Thoughts on Jackson Pollock and Modern Art

[turbo]

There is something extremely disturbing about your, and Evo's and Moonbear's anger and insults. I don't mind that you don't like Pollock but the need to use insults like "crap" "peeing" and, unbelievably "sh!t", would violate the PF guidelines against insults if applied by any of you to, say, the art I have posted.

I like Pollock and as a result, these crude remarks become indirect attacks on my sense of taste, and that of any other poster or reader who enjoys his paintings.

How about some non-insulting, non-abusive criticism, if you don't like Pollock.

OK, Pollock's "art" could have been created by a chimp with access to cans of paint. Your portraits of MIH and other lovely ladies could not. Do you see a difference? I do.

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, Pollock's "art" could have been created by a chimp with access to cans of paint. Your portraits of MIH and other lovely ladies could not. Do you see a difference? I do.

If you read the first link posted by wildman you will see that scientific analysis has demonstrated that a chimp could not make a Pollock. You are not visually sensitive to the differences between a Pollock and the average painter's drop cloth, which is fine, but you have to believe that I am as are many other people. I've practised seeing and looking at and sorting out all kinds of things that non-artists haven't as long as I've been drawing.

Take the beard, hair, and dredlocks in this portrait I did:

It requires a really extreme amount of effort to study and sort out the original in order to be able to render it as a drawing. I have a practised eye for sorting out things that are simple chaos to you, and Pollock's marks are not the same as a drop cloth to me. I actually think you or anyone could see this if you could compare side by side.

The fact there is a difference still doesn't require you to enjoy a Pollock, simply to appreciate the possibility there is a sound reason that others might.

The first time I saw a Pollock I was pleasantly surprised, and had a sort of "Oh wow! Cool!" reaction. I could see what he was up to and it was successful. I don't feel the same way about the bulk of 20th century art at all. There's quite a bit of it I think is completely unsuccessful.

Pollock is doing something extremely different than my portraits. My portraits might be compared to expository writing while his painting are stream of consciousness. Roughly.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Zooby is quite right to criticize the content of some posts as being not
acceptable. And, getting angry about what is and is not art is pointless.

[story]
Once, I was out repairing part of 15 mile long gravity feed water line that
served our "town" of 22 people. The town was in the middle of an Indian
Reservation, and we were working in a part of the res where Anglos (me) never go. We
found a thing that looked like a deformed root. To me. All of the others got
very upset, and refused to touch it.

I was told, "You don't know what that is, so you can pick it up." The
implication being that if one of the other guys picked it up they would
suffer bad consequences. I buried it. I also knew better than to ask what
it was, partly because I would not really understand the answer, anyway.
[/story]

The point of the story: this is what is going on in this thread. Maybe
folks would better off simply accepting that they may not know. In this
case I think it is not about about the religion surrounding deformed roots,
but about why one person sees art where another sees trash.

We have all been taught that art is subjective - that any criticism is
valid simply because that's what we think about it. Maybe not.

Sometimes it is a plus to know nothing about something abstract
that is very important to someone else. Just bury the conversation and
then worry about having enough water to bathe.

I, too, do not like most what I've seen of Pollock.

-- the cast iron water line was built in 1919 by the SF Railroad,
and still leaks as I speak. It's probably been leaking in one spot or
anther since 1919. This thread is like that water line - the debate on art
will never be "fixed".

 

[Cyrus]

That looks pretty structured to me:

I think pollock is art Zoob. I think turbo has missed the point of what is art entirely. Art is not about actual representation of images, (like Zoob's drawings). That would be better served by something like photography. Art has meaning and context to it, and its your job to study the art/artist to know that meaning. You don't get that from simply 'viewing' a picture online for a quick 2 seconds. I've seen one of his works in person at the smithsonian. Its def not crap.

 

[Evo]

There is something extremely disturbing about your, and Evo's and Moonbear's anger and insults. I don't mind that you don't like Pollock but the need to use insults like "crap" "peeing" and, unbelievably "sh!t", would violate the PF guidelines against insults if applied by any of you to, say, the art I have posted.

