jackson pollock good artist? and gaza's action post.
Man...an ancient aka Sir Anthony Gazzo
visual equivalent of jazz, where improvisation and instinctively bold and
brilliant sense of color and form is necessary.
but i don't understand much of modern art. like koonig and warhol, i watch
their stuff and think i can do that.
my favorite painters are botticelli, french and german symbolists,
waterhouse, wyeth except when he drew that ugly woman, and some of gogh's
wilder stuff.
don't care much for rembrandt, goya, caravaggio, bosch, etc.
love keinichi sonoda who did the character designs for bubblegum crisis.
anyway, like i promised, here is an example of action posting.
JvjienknJIJVKnmkvjien$$^T%$jV940v984eh
**ifn4ejv09e4--ijf43#@%Ru0vj34lk2h0vh0)0Upjf09u4;TM0v94j<v,odjkl,v]\
7%%$#89vu943ojU)(Jj0JU09j)uJ(*Y(&J0709u)(&)(UOJ()jm ;lmvpdmfkl;jpvj
jiujfe9ujjjpjpj++IIj++Pu97899*NKNC*$*&^8gc2lhjo8ahsefoih@#$#$
vic890hjeoiwhgazaiscoolaovjj340oyv098qo4i9$##$%@#Vj43
is it a work of art? how much do you think it'll fetch on ebay?
Man...an ancient aka Sir Anthony Gazzo
"Man...an ancient aka Sir Anthony Gazzo" <mananci...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:g6nj6.73224$Y6.21...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
SJRaff
>i don't get action painting. but i guess its defenders could argue it's the
>visual equivalent of jazz, where improvisation and instinctively bold and
>brilliant sense of color and form is necessary.
Well, some may defend Pollock's paintings by inciting jazz, but I think they
miss one major point: I could never pick up a saxaphone and play the sizzling
way Coletrane did, or similarly blow through a trumpet and create such sublime
works like Davis' Kind of Blue or Sketches in Spain. But I sure as hell could
take a few buckets of paint and some brushes and create the mess Pollock did,
without there being any noticable difference. Just because he was troubled
doesn't mean he is an artist.
Stephen Rafferty
Los Angeles
Tiocfaidh Ar La
Dawn Taylor
>I could never pick up a saxaphone and play the sizzling
>way Coletrane did, or similarly blow through a trumpet and create such sublime
>works like Davis' Kind of Blue or Sketches in Spain. But I sure as hell could
>take a few buckets of paint and some brushes and create the mess Pollock did,
>without there being any noticable difference. Just because he was troubled
>doesn't mean he is an artist.
Y'know, if you just don't get or don't like a certain school of art,
it's okay to say so. But the "my kid could have painted that" sort of
criticism just makes one look like a horse's ass.
It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
the equal of Keith Haring.
Most importantly, if you don't understand the historical context of an
artist like Pollock, you have no business critiquing his work at all.
Pollock studied under Thomas Hart Benton, was influenced by Mexican
muralists painters like Rivera and Orozco. He chose to break away from
traditional art, introduce entirely new concepts and established
himself as a great name in abstract painting.
Pollock was a pioneer, a maverick, and a groundbreaker. It may just
look like a lot of drippy paint to you, Mr. Rafferty, but that's
because you don't understand what you're looking at. Sort of like
someone who's never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright touring Falling Water
and asking where the hell a fella would put their La-Z-Boy recliner.
Dawn
----------------
"I love to smoke. I love to eat red meat. I'll only eat red meat
that comes from cows who smoke, ok!? Special cows they grow in
Virginia with voice boxes in their necks." -- Denis Leary
Jeffrey Davis
SJRaff wrote:
>
> >
> >i don't get action painting. but i guess its defenders could argue it's the
> >visual equivalent of jazz, where improvisation and instinctively bold and
> >brilliant sense of color and form is necessary.
>
> Well, some may defend Pollock's paintings by inciting jazz
And you know how bad those guys get when they're wound up.
Andrew
: On 19 Feb 2001 10:12:16 GMT, sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) wrote:
:>I could never pick up a saxaphone and play the sizzling
:>way Coletrane did, or similarly blow through a trumpet and create such sublime
:>works like Davis' Kind of Blue or Sketches in Spain. But I sure as hell could
:>take a few buckets of paint and some brushes and create the mess Pollock did,
:>without there being any noticable difference. Just because he was troubled
:>doesn't mean he is an artist.
: Y'know, if you just don't get or don't like a certain school of art,
: it's okay to say so. But the "my kid could have painted that" sort of
: criticism just makes one look like a horse's ass.
: It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
: buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
: with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
: together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
: and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
: the equal of Keith Haring.
No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
I've seen art exhibits with a nail hammered into a piece of wood (not
an oversize nail in a painting - just an ol' block of wood with a nail
in it) and paintings of solid blue exhibited as some sort of new
achievements. Maybe these are extremes in local galleries that
wouldn't rate in the larger art world, but they make some of us much
more cynical about "art" in general, and I can see how people might
say the same about Pollock's paintings.
Ed Harris will probably go on about what a genius Pollock was,
considering what he gave up to MAKE this film; but one theme in the
film, as I mentioned before, is how important getting the right people
to like your art is more important than talent if you want to be
successful.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
andr...@bizave.com ** Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
The Movie Pundit - http://www.moviepundit.com
Dawn Taylor
>Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>: Y'know, if you just don't get or don't like a certain school of art,
>: it's okay to say so. But the "my kid could have painted that" sort of
>: criticism just makes one look like a horse's ass.
>
>: It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
>: buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
>: with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
>: together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
>: and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
>: the equal of Keith Haring.
