits and fields of flowers and such.

http://www.museumofbadart.org/

This is my favourite:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/images/p-pop-portrait-1-lucy.jpg