I like Pollock and as a result, these crude remarks become indirect attacks on my sense of taste, and that of any other poster or reader who enjoys his paintings.

How about some non-insulting, non-abusive criticism, if you don't like Pollock.

I regretted my harsh remarks last night after I went to bed, I apologize to anyone that was offended. But seriously, I think without the patronage of Peggy Guggenheim he may have never become famous.

I *really* don't like his splatter painting. I'm curious, did he actually have any real artistic talent?

Here are some quotes about Pollock's work.

Others such as artist, critic, and satirist Craig Brown, have been "astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velazquez."

Reynolds News in a 1959 headline said, "This is not art — it's a joke in bad taste."

I just don't think I could ever get to like something like this.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.eyes-heat.jpg

I do love the type of abstract work that zooby does, you can see where the forms grow within the canvass. I don't see anything like that in Pollock's style.

 

[turbo]

I think turbo has missed the point of what is art entirely. Art is not about actual representation of images, (like Zoob's drawings). That would be better served by something like photography. Art has meaning and context to it, and its your job to study the art/artist to know that meaning. You don't get that from simply 'viewing' a picture online for a quick 2 seconds. I've seen one of his works in person at the smithsonian. Its def not crap.

I definitely do not believe that art has to be representational, even in an impressionistic sense. I do believe that art should be able to convey something to the viewer. Dribbles and spatters just do not do it for me. Many of Pollock's paintings were semi-representational, but he is best known for the the "action" stuff that I just cannot warm up to. They may be colorful (or dark) and decorative, and intricate in their final form, but I get nothing out of them - they may as well be wallpaper. I could look at a Monet for hours from different distances and vantages - I can't say that for Pollock's spatters.

 

[Cyrus]

Good art conjures up emotion. His art made you all go into an uproar. Goal accomplished.

If this were some painting of a waterfall, you'd all say, oh, nice waterfall... end of story, ( bad art.)

 

[Evo]

Good art conjures up emotion. His art made you all go into an uproar. Goal accomplished.

Bad art conjures up emotion too. When someone paints something that reminds me of my cat's litter box after a nasty bout of diarhea, unless that was their goal, I think they've failed (at least with me).

If this were some painting of a waterfall, you'd all say, oh, nice waterfall... end of story, ( bad art.)

Only if it was a well done picture of a waterfall. Composition, artistic ability.

A skilled artist is somewhat rare, in my opinion. Someone without talent could fake a Pollock, at least enough to initially fool most people. Someone without talent could not fake a Da Vinci, Michelangelo or a Waterhouse (one of my personal favorites) for even a moment.

I do like some abstract paintings/drawings.

This is actually a photograph, but a painting like this would be something I'd like. I can feel the movement when I look at this.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I regretted my harsh remarks last night after I went to bed, I apologize to anyone that was offended. But seriously, I think without the patronage of Peggy Guggenheim he may have never become famous.

I *really* don't like his splatter painting. I'm curious, did he actually have any real artistic talent?

Here are some quotes about Pollock's work.

Others such as artist, critic, and satirist Craig Brown, have been "astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velazquez."

Reynolds News in a 1959 headline said, "This is not art — it's a joke in bad taste."

I just don't think I could ever get to like something like this.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.eyes-heat.jpg

I do love the type of abstract work that zooby does, you can see where the forms grow within the canvass. I don't see anything like that in Pollock's style.

This one I just found is a lot more accessible than the others: it has vastly bolder rhythmic structure and much juicier colors:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/20/BluePolesBigPicture.JPG

Or:

http://www2.polito.it/didattica/polymath/htmlS/Interventi/Articoli/FrattaliPollockPeiretti/Img/image003.jpg

Who knows which pic has the more faithful color.



The quotes you posted and any criticism of Pollock are, to me, simply evidence that some people don't get him, not that he's bad. I have met a lot of people in my life whose eyes glaze over when I tell them I really enjoy classical music: "How can you listen to that crap? It's soooooooo boring!" The fact that someone finds something completely inacessible to the point of feeling bored or offended doesn't constitute evidence it's bad.

These paintings are intense visual experiences to me. As one site put it they're a "Storm of Paint".