>
>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
That can be said about a lot of art forms. All of them, actually. But
the minority of works that fall into that category neither negate the
entire form, nor do they really have much to do with what Mr. Rafferty
said about Jackson Pollock.
>I've seen art exhibits with a nail hammered into a piece of wood (not
>an oversize nail in a painting - just an ol' block of wood with a nail
>in it) and paintings of solid blue exhibited as some sort of new
>achievements. Maybe these are extremes in local galleries that
>wouldn't rate in the larger art world,
What downtown Portland galleries consider "art" is, by and large, a
travesty.
>But they make some of us much
>more cynical about "art" in general, and I can see how people might
>say the same about Pollock's paintings.
We've all seen bad art. Say you chat with an acquaintance and it turns
out the only Woody Allen movie she'd ever seen was "Small Time
Crooks". Would you feel she was correct in asserting that he's a lousy
filmmaker? Or would you point out that she doesn't have enough data to
make an educated statement in that regard?
What if the only Peckinpah movie you'd ever seen was "Convoy"? Would
you have a valid point when you called him a hack - and then added,
"Give me a camera, a semi and some lights and I could make a movie as
good as Peckinpah"? Or would you be corrected for your ignorant and
silly statment?
>Ed Harris will probably go on about what a genius Pollock was,
>considering what he gave up to MAKE this film;
If Ed Harris goes on about what a genius Pollock was, its probably
because Pollock fits the definition of a genius.
>but one theme in the
>film, as I mentioned before, is how important getting the right people
>to like your art is more important than talent if you want to be
>successful.
If you want to be financially successful in the art world, yes, that's
true. But it doesn't mean that talent is unimportnat, nor does it mean
that because you don't personally care for a piece of art that it's
simplistic crap.
As for other, non-finacial, successes - there *are* other ways to
measure success, ones that have a lot less to do with kissing the
asses of the cultural elite.
SJRaff
>It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
>buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
>with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
>together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
>and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
>the equal of Keith Haring.
Of course missing the point that everyone but Pollock above had also OBVIOUS
technical skills also. I love the defense of Pollock and modern artists "you
don't get it, therefore you have no valid claim to criticize". Which in
debate, to use your phrase, makes someone look like a horses ass. It just hold
no weight.
I've seen people who have had almost no artistic education create paintings
almost exactly like Pollock's. If anyone in an art gallery had seen them up
next to Pollock's they would not be able to tell the difference.
Please don't pretend something exists within Pollock's splashes that don't. If
there is, let us know. Somehow I feel this valid request will be tossed away
with the usual, "why waste my time with someone who doesn't understand".
Dawn Taylor
>>
>>It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
>>buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
>>with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
>>together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
>>and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
>>the equal of Keith Haring.
>
>Of course missing the point that everyone but Pollock above had also OBVIOUS
>technical skills also. I love the defense of Pollock and modern artists "you
>don't get it, therefore you have no valid claim to criticize". Which in
>debate, to use your phrase, makes someone look like a horses ass. It just hold
>no weight.
My statement still stands: "if you just don't get or don't like a
certain school of art, it's okay to say so. But the 'my kid could have
painted that' sort of criticism just makes one look like a horse's
ass."
Perhaps you do "get it" and just don't like it. But considering at
this end of this post (see below) you say "please don't pretend
something exists within Pollock's splashes that don't," that's
extremely doubtful.
>I've seen people who have had almost no artistic education create paintings
>almost exactly like Pollock's. If anyone in an art gallery had seen them up
>next to Pollock's they would not be able to tell the difference.
Yeah, and your six-year-old is a Cubist. As I said in my previous
post, without any knowledge of the background of the artist (were you
aware that he was taught by the great American Regionalist painter
Thomas Hart Benton - a man who hated abstract art? Or that he painted
murals for the Federal Art Project? Have you ever read anything about
Abstract Expressionism at all?) you can't put his work into context.
And, frankly, just the fact that you dismiss an entire school of art
as "splashes" - and as something that you yourself could do with a
bucket of paint - pretty much reinforces that you haven't an inkling
what you're talking about.
>Please don't pretend something exists within Pollock's splashes that don't. If
>there is, let us know.
Pollock was influenced not only by Surrealism, but he was fascinated
with American Indian art. It's said that his observation of the method
used in Indian sand painting - as well as the Surrealist idea of
"psychic automatism'' (direct expression of the unconscious) -
inspired him to do his action paintings.
Pollock was the first painter to use the "all-over" approach to
painting, putting his canvas on the floor and pouring paint onto it.
That may not be significant to you, but so what - Pollock (let me
repeat this) was the first to do it. It was a huge break from the
conventions of painting: no central motif, no brushes, no palette. It
was groundbreaking in a way that our tiny little year-2001 minds can't
possibly grasp.
Your limited ability to view his art is certainly not uncommon - a lot
of his contemporaries felt the same way. Pollock challenged their
perceptions and sensibilities, offering beautiful chaos that confused
the hell out of them. Keep in mind that when he was doing his action
paintings in the late 1940s, that sort of thinking was radical and
new. It was right after WWII, and most of the population wanted to be
told what to do. They had just come out of a very scary time and were
conditioned to follow orders for their own safety - and they wanted
nice, safe, representative art that didn't rock the boat.
You want to know if there's "something that exists in Pollock's
splashes"? Take a look at one of his great action paintings, "Lavender
Mist":
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/pollock.lavender-mist.jpg
At first, there's chaos - but be aware of how your eye travels across
the painting as you follow the rhythm of the black slashes - there's
an unruly balance, a soothing beauty in the colors that ought to be at
odds with the discordant splatter of the paint. And keep in mind that
this *was a whole new way of looking at a painting* that people hadn't
experienced before. He didn't just dribble paint - he made people's
brains work differently, literally changing their perceptions. A lot
of people didn't like it, and a lot of people didn't get it.
