Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 i dig it:love: i wouldn't pay for a real one though. perhaps buy paint and fling it at my own canvas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Trauma_Luna Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 nay, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Yay. They're gnarly in person, I saw one at the Art Institute a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members orangesix Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 yep. im sure you can just buy some paint and re-create a Pollock whilst foregoing the years of personal torment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Yay.They're gnarly in person, I saw one at the Art Institute a few weeks ago. id bet the texture really pops:cool: i have only seen photos of them in books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 yep. im sure you can just buy some paint and re-create a Pollock whilst foregoing the years of personal torment. no but i can randomly fling paint on canvas and call it "art":thu: i might say it is a tribute to him but not a re-creation of a Pollock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Muddslide Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I admire Pollock. His work was a logical progression, as was Warhol's soup cans, Mark Rothko's color fields, Franz Klein's macro-line work and Marcel Duchamp's "found object as art." You can debate the merits of it. You can debate its subjective aesthetic qualities, but ultimately, somebody had to do it. It was an inevitability. Just happened to fall to Pollock...his brain was in the right mode at the right time to receive the transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members orangesix Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 no but i can randomly fling paint on canvas and call it "art":thu: i might say it is a tribute to him but not a re-creation of a Pollock. Your intentions are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Your intentions are wrong. im wrong for admiring abstract art, or attempting to make my own in the style of someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Muddslide Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 im wrong for admiring abstract art, or attempting to make my own in the style of someone else? I think he means for just generally being a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I think he means for just generally being a douche. but im not a douche, im a jerk, and from time to time a pompous dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roger in the sky Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I admire Pollock. His work was a logical progression, as was Warhol's soup cans, Mark Rothko's color fields, Franz Klein's macro-line work and Marcel Duchamp's "found object as art." You can debate the merits of it. You can debate its subjective aesthetic qualities, but ultimately, somebody had to do it. It was an inevitability. Just happened to fall to Pollock...his brain was in the right mode at the right time to receive the transmission. +alot sure it's all trite NOW, sure "i cloud do that" but you have to realise that at the time NOBODY had done that before, it blew people's minds, and it took alot of balls to back it up. ps: pollack's wife was totally the better painter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 His work was a logical progression, as was Warhol's soup cans, Mark Rothko's color fields, Franz Klein's macro-line work and Marcel Duchamp's "found object as art." IMO, there's no progression in his pieces -- no journey or message. They just kind of sit there and say, "Here I am.". I like art that guides the mind, drawing you in an out of its subtleties and themes. For me, Pollack's art doesn't do that. And, like wine or music, it's all about personal preference. Now dogs playing poker, that's some high class art! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SunofNothing Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 a soft nay While it's easy to say that Pollock's works were a natural continuation of abstract art it's just as easy to say that work was only popular because it was praised by the right critics. I think it could just as easy be hanging in a cheap hotel, had he not been graced with the right praise. I prefer Rothko in the abstract realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 While it's easy to say that Pollock's works were a natural continuation of abstract art it's just as easy to say that work was only popular because it was praised by the right critics. I think it could just as easy be hanging in a cheap hotel, had he not been graced with the right praise. This could be said about a lot of art, IMO! Personally I like Pollock don't adore, wouldn't buy, probably wouldn't go see. I don't care enough about visual art to have a very involved view; so if it cools cool or good I like it. I like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Oddsock Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Yea. I don't know much about visual art either, but that looks interesting and aesthetically pleasing to me. I like how by focusing your eye on various colors and lines in it you can see different parts of it as different depths into the field. I doubt that it is unique now, but I don't think that matters. There are painters that fake famous works perfectly, but we don't consider the fakes to be the same worth as the original. Some fakers have even faked up "unknown" works by famous artists by using their style, but we don't consider the fakes to be in the same class as the real ones. The technical ability required to do that might be pretty great, but it doesn't matter. So just the same, Pollock's stuff might be easy to duplicate or to recreate his style, but that doesn't reduce the value of it. Just like many of us don't think that technical difficultly is required for good music, I don't think it is for any art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I don't think it was so much "divine inspiration" that made him do it first, maybe he was the first to know he could bilk people out of money for what he called "art." Reminds me of the woman framing and selling her daughter's finger paintings as "art". Or the kid who'd run his bike tires in paint and drive over a canvas a few times and sell it. Decorative: yes.Art: technicallySkilled art: my vote is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Aleatoric expression is the essence of abstract improvisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonjohn Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I don't think it was so much "divine inspiration" that made him do it first, maybe he was the first to know he could bilk people out of money for what he called "art." Reminds me of the woman framing and selling her daughter's finger paintings as "art". Or the kid who'd run his bike tires in paint and drive over a canvas a few times and sell it.Decorative: yes.Art: technicallySkilled art: my vote is no. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rowka Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Wait... Are we talkingabout this guy... or this guy... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterhinkydink Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted October 16, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members El Glom-o Posted October 16, 2008 Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 I might have to get a Polock Johnny for lunch today. www.polockjohnnys.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2008 the bass forum always brings the subject back to fishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.