I think my colored pencil doodle things are about the same storm as Pollock's stuff; they depict the same turbulence, but in a different medium that requires much more deliberate application:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/mrzshoe/KosiclesQuip.jpg

"Kosicle's Quip" or: "When the Grapefruit Hit The Fan"

My colored pencil doodle things are like an artificial cartoon illustration of that storm, while with Pollock, you get the real storm.
-----------------

Others such as artist, critic, and satirist Craig Brown, have been "astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velazquez."

This is where much of the problem lies, I think. Pollock is not to be viewed as alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velasquez. He occupies a very much less important niche in a 100 year period of artistic depression known as the 20th century. He's just not that important. He gets an "Oh, wow! Cool!" from me, that's all. I think it's energetic, entertaining, extremely clever in concept, and it catches my eye in a good way. But it's miles away from the great masters. No comparison. At the same time it stings to hear it called "crap" when I have any sort of positive response to it.

 

[Cyrus]

No one paints pictures like the mona lisa anymore, and for good reason. Its already been done, and the point of art is not to make exact likenesses of its subject. If Da Vinci had a camera, he wouldn’t waste his time painting pictures so exact. Sure, someone could fake a Pollock, but it was Pollock who came up with that style. It’s uniquely his own. You can't say that about someone who imitates his work.

 

[Evo]

This one I just found is a lot more accessible than the others: it has vastly bolder rhythmic structure and much juicier colors:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/20/BluePolesBigPicture.JPG Ok,[/URL] now that one could be a forest fire viewed by a severly myopic person without their glasses on. I can actually pretend to see something.

The quotes you posted and any criticism of Pollock are, to me, simply evidence that some people don't get him, not that he's bad. I have met a lot of people in my life whose eyes glaze over when I tell them I really enjoy classical music: "How can you listen to that crap? It's soooooooo boring!" The fact that someone finds something completely inacessible to the point of feeling bored or offended doesn't constitute evidence it's bad.

Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. I guess what sets me off is the prices people pay for his stuff, it's obscene.

I think my colored pencil doodle things are about the same storm as Pollock's stuff; they depict the same turbulence, but in a different medium that requires much more deliberate application:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/mrzshoe/KosiclesQuip.jpg

"Kosicle's Quip" or: "When the Grapefruit Hit The Fan"

My colored pencil doodle things are like an artificial cartoon illustration of that storm, while with Pollock, you get the real storm.

See, I love your abstracts, you have a great sense for color and movement.

I've been wanting to ask you for some time now, will you start a thread of just your abstracts? I want to put them in the classics thread.

This is where much of the problem lies, I think. Pollock is not to be viewed as alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velasquez. He occupies a very much less important niche in a 100 year period of artistic depression known as the 20th century. He's just not that important. He gets an "Oh, wow! Cool!" from me, that's all. I think it's energetic, entertaining, extremely clever in concept, and it catches my eye in a good way. But it's miles away from the great masters. No comparison. At the same time it stings to hear it called "crap" when I have any sort of positive response to it.

I was being bad, and I feel bad about it. I'll never learn "may the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

 

[Huckleberry]

I think this is some interesting and appealing art. It seems to be broken into hemispheres. The left side is darker and thicker and has large red blots and the thin red line surrounding it that draw attention. The right side has thinner lines and a circle that drows attention. Almost everything about how the paint is spattered is different from one side to the other. If I was looking at an ink blot I would say that the areas where my attention are drawn resemble people. If I were to try to derive a meaning from the art itself I would say this painting could be interpreted as an expression of a family relationship. REgardless, I do find it visually stimulating despite any interpretations.

edit - The more I look at this the less random it seems to me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

See, I love your abstracts, you have a great sense for color and movement.

I've been wanting to ask you for some time now, will you start a thread of just your abstracts? I want to put them in the classics thread.