>Somehow I feel this valid request will be tossed away
>with the usual, "why waste my time with someone who doesn't understand".
Actually, I wonder why I so often waste my time on Usenet with people
who seem to be proud of their ignorance. Who not only have no interest
in expanding their horizons, but are actually arrogant about how
limited they are.
In the words of the Human Ton's puppet friend, Handy: "Read a book!"
Man...an Ancient race...
"SJRaff" <sjr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010219051216...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
even if we let people create art in this manner, the styles will differ
radically as even spontaneous actions are governed by hardwired mental
structures.
give xylophones to a bunch of untrained people and some people will
instinctively create interesting sounds. others wont'
Man...an Ancient race...
"Dawn Taylor" <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:3a914420....@news.pacifier.com...
ever read the painted word by tom wolfe?
Man...an Ancient race...
> >
>
> I've seen people who have had almost no artistic education create
paintings
> almost exactly like Pollock's. If anyone in an art gallery had seen them
up
> next to Pollock's they would not be able to tell the difference.
>
ah!!! but pollock thought of it first. once done, it's easy to imitate.
like we can all perform rock music but little richard and chuck berry
deserve the credit for creating it.
the thing about modern art is greatness can't be replicated. novelty and
originality are key and pollock had it.
i like his work.
and by the way, any reasonably trained sax player can do coltrane.
coltrane's greatness was creating that new and bold style of playing. he did
it first.
to go where no one's been before. that's greatness.
Man...an Ancient race...
> On 19 Feb 2001 18:38:05 GMT, sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
> >>buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
> >>with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
> >>together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
> >>and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
> >>the equal of Keith Haring.
> >
> >Of course missing the point that everyone but Pollock above had also
OBVIOUS
> >technical skills also. I love the defense of Pollock and modern artists
"you
> >don't get it, therefore you have no valid claim to criticize". Which in
> >debate, to use your phrase, makes someone look like a horses ass. It
just hold
> >no weight.
>
> My statement still stands: "if you just don't get or don't like a
> certain school of art, it's okay to say so. But the 'my kid could have
> painted that' sort of criticism just makes one look like a horse's
> ass."
i wouldn't go so far as to say 'horse's ass'. but i often hear people who
won't give art a chance by coming up with that phistine remark. it's been
said of picasso, matisse, gogh, and just about any modern artist.
people have to understand the human mind is far odder than one supposes in
daily life and appreciate modern art as expressions of mental structures.
are you an art student?
SJRaff
>who seem to be proud of their ignorance. Who not only have no interest
>in expanding their horizons, but are actually arrogant about how
>limited they are.
I was going to let the post go and just put it under the realm of difference of
opinion, but not with the above. This just simply smacks of elitist crap.
First you claim it is just not my cup of tea, but know I am somehow ignorant.
By the logic of the last sentance, anyone who criticizes any work or genre of
art is ipso facto ignorant because they have failed to "expand their horizons".
I put to you again with your own words, such a logical claim within debate
simply makes you a horses ass!
Jeremy Heilman
wrote:
>My statement still stands: "if you just don't get or don't like a
>certain school of art, it's okay to say so. But the 'my kid could have
>painted that' sort of criticism just makes one look like a horse's
>ass."
>
>Perhaps you do "get it" and just don't like it. But considering at
>this end of this post (see below) you say "please don't pretend
>something exists within Pollock's splashes that don't," that's
>extremely doubtful.
I actually went to the Met yesterday & saw a few Pollacks & I realized
they lost a lot of impact for me after seeing Julieanne Moore's
character in The Big Liebowski & her splatter painting harness. :)
Jeremy
Dawn Taylor
>I was going to let the post go and just put it under the realm of difference of
>opinion, but not with the above. This just simply smacks of elitist crap.
>First you claim it is just not my cup of tea, but know I am somehow ignorant.
Well, you are. Literally ignorant: you don't know what you're talking
about.
>By the logic of the last sentance, anyone who criticizes any work or genre of
>art is ipso facto ignorant because they have failed to "expand their horizons".
Weel, anyone who criticizes a work or genre of art *without
understanding what they're talking about* is ignorant because they
have failed to "expand their horizons":
(ig'nur-unt) —adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or training; 2. lacking
knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact; 3.
uninformed; unaware; 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or
training.
> I put to you again with your own words, such a logical claim within debate
>simply makes you a horses ass!
You're a sore loser, too.
Ron Christian
Wolfe, Tom "The Painted Word" (1975)
I have. Sounds like Dawn needs to. :-) Also, since she mentioned
Frank Lloyd Wright, Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House" might be of
interest.
I've tried really hard to stay out of this thread. Really I have.
Ron (What a coincidence, my 6yo daughter painted that last night...)
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"Denying minorities their God-given right to vote is a terrible, terrible
crime. Unless they're Cuban immigrants, of course."
-- Rev. Jessie Jackson (paraphrased)
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>In article <Ffgk6.75811$Y6.22...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
>Man...an Ancient race... <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>ever read the painted word by tom wolfe?
>
>Wolfe, Tom "The Painted Word" (1975)
>
>I have. Sounds like Dawn needs to. :-) Also, since she mentioned
>Frank Lloyd Wright, Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House" might be of
>interest.
I've read both. I love Wolfe - he was always at his best as a social
commentator, in my opinion.
He did paint the art world with a necessarily broad brush, of course.
And his focus in "The Painted Word" was on the pretension of critics
and the wealthy elite collectors, and the ridiculousness of artist's
taking their (necessary) relentless self-promotion so seriously. And
being Wolfe, his main focus was essentially himself. His priority was
to be funny, erudite and superior - which I have no problem with, he's
an entertaining read. But to support his thesis he couldn't give any
credence at all to major artists like DeKooning, Jasper Johns, etc.
