Quote by Jackson Pollock
the_...@yahoo.com
"You shouldn't paint what you feel, you should express it in paint."
forwarded by sarpedon
Paul Mesken
Jack the Dripper must have felt confused then ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mesken, feared administrator of www.nellarteforum.com
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2004 04:45:31 -0800, the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >quote by Jackson Pollock:
> >
> >"You shouldn't paint what you feel, you should express it in paint."
> >forwarded by sarpedon
>
> Jack the Dripper must have felt confused then ;-)
>
my view is that Jackson Pollack was a better artist
than Rothko, Kline, and DeKooning rolled together
(and I have seen many original works by all four
in various musueums). It seems to me that the
best American abstract artists were Stuart Davis,
then, later, Pollack, and then none worth mentioning --
because artists such as Warhol, Thiebaud, Lichtenstein,
Ruscha, and many others, were doing far more
interesting work than any abstractionists.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
Thur
<palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104344934.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How do you rate him against Eakins?
Thur
Greenbud
: >
: > my view is that Jackson Pollack was a better artist <
:
: How do you rate him against Eakins?
: Thur
I wouldn't let Pollock drive my daughter around, but I wouldn't have let
Eakins come anywhere near her.
Greenbud
Mani Deli
the_...@yahoo.com
Paul Mesken wrote:
> Jack the Dripper must have felt confused then ;-)
Not until you do something as exciting as Blue Poles will you have the
right to a remark like this.
the sarp
the_...@yahoo.com
the sarp
the_...@yahoo.com
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Room 314
I would remain in Room 314 for a little while longer if I were you.
the sarp
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Probably I am the wrong one to ask, because
Eakins has always bored me somewhat. Yes,
he is supposedly the leading American realist
of his day, but for the most part American
realism of Eakin's day does not do a whole
lot for me. For instance, I much prefer
the art of the Hudson river school, although
most of that was pre-Akins. I also prefer
artists who came a bit later, such as Maxfield
Parrish, N. C. Wyeth and Frederic Remington.
While I realize all this gets into personal
taste, I might add that I have seen both
Eakins paintings and Pollack paintings in
museums, for the most part I have found the
Pollacks more interesting, though I find
Stuart Davis far more interesting than Pollack,
and I find quite a few of the pop artists more
interesting than Pollack also. So, while
you can see I am not a gigantic fan of
Pollack, I still would argue -- after
having personally seen quite a few of his
paintings -- that he is better than certain
comments posted in this group would have
you believe, and in fact is probably one
of America's greatest abstract artists.
Now, if you hold that all abstract art
is crummy, what I just said will be
irrelevant. Personally, though, abstract
art -- beyond that of Stuart Davis -- has
a very limited appeal for me (and so
does realist Eakins). Oh, yes, and
look at Eakins' dates: 1844 - 1916. That
makes him more or less a contemporary
of a European artist light years ahead
of Eakins, though not nearly as famous
at the moment, thanks to unreasoning
critical bias in the art establishment:
Ferdinand Khnopff, 1856 - 1921.
Well, I said I was probably not the
best person to ask...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
> Thur
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
In all due respect, I must take you task over
that one, Mr. Deli. In fact, I see real value
in those words. If you "paint what you feel"
that might not be much, because if you feel
blue, the result might me nothing more than
a canvas with blue paint slathered over it.
On the other hand, if you express your feelings
in paint, the result might be something very
worthwhile. After all (assuming for the
sake of argument that the Sarpy One has
not misquoted Pollack) to EXPRESS is not
the same as "try or attempt to express.
There is an analogy with writing: bad writing
is not usually caused by people expressing
themselves. More commonly, bad writing
(and likely bad painting too!) is caused by
people TRYING to express themselves -- and
failing miserably...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
keith o'connor
escapes me:
"Drawing is not form it is the expression of form"
--
take care: Keith
<the_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104324331.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob C
>>>"You shouldn't paint what you feel, you should express it in paint."
>>>forwarded by sarpedon
>>>
> If you "paint what you feel"
> that might not be much, because if you feel
> blue, the result might me nothing more than
> a canvas with blue paint slathered over it.
>
> On the other hand, if you express your feelings
> in paint, the result might be something very
> worthwhile.
I would interpret the original statement to mean that "paint what you
feel" is the attempt to find a visual representation of your feeling and
then paint it. Thus the means of expression is in the selection and
formation of the image, not in the actual act of painting itself.
Presumably, Pollock felt that his action paintings where a means of
expressing his feelings during the actual act of painting. Thus his
feelings would be expressed by showing what resulted from the
uninhibited expression of them rather than through a visual
representation of them.
- Bob C.
zeno
Bob C wrote:
> palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> >>>"You shouldn't paint what you feel, you should express it in paint."