I was being bad, and I feel bad about it. I'll never learn "may the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

In that vein, it would be ever so sweet if you would change the Zooby-Bashing title of this thread to something like "Thoughts on Jackson Pollock and Modern Art" and then come to the zoobie brush shelter where we'll lie in each others arms and take a sweet refreshing nap from the stress of this tedious argumentationzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Evo]

That title had nothing to do with you. It had to do with a discussion of art arising in a thread about pee splashing outside a toilet. But if it really bothers you, I will change it.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I must confess that most Jackson Pollock paintings look like "magic eye" stereograms to me. I keep staring at them hoping the bunny or the pirate ship will magically pop out.

 

[hypnagogue]

What do you think they mean by "spatial complexity"? I can't figure out what that means.

I think they just mean the level of fine detail. The general idea is that if a picture follows a 1/f power distribution, most of the picture is composed of lower frequency (lower detail) stuff and the more refined, detailed stuff comprises relatively less of the overall picture.

 

[Astronuc]

Evo and turbo accurately reflect my thoughts, and Evo's comments were not harsh - just blunt and spot on.

Interesting that the forest fire picture is out of focus.

Personally I think my surrealistic picture (not my intent) of the orange tree looks better! I have no idea how it got out of focus, but I suspect I moved the camera just as image was being made.

 

[Evo]

I must confess that most Jackson Pollock paintings look like "magic eye" stereograms to me. I keep staring at them hoping the bunny or the pirate ship will magically pop out.

YES! I've had the same thought!

 

[slider142]

I regretted my harsh remarks last night after I went to bed, I apologize to anyone that was offended. But seriously, I think without the patronage of Peggy Guggenheim he may have never become famous.

I *really* don't like his splatter painting. I'm curious, did he actually have any real artistic talent?

Yes. http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870. Pollack studied traditional art, the works of the Masters and anatomy before he was inspired by others on his road to the pursuits which made him infamous.

I do love the type of abstract work that zooby does, you can see where the forms grow within the canvass. I don't see anything like that in Pollock's style.

The complete lack of negative or positive space was one of the themes of Pollack's works (Every art student gets drilled in making both negative and positive spaces in their work work toward their piece). By your comment, he has succeeded, at least to your eyes. Since the brain is always searching for patterns and correlation/reduction in any input, this is an interesting accomplishment. Note how Blue Poles and its creation emphasizes the antithesis of this theme.

 

[Evo]

Yes. http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870.

This is where I completely disagree. Talent cannot be learned. You can learn methods and techniques, but without talent, it'll just turn out to look like, say, a Jackson Pollock "painting".

I had been drawing portaits for years before I took my first art class. I learned some techniques that improved my drawings. Out of a class of 15, before the course was halfway through, there were only 4 people remaining. One woman that quit made a nasty remark as she passed me while I was working on my drawing, she said "I thought this class was for beginners!", in a very nasty way. Insinuating that I was somehow cheating, or had years of art classes, I guess it never occurred to her that those in the class that had life like portraits had "talent". She had no talent, her drawing was flat, it had no dimensions, the proportions were wrong, the shadings were wrong. No amount of classes could help this woman.

 

[turbo]

Good art conjures up emotion. His art made you all go into an uproar. Goal accomplished.

Not quite the point, Cyrus. It's not the art that caused contention, it's the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome that accompanies the "appreciation" of such paintings, and the wonderment that some of us feel about how these paintings can be considered "fine art".

I love art, and we would certainly be terribly diminished by its absence, but I cannot set aside my tastes and feelings about it. Pollock's "action" works do nothing for me - I cannot see the emperor's clothes. As I said earlier, I overheard a serious discussion between two well-dressed middle aged gentlemen at UMO while I was a student, and they were discussing the wonderful "dynamics" and "strength" (etc) of paintings in a public installation and saying how "important" these works were. They were large canvases painted in 2-3 bright primary colors. Perhaps the top 75% of the canvas would be bright red and the bottom portion would be bright blue with a thin horizontal yellow band at the border where the colors met. Other canvases were variations on that theme - huge expanses of one or two colors with geometric separations. I believe that the guy was Barnett Newman. They were the most minimalist, static paintings I have ever seen represented as art - though they certainly did not meet that definition for me. They were painted on canvas with brushes, but they did not meet my definition of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman

"And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all
He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall
The birds of a feather all the phonies and all of the fakes
While the dealers they get together
And they decide who gets the breaks
And who's going to be in the gallery"

Dire Straits "In the Gallery"

 

[Cyrus]

What is your definition of art then?