But critical commentary deriding artist's work doesn't negate the
aesthetic worth of art any more than fawning promotion creates it. And
dislike Pollock all you want - he had a major impact on the way art is
viewed and created.
>I've tried really hard to stay out of this thread. Really I have.
>
> Ron (What a coincidence, my 6yo daughter painted that last night...)
I'll never understand why anyone still thinks that's a clever
statement. Like I said before, it's like you're bragging about your
ignorance. What the hell's the good of that?
Dawn
(ayup ... gimme dogs playin' poker - now THAT's art!)
Ron Christian
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On 19 Feb 2001 14:24:06 -0800, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
>wrote:
>
>I'll never understand why anyone still thinks that's a clever
>statement.
It's simply descriptive. She had me "sit for a portrait" last night
and the the result was a cross between Pollock's "Number 8" (in texture)
and Van Gough's "Starry night" (choice of color).
(Didn't look much like me, though.)
(Parenthetically, I really like The Starry Night and will own a reproduction
of it some day. In contrast, there's few Pollocks I'd want to put up.)
>Like I said before, it's like you're bragging about your
>ignorance.
You wish. :-) "Blue" is an interesting piece (I'd have it in my home)
but some pieces, like the afore-mentioned "Number 8" and, geeze, what was
that other one, something about eyes and heat, are more interesting in
an art history sense than to actually look at.
They strike me as the equivalent of the computer "techno demos" that were
popular in Europe until the mid-ninties, which had value as demonstrations
of a new style or technology, more than actual works of art in and of
themselves. In other words, it's easier to appreciate "eyes in the heat"
(er, I think that's right) in the context of the style's influence on the
art community, than for any particular message the painting itself might
convey.
It's like the difference between Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Algore's
"every vote counts" press conference. The first is lyrical, moving, timeless.
The latter is interesting only in it's particular historical context (and
to a certain degree as unintentional humor, but that might be just me).
There is a famous minimalist painting, the details of which escape me,
(now that's going to bug me the rest of the day) that's a perfect example.
A white canvas with three very pale horizontal lines. An important
artistic statement of the time, but not much to look at. :-)
Currently, the only piece I have up at the moment besides my own
photographs, is a repro of the Bellini/Titian Feast of the Gods.
This doesn't mean I "hate modernism", or am only interested in realism.
But, you know, there's modernism and then there's modernism.
In my humble, ignorant opinion, of course.
Cheers.
Ron
Paulxfoley
"mess" will look nothing like a Pollock.
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
(re: his daughter)
>It's simply descriptive. She had me "sit for a portrait" last night
>and the the result was a cross between Pollock's "Number 8" (in texture)
>and Van Gough's "Starry night" (choice of color).
>
>(Didn't look much like me, though.)
Unless your head is full of stars? Hee hee.
>(Parenthetically, I really like The Starry Night and will own a reproduction
>of it some day. In contrast, there's few Pollocks I'd want to put up.)
Truth be told, as much as I admire Pollock, he's not my choice for
daily viewing, either. But I wouldn't give one back if I got it for
Christmas.
>>Like I said before, it's like you're bragging about your
>>ignorance.
>
>You wish. :-)
Oh ... yeah?
>Blue" is an interesting piece (I'd have it in my home)
>but some pieces, like the afore-mentioned "Number 8" and, geeze, what was
>that other one, something about eyes and heat, are more interesting in
>an art history sense than to actually look at.
"Eyes in the Heat"? Well, once again speaking for myself, I find his
stuff (like "Blue") a lot more fun to look at than the drip paintings.
But that's personal preference - I enjoy looking at abstract
impressionism, but hell, I read comic books. I like bright colors and
a degree of humor in my art : "The She-Wolf" blows me away, for
example.
>They strike me as the equivalent of the computer "techno demos" that were
>popular in Europe until the mid-ninties, which had value as demonstrations
>of a new style or technology, more than actual works of art in and of
>themselves. In other words, it's easier to appreciate "eyes in the heat"
>(er, I think that's right) in the context of the style's influence on the
>art community, than for any particular message the painting itself might
>convey.
Easier? Probably. Part of the problem is that, at this point in our
culture, we've been exposed to so many images of art that the
importance of art as a viewing experience has become meaningless.
"Guernica" and "Mona Lisa" we may have never seen in person - but
we've seen them turned into jokes countless times to sell cars,
perfume, jewelry and to illustrate magazine articles. And abstract art
is viewed by many as childish and "easy" - because, yes, they don't
understand it, but they've seen it mocked on countless TV shows.
And a lot of artist's works - like Pollock, Van Gogh, Georgia O'Keefe,
Lichtenstein - have a indescibably different effect on the viewer when
you *see them in person*. The vividness of the colors, the textures of
the paint, their _sheer size_, all contribute to the effect they have
on the viewer. And that's all lost when you only ever see the piece on
a projection screen in a college classroom, or reproduced 3
inches-by-3 inches in a book.
>It's like the difference between Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Algore's
>"every vote counts" press conference. The first is lyrical, moving, timeless.
>The latter is interesting only in it's particular historical context (and
>to a certain degree as unintentional humor, but that might be just me).
That's an apt comparison fo a different reason: how well do you think
the language of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would fly if it was given
by a president today? It would never make it past the spin doctors.
'Too preachy," "too flowery," "too many big words, they just won't get
it." Without the historical context, can it be appreciated on its own
merit by everyone?
>There is a famous minimalist painting, the details of which escape me,
>(now that's going to bug me the rest of the day) that's a perfect example.