> >>>forwarded by sarpedon
> >>>
>
> > If you "paint what you feel"
> > that might not be much, because if you feel
> > blue, the result might me nothing more than
> > a canvas with blue paint slathered over it.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you express your feelings
> > in paint, the result might be something very
> > worthwhile.
>
> I would interpret the original statement to mean that "paint what you
> feel" is the attempt to find a visual representation of your feeling and
> then paint it. Thus the means of expression is in the selection and
> formation of the image, not in the actual act of painting itself.
> Presumably, Pollock felt that his action paintings where a means of
> expressing his feelings during the actual act of painting. Thus his
> feelings would be expressed by showing what resulted from the
> uninhibited expression of them rather than through a visual
> representation of them.
>
> - Bob C.
Precisely. Nice to see some intelligence here amongst the fool's gold.
zeno
Thur
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:41D45F20...@sonic.net...
You might like to consider this.
All painters are expressing something, whether conciously or not.
Is the total expression of an artist's inner self a suitable subject
for a work of art?
Firstly, there is no way of interpretation, since there is no common
language, so that happy/sad/angry etc has no common visual
language.
Secondly, and speaking for myself, when viewing such works, I get
a strong feeling of being a Peeping Tom or like those people
hypnotized by disaster who slow down to watch an ugly accident
on a road.
Surely, it should be how an artist feels about aspects of life that his
viewers can share?
So for example if a train station is painted, then his feelings can be
visually "written" about and on the subject?
Viewers who "know" what a Train Station is, will immediately see
what the artist has done to their vision, and can begin to feed from it.
All the Best for the New Year,
Thur (amateur/hobby artist/Sunday artist
with personality defects and total ignorance)
Mr Clarke
Was everything that JP said, recorded?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Bob C
>
> You might like to consider this.
> All painters are expressing something, whether conciously or not.
> Is the total expression of an artist's inner self a suitable subject
> for a work of art?
I don't see why not. I might use that as a subject for my own work if I
had any idea how to do it or what it actually meant! :)
> Firstly, there is no way of interpretation, since there is no common
> language, so that happy/sad/angry etc has no common visual
> language.
Actually, there are common reactions to many elements of composition.
Bright red excites, pastel green soothes; horizontal lines stabilize,
diagonal ones energize. So even an artist working in a completely
non-representational manner can still construct an image which expresses
feelings and emotions. Naturally, these reactions are subjective, but
the same can be true of reactions to specific subject matter.
> Secondly, and speaking for myself, when viewing such works, I get
> a strong feeling of being a Peeping Tom or like those people
> hypnotized by disaster who slow down to watch an ugly accident
> on a road.
I would consider a work of art to be successful, at least in some
respects, if it is able to evoke those emotions - even if that may not
be what I want to get out of art. Just because a work is successful or
good doesn't mean that I have to like it.
> Surely, it should be how an artist feels about aspects of life that his
> viewers can share?
I think there are many things an artist might want to share. In trying
to interpret the quote, I wasn't making any value judgement on it. I
actually don't agree with the Pollock quote as stated. Where he says
"you shouldn't paint what you feel..." he really should have said "I
don't paint what I feel...". I rarely agree with people who make
statements about what artists should or should not do. I don't know
enough about Pollock, however, to know if he was really suggesting that
this is what is right for all artists.
What I do like about the quote is that it made me think about a concept
I had not really even been aware of before - namely, the difference
between expressing oneself in image and in the actual act of painting
Pollock certainly did not take it to the extreme, however. He clearly
had an idea of what kind of image would emerge and was interacting with
that image as he created it, so in effect he was attempting to balance
these two different approaches to expression, and I think this is why I
find the resulting images to be so visually stimulating. For the record,
I much prefer artists working with images rather than concept or direct
reaction to feelings, because that's what I respond to best - but I'm
still glad that many different artists choose to do many different things.
> So for example if a train station is painted, then his feelings can be
> visually "written" about and on the subject?
The most talented artists will use compositional elements (as described
above) to put a lot of feeling and expression into the train station -
feelings which may express something specific about the artist's
relation to the train station, something abstract about their visual
reaction to the train station, or something else entirely. It may just
be their way of saying "Happy New Year!".
- Bob C.
zeno
Janemoth21
>my view is that Jackson Pollack was a better artist
>than Rothko, Kline, and DeKooning rolled together
>(and I have seen many original works by all four
>in various musueums).
Mr. Palmer, what criteria do you use to evaluate the merits of abstract art?
Is it that the business of the Pollack makes you feel that you are looking at a
satellite photo of a planet with multi-hued volcanism, so it holds your
attention more? All abstract art seems to impart a mood to me (as does an
Edward Gory drawing, a Turner, or the Lemony Snickets movie poster) but I
really can't say why one abstract is better than the other.