 

[wildman]

OK, Pollock's "art" could have been created by a chimp with access to cans of paint. Your portraits of MIH and other lovely ladies could not. Do you see a difference? I do.

A chimp could not make Pollock's art anymore than he could have made the lovely ladies. Pollock's art is highly structured, not random. The article I referenced showed that. If you have evidence to the contrary then present it, otherwise what you are saying is just personal opinion not backed up by anything.

 

[Evo]

Chimp art and Warhol's piss paintings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4109664.stm

The 3rd chimp painting.

 

[Evo]

Artwork by elephants.

http://paintings.novica.com/elephant-art/cz2nnsz43nnstz0nnrz42nn/

http://www.baliadventuretours.com/BAT-Elephant_Art_Gallery.htm

This is my favorite. http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/exh/ART21213.html

 

[slider142]

She had no talent, her drawing was flat, it had no dimensions, the proportions were wrong, the shadings were wrong. No amount of classes could help this woman.

That's an opinion. I would just say that she was not dedicated.

 

[slider142]

Chimp art and Warhol's piss paintings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4109664.stm

The 3rd chimp painting.

These are all examples of post-modern art; reactions to modern movements in the style of satirical critiques and exaggerations. Post-modernism in the form of satire is present everywhere, from literature to poetry. A critique of ultra-realistic figure painting may be a photograph with a painted frame. This does not discredit the pursuit of such an ideal, or the fact that the original pieces are considered art, and not imitations of photography.
In addition to the above disclaimer, there is clearly no relation to Pollock's work in those pieces, aside from the gestural technique used to create them.

 

[Evo]

That's an opinion. I would just say that she was not dedicated.

Trust me, this woman had zero talent and talent cannot be created from nothing. Some people have brains that simply are not wired for certain things.

 

[turbo]

What is your definition of art then?

I am a musician who used to dabble in ink-and-watercolor illustration throughout college, and I facet gemstones as a hobby and tie flies for fishing. All these can be considered artistic pursuits, though some are more technical/practical than others.

I have made people laugh, smile, reflect, and even cry with my music. I rarely recorded anything, so essentially every performance was a live one-off from the heart. I have written a few songs, but usually covered the songs of others. I usually play blues and rock, but did a cover of Dwight Yoakums "Two Doors Down" at a biker bar one time and a childhood friend of mine that I didn't know was in the crowd came up to the stage with tears in his eyes to grab my hand. Disability from a bike accident, alcoholism, and divorce had taken its toll on him and that song hit a nerve. I have an appreciation for how art joins the artist and the audience, and I value that connection. Some of the abstract expressionists and minimalists appear to be engaging in a form of artistic masturbation that precludes that connection. In this manner, they resemble the art-negating dada aficionados.

Look at some of Barnett Newman's "art" through Google Images and tell me if you think they are artistic. They may be representative of his rejection of abstract impressionism, but once that statement is made, there is nothing more to be said. That "art" has the least creativity and the least artistic content (measured by how effectively concepts, emotions, etc can be conveyed) of any visual imagery I have seen in a gallery.

 

[Astronuc]

Evo's comments on talent reminded me of a girl I knew in grade 2 who could render a person with such incredible detail. For some reason, she focussed on a soldier in combat fatigues, and that is the one picture I remember. The proportionality and perspective were perfect.

My father doodled during meetings or conferences, sometimes in the margins of his notebook. He loved to draw pastoral scenes. Sometimes I'll be driving through the country-side and images of his doodles come to mind - now that's making an impression. Pollock's stuff, while some kind of art, doesn't make much of an impression.

One of my roommates in college painted, and I'd have to say his paintings were way better than those of Pollock. In fact, my roommates painting were of the quality that would have been suitable for cover art on an LP - something along the lines of the art of Roger Dean on albums by Yes.

http://www.rogerdean.com/postcards/index.htm


Or how about this kind of art?

http://www.anniehaslam.com/ah_ahcollection.html

http://www.anniehaslam.com/ah_commissioned.html