>A white canvas with three very pale horizontal lines. An important
>artistic statement of the time, but not much to look at. :-)
I saw an exhibition of Mark Rothko's work at the L.A. Museum of Art,
back when I was in high school. I had no idea who he was, or what his
contributions to art were. And I didn't get what the big deal was -
big blocks of solid color, mostly ... that's it?! I've since read
about him, and I understand intellectually why he's supposed to be
great, but I still don't see it. Some artists will strike you that
way.
Me, I hate Joan Miro with a passion and I'll never, ever see why he's
considered great. But as my mom says, that's what makes horse races.
Where I'd be wrong is if I started publicly declaring that my blind
grandma could make mobiles like that. I might *think* it .... but
hopefully I'd be smart enough not to say it. :-)
>Currently, the only piece I have up at the moment besides my own
>photographs, is a repro of the Bellini/Titian Feast of the Gods.
>This doesn't mean I "hate modernism", or am only interested in realism.
>But, you know, there's modernism and then there's modernism.
A couple of years ago I was at the Legion of Honor Museum in San
Francisco. There's a lot of wonderful art there, but one painting,
"The Bath" by Jean-Leon Gerome ... oh my. Not the greatest, or "most
importnat ' piece in the museum by any means, but that one painting
struck me as so beautiful that it literally brought tears to my eyes.
I bought a poster in the gift shop - it doesn't do it justice, the
size of the painting and the richness of the colors are lost. In
person, it is just so ... damn ... beautiful:
http://artmagick.com/paintings/gerome/gerome5.jpg
To me, anyway. And if you could actually see the paint on the canvas,
get the whole effect that some time around 1890, a human person
*painted* this ... it's hard for me to articulate. By the way, I also
really love Titian.
>In my humble, ignorant opinion, of course.
Hey, you have a daughter who does your portrait like Van Gogh. What
more do you need? :)
Dawn
Paul Gallagher
>Try it. I guarantee you'll be surprised how hard it is. I also guarantee your
>"mess" will look nothing like a Pollock.
Yes, keep in mind Robery Hughes' statement, "It is impossible to make a
forgery of Jackson Pollock's work." Here's an interesting approach toward
to identifying a structure or coherence within Pollock's drip paintings:
http://palmtree.physics.utoronto.ca/~newt/fractal/iaea2kabs.html
Also, while the drip paintings are Pollock's most famous and most important
works, they are only a relatively small part of his work.
Paul
SJRaff
>Well, you are. Literally ignorant: you don't know what you're talking
>about.
You somehow know my education? You only assumed you knew. I do not like
Jackson Ploock's work, however it is not through lack of education. I have
studied art and film my entire life and find it pretty pathetic that you take
such a pious stance as to assume someone else simply knows less than you.
>
>>By the logic of the last sentance, anyone who criticizes any work or genre
>of
>>art is ipso facto ignorant because they have failed to "expand their
>horizons".
>
>Weel, anyone who criticizes a work or genre of art *without
>understanding what they're talking about* is ignorant because they
>have failed to "expand their horizons":
>
>(ig'nur-unt) —adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or training; 2. lacking
>knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact; 3.
>uninformed; unaware; 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or
>training.
Wow, you can read and type it down. I do not like Pollock, whether he studied
under Benton, Orozco, Rivera, or a sreet corner chalk drawer. That is
irrelevent. His work such as Shimmering Substance, Eyes in Heat, or Number 8
simply lack any human value or trait. For me then they have little value as
art.
>You're a sore loser, too.
That you would think of the debate in such a manner only reinforces your pious
and also laughably childish mentality.
Man...an Ancient race...
ART IS ELITIST. MUST BE ELITIST.
Man...an Ancient race...
> On 19 Feb 2001 21:43:21 GMT, sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) wrote:
>
>
> >I was going to let the post go and just put it under the realm of
difference of
> >opinion, but not with the above. This just simply smacks of elitist
crap.
> >First you claim it is just not my cup of tea, but know I am somehow
ignorant.
>
> Well, you are. Literally ignorant: you don't know what you're talking
> about.
>
> >By the logic of the last sentance, anyone who criticizes any work or
genre of
> >art is ipso facto ignorant because they have failed to "expand their
horizons".
>
> Weel, anyone who criticizes a work or genre of art *without
> understanding what they're talking about* is ignorant because they
> have failed to "expand their horizons":
>
> knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact; 3.
> uninformed; unaware; 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or
> training.
>
> > I put to you again with your own words, such a logical claim within
debate
> >simply makes you a horses ass!
>
> You're a sore loser, too.
>
what would you say to someone who understand pollock and still doesn't like
him.
Man...an Ancient race...
> On 19 Feb 2001 14:24:06 -0800, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Ffgk6.75811$Y6.22...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
> >Man...an Ancient race... <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>ever read the painted word by tom wolfe?
> >
> >Wolfe, Tom "The Painted Word" (1975)
> >
> >I have. Sounds like Dawn needs to. :-) Also, since she mentioned
> >Frank Lloyd Wright, Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House" might be of
> >interest.
>
> I've read both. I love Wolfe - he was always at his best as a social
> commentator, in my opinion.
>
> He did paint the art world with a necessarily broad brush, of course.
> And his focus in "The Painted Word" was on the pretension of critics
> and the wealthy elite collectors, and the ridiculousness of artist's
> taking their (necessary) relentless self-promotion so seriously. And
> being Wolfe, his main focus was essentially himself. His priority was
> to be funny, erudite and superior - which I have no problem with, he's
> an entertaining read. But to support his thesis he couldn't give any
> credence at all to major artists like DeKooning, Jasper Johns, etc.
