Why is Pollack's art considered 'schizophrenic' compared to Kandinsky's?

[Evo]

I kind of like the cactus dance, too.
This is one of the funnier roadside sculptures I've seen, although the chicken produced here is certainly worthy of celebrating. I wonder if people meet or marry by this.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9484/dsc00401il6.th.jpg

I love the chicken! I'll trade you the chicken for the blue abomination.

Yeah Moonbear, the blue mess would be appropriate in a children's play park, not on a street corner.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I love the chicken! I'll trade you the chicken for the blue abomination.

I'm very fond of that chicken too, but would happily swap for your blue abomination. Sadly, it would not be up to me. Perhaps you could take this up with the citizens of Bresse.

 

[Moonbear]

I love the chicken! I'll trade you the chicken for the blue abomination.

Yeah Moonbear, the blue mess would be appropriate in a children's play park, not on a street corner.

Maybe you could combine the two and have a Chicken Dance. <ba dum bum...groan>

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Maybe you could combine the two and have a Chicken Dance. <ba dum bum...groan>

Alas, I have no equally witty reply to that, but my inspiration may be stiffled by my inability to see how the title 'dance' relates to the blue cactus.

The more someone gets 'into' art, the more 'popular' forms (realism, for example) may become more common and less interesting. 'New' or different becomes more interesting--the one problem there, I see, is that sometimes, 'new'/'different' can be sometimes over hyped and given more attention/over-praised for its peculiarity rather than its importance/beauty.

Realism is generally accepted by many due to the basic idea that it is 'recognizable'--a painting of a cow doesn't require much thought. Pollack's work was a step in the progression that had been going on for a while, and was (and is) accepted as that 'next' step in that specific area of the 'the artistic expression'.

Yes, I think Pollack’s art is accepted as the ‘next’ step in this area, a continuation of surrealist ideas regarding unconsciousness, combined with Native American influences, etc., to create visual art while painting in a trance-like state.

And, speaking of ‘dance’, I find Pollack’s works interesting in another way, too- a continuation against Kantian autonomous ideals, in that the creative act itself is highlighted and has been spoken of as a trance-like dance, distinguished from the painting itself. Whereas Kandinsky had attempted to paint music, (and the blue abomination is entitled 'dance') the large canvas on the ground enabled this trance-like dance with paints that is (semiotically interestingly) diagrammatised by the more secondary visual art.

 

[Evo]

Actully the blue thing "represents" a dance, the title of the sculpture is "shim, sham, shimmy", it's not by Pollock, it's by some guy in Texas.

 

[Cyrus]

Ewwwww...that chicken is terrible! There is nothing creative about a big chicken.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Actully the blue thing "represents" a dance, the title of the sculpture is "shim, sham, shimmy", it's not by Pollock, it's by some guy in Texas.

Yes, I didn't think the blue sculpture was by Pollock, nor do I know who made the big chicken, sorry if I was confusing by trying to say too much and link it all together. Thanks for the extra info on the 'shim, sham, shimmy', not that it has illuminated me much more!

Ewwwww...that chicken is terrible! There is nothing creative about a big chicken.

Personally, I think it is delightful when animals are honourably represented, and also funny when done incongurously. A big metallic chicken in the midst of the French countryside is unexpectedly bizarre, and so unlike usual views of chickens that are fairly mundane, soft, little creatures, synonomous with cowardice and sillyness. On a similar note, but moving away from sculpture, I also like the gorilla playing the drums with so much character in the Cadbury advertisemnent, and I recently saw this and thought it was sweet and hysterical.

 

[rewebster]

It's not that I don't like or appreciate Pollack's works, it's that I like other works more. A lot of 'jokes' were made about Pollack's work, as there has been about a lot of other 'art' that has been made and/or exhibited.

Do I have anything like Pollack's work hanging in my house?--no. Would I put the chicken, or the cactus in my yard? Well, I put the cactus in first about 100 times over the chicken, but that's from many, many years of dealing in one way or another with art, and I have a different appreciation for art that some others may have.

 

[Evo]

I'm with fi, the chicken rules!

 

[rewebster]

I'm with fi, the chicken rules!

Roosters rule!

 

[rewebster]

I'm going to start a thread (one of these days) about "ART"----sometime, after I get rid of these aches and have a clear head (a clear head in a couple of aspects)

 

[fuzzyfelt]

It's not that I don't like or appreciate Pollack's works, it's that I like other works more. A lot of 'jokes' were made about Pollack's work, as there has been about a lot of other 'art' that has been made and/or exhibited.

Do I have anything like Pollack's work hanging in my house?--no. Would I put the chicken, or the cactus in my yard? Well, I put the cactus in first about 100 times over the chicken, but that's from many, many years of dealing in one way or another with art, and I have a different appreciation for art that some others may have.

I was being one-sided about things I think are interesting about Pollock's works, I have some problems with his work too.

I'm with fi, the chicken rules!

Roosters rule!

Sweet!

I'm going to start a thread (one of these days) about "ART"----sometime, after I get rid of these aches and have a clear head (a clear head in a couple of aspects)

I look forward to it, hope you feel better.

 

[rewebster]

can someone move this to GD?

----------------

who moved this (so graciously)?

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry, its just a big metal chicken. That is something anyone could make and takes little/no imagination. You just look and say, "oh, its a big metal chicken"...

 

[rewebster]

Picasso rooster (not chicken)

 

[Evo]

Picasso rooster (not chicken)

That's beautiful.

 

[rewebster]

yes--simple, but not too simple

 

[Evo]

I love the lines, I can feel the lightness of the strokes that were delivered quickly and with confidence. I like that feeling from a picture.

 

[rewebster]

early Pollack 1946

Kandinsky


here's a nice brief overview:
http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/index.html


--------------------------------

if you can use your imagination--you may be able to see a chicken in the Pollack painting

 

[Cyrus]

I like the picture of the rooster. But I don't like that big metal monstrosity.

 

[Evo]

These make me feel like I am looking into a diseased mind. Dark, oppressive, angry, inability to separate their thoughts into meaning, it's a jumble of fragments of thought, failing to deliver a coherent thought.

The Kandinsky seems to show more control of his thoughts. The term I'd use for Pollock's paintings would be "schizophrenic art".

 

[rewebster]

These make me feel like I am looking into a diseased mind. Dark, oppressive, angry, inability to separate their thoughts into meaning, it's a jumble of fragments of thought, failing to deliver a coherent thought.

The Kandinsky seems to show more control of his thoughts. The term I'd use for Pollock's paintings would be "schizophrenic art".

A lot of artists are a little 'off'---some more than others----why would some of the 'first' ones crawl 2 miles into a dark cave to 'scribble' on the ceiling?