Thoughts on Jackson Pollock and Modern Art

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Jackson Pollock and his contributions to modern art, particularly focusing on the nature of his work, its psychological implications, and the broader context of male artists in the art world. Participants explore various interpretations of Pollock's techniques and the cultural significance of his style, as well as the concept of the "bad boy" artist.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Pollock's work is a creative response to the restrictions of representational art, emphasizing the exploration of paint as a medium rather than a means to depict reality.
  • Others suggest that Pollock's art reflects a psychological edge, celebrating the breaking of societal taboos related to spilling and chaos.
  • A few participants compare Pollock to other "bad boy" artists, asserting that male artists often navigate an erotic atmosphere within the art world.
  • Some express skepticism about the notion that all male artists fit the "bad boy" archetype, suggesting that motivations and backgrounds vary widely among artists.
  • There is a discussion about the perceived randomness in Pollock's work, with some asserting that it possesses a structured complexity that merits deeper appreciation.
  • Participants note that Pollock's early works were representational and received better acceptance, contrasting with his later abstract style.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on Pollock's artistic intentions and the implications of his style. There is no consensus on the characterization of male artists as "bad boys," and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the motivations behind their work and the interpretation of Pollock's techniques.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal interpretations of Pollock's work and the art world, which may depend on individual experiences and definitions of terms like "bad boy." There are also unresolved discussions about the nature of randomness in Pollock's paintings and the evolution of his style from representational to abstract.

  • #91
zoobyshoe said:
Please, Astronuc. How much harsher can you get than calling something "bull sh!t"? It violates the PF guideleines against profanity.
If you had bothered to read my comment, I was saying that being able to tell what percentage of spatters and drippings were random was BS as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't referring to Pollack or his work, but to the comment about some study. I deleted my remark if it offends you so much, but if you go back and look at my post, you'll see you misinterpreted it.

Turbo called Pollock "crap". That's harsh.
And to a lot of people, that is a common opinion of his work. People have a right to their opinion. Now if they were saying you were cr@p for liking it, that would be different.

Moonbear grossly insulted my thoughts on Pollock by sequestering them under her editorial comment "Art is like peeing on a fly". This violates the PF injunction against "snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member..." She has gathered all my well thought out remarks on Pollock and put them in a separate thread upon which she comments: "Art is like peeing on a fly."
She did no such thing. You had started discussing art in a thread about peeing in a toilet. She thought the discussion merited being moved out of that thread and created a new thread to continue your discussion. She was not directing anything at you personally, it was actually a compliment. You seem to be mistaking everything as an attack on you and that's not true. I apologized for being harsh with my opinions. Did you apologize to Moonbear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
cyrusabdollahi said:
By your definition, those are your hobbies. Those are not art. Art has a purpose and context. These have no purpose, message if you will, or context for society to interpret. Its just something you do because you enjoy it. Nothing wrong with it, but I would not put that in the realm of art.

Cyrus, I apologize for my rudeness. I was pretty frustrated because you did not bother to address a single salient point in my post, including the requirement that art somehow connect the creator and the viewer.

As a musician, I performed many hundreds of times, and hosted open-mic jams so that non-professionals would have opportunities to perform and hone their skills. You can call it a hobby, if you want, but it's surely art to me, even when I was being well-paid to do it. If nothing is communicated between the artist and the person viewing/hearing the performance/painting, then there is minimal art content in my opinion. By the way, you did not tell me if you thought Barnett Newman's paintings were art or not. Google Image is just a click away.
 
  • #93
Evo said:
She did no such thing. You had started discussing art in a thread about peeing in a toilet. She thought the discussion merited being moved out of that thread and created a new thread to continue your discussion. She was not directing anything at you personally, it was actually a compliment. You seem to be mistaking everything as an attack on you and that's not true. I apologized for being harsh with my opinions. Did you apologize to Moonbear?
Well, I haven't apologized, but I'll give her a compliment instead:

Moonbear's posts are like peeing on a fly.
 
  • #94
zoobyshoe said:
Moonbear grossly insulted my thoughts on Pollock by sequestering them under her editorial comment "Art is like peeing on a fly". This violates the PF injunction against "snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member..." She has gathered all my well thought out remarks on Pollock and put them in a separate thread upon which she comments: "Art is like peeing on a fly."

Since you won't drop this...the title I had given the thread was based entirely on the thread it came from...one about urinal splatter! That you seek to attribute some deeper, hidden, emotional meaning to that title perhaps is appropriate to the rest of the discussion in this thread anyway, but I'll leave that for others to decide for themselves. And I clearly indicated right in the beginning of the thread here that the original title was one I took credit for, and was not your choice so there would be no mistaking that.

Critique of Pollock's work is not an insult to yourself unless you are Pollock. People are free to critique works in the public realm.
 
  • #95
Time out!
 

Similar threads

High School Explanation of how spin art machine works
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
I could really use some help picking my optional module [GameDev]
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K