>
> But critical commentary deriding artist's work doesn't negate the
> aesthetic worth of art any more than fawning promotion creates it. And
> dislike Pollock all you want - he had a major impact on the way art is
> viewed and created.
>
wolfe is a funny guy and painted word is good satire..to an extent. but
wolfe is too clever for his own good. and his taste in art sucks!!!!
recently he defended that work displayed in 'devil's advocate' which is the
just a gigantic neoclassical kitschy pile of crap.
and he thinks normal rockwell was a great artist. gag!
Man...an Ancient race...
>
> Me, I hate Joan Miro with a passion and I'll never, ever see why he's
> considered great. But as my mom says, that's what makes horse races.
> Where I'd be wrong is if I started publicly declaring that my blind
> grandma could make mobiles like that. I might *think* it .... but
> hopefully I'd be smart enough not to say it. :-)
>
miro is zen. great stuff.
Man...an Ancient race...
dawn doesn't know much about movies but we gotta respect her great love and
knowlege of fine arts. very impressive.
trotsky
Dawn Taylor wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2001 14:24:06 -0800, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ron (What a coincidence, my 6yo daughter painted that last night...)
>
> I'll never understand why anyone still thinks that's a clever
> statement. Like I said before, it's like you're bragging about your
> ignorance. What the hell's the good of that?
Hell, it got a guy to be president, didn't it?
Sawfish
>i like his work.
This is all well and good, but what I find in my brief reading of this
thread is more a tribute to the artist tahn to his art.
I can remember how many times I'd seen Seurat(Sewer rat?) repros and
connected somewhat with his composition and thematic vision. Then I
actually saw Sunday Afternoon at La Grande Jatte at the Norton Simon (I
think) and actually saw the magic of his technique. It was amazing. But
aside from his technique, his work was comprehensible, and it did connect
and communicate across time. I wonder if Pollock's work will do the same,
across 100+ years, or if he's an historic oddity, like a pet rock.
You have to admit, no one ever thought of pet rocks before, either.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Dawn Taylor
>>
>>Well, you are. Literally ignorant: you don't know what you're talking
>>about.
>
>You somehow know my education? You only assumed you knew. I do not like
>Jackson Ploock's work, however it is not through lack of education. I
I love Ploock!
>I have
>studied art and film my entire life and find it pretty pathetic that you take
>such a pious stance as to assume someone else simply knows less than you.
I'm not pious. You don't know shit about what you're talking about. At
least you've given no indication otherwise - you've shared no
knowledge or understanding of what you're talking about, only personal
preference without any sort of educated reasoning behind it.
>>>By the logic of the last sentance, anyone who criticizes any work or genre
>>of
>>>art is ipso facto ignorant because they have failed to "expand their
>>horizons".
>>
>>Weel, anyone who criticizes a work or genre of art *without
>>understanding what they're talking about* is ignorant because they
>>have failed to "expand their horizons":
>>
>>(ig'nur-unt) —adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or training; 2. lacking
>>knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact; 3.
>>uninformed; unaware; 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or
>>training.
>
>Wow, you can read and type it down.
It seemed to be necessary. Judging by your response, you appeared to
not understand what the word meant.
>I do not like Pollock, whether he studied
>under Benton, Orozco, Rivera, or a sreet corner chalk drawer. That is
>irrelevent.
It's hardly irrelevant. It's the whole point of your posts.
>His work such as Shimmering Substance, Eyes in Heat, or Number 8
>simply lack any human value or trait. For me then they have little value as
>art.
Well, guess what? You're wrong. Your statements were about value and
meaning. I answered them ... and that's pissing you off. Deal with it.
And saying stuff like "His work ... simply lack any human value or
trait" without giving any foundation for such a statement makes you
look even MORE like you haven't a clue.
>>You're a sore loser, too.
>
>That you would think of the debate in such a manner only reinforces your pious
>and also laughably childish mentality.
Rafferty, it's not that hard to admit that you don't know what you're
talking about. I don't mind discussing your personal tastes and
preferences, but don't pretend that's it's more than that. And
getting shrill and bitchy doesn't make your case.
McNeeley
>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
It takes no special courage or "guts" to call something "crap."
Cheers,
Todd "If anything, it takes the opposite" McNeeley
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Ron Christian
Hmm... Generally true. It depends on the environment, how much
your career could be hurt by the backlash (for instance, if you
made your living as an art critic) and in general how much heat
you're willing to put up with. For an example of the last, you
might go over to the Scientology newsgroups and start trashing
John Travolta... Probably not using your real name, though. :-)
Ron
Andrew
: On 19 Feb 2001 17:06:29 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
:>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
:>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
:>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
:>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
:>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
:>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
: It takes no special courage or "guts" to call something "crap."
Yeah, I guess it takes no special courage to say whatever the hell you
want on Usenet when you have an email address like "n...@my.com". Try
being a struggling artist and saying certain art is crap in the
company of potential benefactors or fellow artists.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
andr...@bizave.com ** Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
The Movie Pundit - http://www.moviepundit.com
Ron Christian
Andrew <andr...@bizave.com> wrote:
>McNeeley <n...@my.com> wrote:
>: On 19 Feb 2001 17:06:29 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
>
>:>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
>:>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
>:>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
>:>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
>:>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
>:>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
>
>: It takes no special courage or "guts" to call something "crap."
>
>Yeah, I guess it takes no special courage to say whatever the hell you
>want on Usenet when you have an email address like "n...@my.com".
Boy, Andrew, are *you* barking up the wrong tree. McNeeley posts
as himself and has his real email address in his signature. His
return address is spamblock only.
> Try
>being a struggling artist and saying certain art is crap in the
>company of potential benefactors or fellow artists.
A key point. Well said. You still owe Todd an apology, though. :-)
ELurio
just a gigantic neoclassical kitschy pile of crap >>
It WAS? I thought it was a brilliant sculputre. The guy was one of the best
stonecarvers in centuries.
<< and he thinks normal rockwell was a great artist. >>
Hate to puncture your balloon kiddo, but when it comes to technique and
insight, Rockwell was better than Picasso.
I will admit that Jackson Pollock was a brilliant designer of jigsaw puzzles.
eric l.
Ron Christian
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On 19 Feb 2001 15:54:51 -0800, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
>wrote:
>
>(re: his daughter)
>
>>It's simply descriptive. She had me "sit for a portrait" last night
>>and the the result was a cross between Pollock's "Number 8" (in texture)
>>and Van Gough's "Starry night" (choice of color).
>>
>>(Didn't look much like me, though.)
>
>Unless your head is full of stars? Hee hee.
Gee.... well, gee... I dunno. Interesting thought.
>>(Parenthetically, I really like The Starry Night and will own a reproduction
>>of it some day. In contrast, there's few Pollocks I'd want to put up.)
>
>Truth be told, as much as I admire Pollock, he's not my choice for
>daily viewing, either. But I wouldn't give one back if I got it for
>Christmas.
Some friends of ours remodeled their restaurant recently, and hand-painted
the bathroom walls in Pollock's drip style. It's worth seeing. :-)
>>>Like I said before, it's like you're bragging about your
>>>ignorance.
>>
>>You wish. :-)
>
>Oh ... yeah?
...yeah...
>>Blue" is an interesting piece (I'd have it in my home)
>>but some pieces, like the afore-mentioned "Number 8" and, geeze, what was
>>that other one, something about eyes and heat, are more interesting in
>>an art history sense than to actually look at.
>
>"Eyes in the Heat"? Well, once again speaking for myself, I find his
>stuff (like "Blue") a lot more fun to look at than the drip paintings.
We agree.
>But that's personal preference - I enjoy looking at abstract
>impressionism, but hell, I read comic books.
You should see my collection.
>I like bright colors and
>a degree of humor in my art : "The She-Wolf" blows me away, for
>example.
>
>>They strike me as the equivalent of the computer "techno demos" that were
>>popular in Europe until the mid-ninties, which had value as demonstrations
>>of a new style or technology, more than actual works of art in and of
>>themselves. In other words, it's easier to appreciate "eyes in the heat"
>>(er, I think that's right) in the context of the style's influence on the
>>art community, than for any particular message the painting itself might
>>convey.
>
>Easier? Probably. Part of the problem is that, at this point in our
>culture, we've been exposed to so many images of art that the
>importance of art as a viewing experience has become meaningless.
>"Guernica" and "Mona Lisa" we may have never seen in person - but
>we've seen them turned into jokes countless times to sell cars,
>perfume, jewelry and to illustrate magazine articles. And abstract art
>is viewed by many as childish and "easy" - because, yes, they don't
>understand it, but they've seen it mocked on countless TV shows.
I understand. Rockwell becomes magazine covers, Miro becomes album
covers, Pollock becomes wallpaper. :-)
>And a lot of artist's works - like Pollock, Van Gogh, Georgia O'Keefe,
>Lichtenstein - have a indescibably different effect on the viewer when
>you *see them in person*. The vividness of the colors, the textures of
>the paint, their _sheer size_, all contribute to the effect they have
>on the viewer. And that's all lost when you only ever see the piece on
>a projection screen in a college classroom, or reproduced 3
>inches-by-3 inches in a book.
Ok, this is a good point. I had the opportunity a few years ago
to visit the Museum of Art at the mall in DC, and I was astounded.
It really does make a difference, on the whole, to see them in person.
But more for the classic artists than the impressionists, in my
opinion.
>>It's like the difference between Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Algore's
>>"every vote counts" press conference. The first is lyrical, moving, timeless.
>>The latter is interesting only in it's particular historical context (and
>>to a certain degree as unintentional humor, but that might be just me).
>
>That's an apt comparison fo a different reason: how well do you think
>the language of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would fly if it was given
>by a president today? It would never make it past the spin doctors.
>'Too preachy," "too flowery," "too many big words, they just won't get
>it." Without the historical context, can it be appreciated on its own
>merit by everyone?
It brought a lump to my throat when I heard it to Copeland's music, and
again when I read it on the South Wall. I think we've lost quite a bit
in that regard. We have traded orators for huxters.
But I wouldn't say that the works of Miro or Pollock are stripped of
flowery pretensions in order to *more* appeal to the masses -- quite
the opposite, in fact.
>>There is a famous minimalist painting, the details of which escape me,
>>(now that's going to bug me the rest of the day) that's a perfect example.
>>A white canvas with three very pale horizontal lines. An important
>>artistic statement of the time, but not much to look at. :-)
>
>I saw an exhibition of Mark Rothko's work at the L.A. Museum of Art,
Aha. Thanks.
>back when I was in high school. I had no idea who he was, or what his
>contributions to art were. And I didn't get what the big deal was -
>big blocks of solid color, mostly ... that's it?! I've since read
>about him, and I understand intellectually why he's supposed to be
>great, but I still don't see it. Some artists will strike you that
>way.
Right. Exactly. It's easy to say (or think, in your case) "hell, I
couda done that", and in the case of "yellow", that's probabaly true.
If the painting is about anything, it's about stripping away all
the pretensions about painting we've had up to now. It's a crossroads --
a place where artists can go off in new directions. And like a crossroads,
it isn't very interesting in and of itself. "Number 8" strikes me
the same way.
>Me, I hate Joan Miro with a passion and I'll never, ever see why he's
>considered great.
You're joking! How can you like Pollock's "blue" and hate Miro's
"Composition 1933"? I'm baffled.
>But as my mom says, that's what makes horse races.
>Where I'd be wrong is if I started publicly declaring that my blind
>grandma could make mobiles like that. I might *think* it .... but
>hopefully I'd be smart enough not to say it. :-)
Well, I don't hate Pollock, (hopefully I don't *hate* anyone) but
I think that many of his paintings don't have much to say, and are
more hip and clever than they are artistic. Fair enough?
>>Currently, the only piece I have up at the moment besides my own
>>photographs, is a repro of the Bellini/Titian Feast of the Gods.
>>This doesn't mean I "hate modernism", or am only interested in realism.
>>But, you know, there's modernism and then there's modernism.
>
>A couple of years ago I was at the Legion of Honor Museum in San
>Francisco. There's a lot of wonderful art there, but one painting,
>"The Bath" by Jean-Leon Gerome ... oh my. Not the greatest, or "most
>importnat ' piece in the museum by any means, but that one painting
>struck me as so beautiful that it literally brought tears to my eyes.
>I bought a poster in the gift shop - it doesn't do it justice, the
>size of the painting and the richness of the colors are lost. In
>person, it is just so ... damn ... beautiful:
>
>http://artmagick.com/paintings/gerome/gerome5.jpg
I haven't seen it before. It is very beautiful. (Not very politically
correct by today's standards, though. :-))
>To me, anyway. And if you could actually see the paint on the canvas,
>get the whole effect that some time around 1890, a human person
>*painted* this ... it's hard for me to articulate. By the way, I also
>really love Titian.
And to think we started this as an argument. :-)
>>In my humble, ignorant opinion, of course.
>
>Hey, you have a daughter who does your portrait like Van Gogh. What
>more do you need? :)
A patron, and recognition. :-)
Thanks for your time.
Ron Christian
Paul Hager
>On 19 Feb 2001 10:12:16 GMT, sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) wrote:
>>I could never pick up a saxaphone and play the sizzling
>>way Coletrane did, or similarly blow through a trumpet and create such sublime
>>works like Davis' Kind of Blue or Sketches in Spain. But I sure as hell could
>>take a few buckets of paint and some brushes and create the mess Pollock did,
>>without there being any noticable difference. Just because he was troubled
>>doesn't mean he is an artist.
>Y'know, if you just don't get or don't like a certain school of art,
>it's okay to say so. But the "my kid could have painted that" sort of
>criticism just makes one look like a horse's ass.
Not at all. If Vermeer one fine day had decided to take a break and
dribble paint over canvass, in order to make an "artistic statement"
then I might be willing to give it a look because Vermeet had amply
demonstrated that he was the finest technician at painting who ever
lived. That would not, however, make it "good art" except in the
context of the work that Vermeer had already done. It would be
anti-art, that operates on the meta-level perhaps, but that's all one
could say for it.
I don't know whether Pollock ever had any technical competence at all.
But, like everything else, de gustibus non est disputandum.
>It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
>buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
>with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
>together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
>and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
>the equal of Keith Haring.
Well, I could have duplicated Pollock easily at age 10 -- I was
actually quite talented at art. With a lot of work I'm not sure
I could have ever matched Vermeer but I could have gotten pretty
good. Funny thing I noticed very early was the extent to which
people with no talent or ability could capture a following, whereas
"true artists" based upon what I consider to be fundamental
esthetic principles, would fail. Why did Bartok die in poverty
while hack rock musicians make millions?
When I was young this used to be a big issue with me -- now I really
don't care all that much.
To keep this in the movie context, I recall the movie THE WHEELER
DEALERS, a James Garner - Lee Remick vehicle that was a satire of
business, finance, and (among other things) modern art. Louie
Nye played the part of a commercially successful artist whose
gimmick was to ride a tricycle outfitted with containers over the
wheels that spread paint over large canvasses. Wonderful way to
huckster the parvenues and art snobs and make a boatload of money
at the same time. And, his work looked a lot like Pollock's.
>Most importantly, if you don't understand the historical context of an
>artist like Pollock, you have no business critiquing his work at all.
>Pollock studied under Thomas Hart Benton, was influenced by Mexican
>muralists painters like Rivera and Orozco. He chose to break away from
>traditional art, introduce entirely new concepts and established
>himself as a great name in abstract painting.
As I suggested, context is important. But dribbled paint is, at
best, anti-art and a meta-statement. It can't stand on its own
because it violates root esthetics. Great art doesn't need a context
to be understood.
>Pollock was a pioneer, a maverick, and a groundbreaker. It may just
>look like a lot of drippy paint to you, Mr. Rafferty, but that's
>because you don't understand what you're looking at. Sort of like
>someone who's never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright touring Falling Water
>and asking where the hell a fella would put their La-Z-Boy recliner.
Not at all like Frank Lloyd Wright. For one thing, architects are
constrained by the laws of physics -- by gravity, stresses, and
strength of materials -- to produce "works" that are balanced and
symmetric. Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
something a person did, it ain't art. I have a mild interest in
Paul Klee, but in the final analysis, I don't rank him as being
a signigicant artist -- certainly not on the basis of his abstract
work, which is what he is known for.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
--from A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS by Robert Bolt
Ron Christian
Paul Hager <hag...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) writes:
>>Pollock was a pioneer, a maverick, and a groundbreaker. It may just
>>look like a lot of drippy paint to you, Mr. Rafferty, but that's
>>because you don't understand what you're looking at. Sort of like
>>someone who's never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright touring Falling Water
>>and asking where the hell a fella would put their La-Z-Boy recliner.
>
>Not at all like Frank Lloyd Wright. For one thing, architects are
>constrained by the laws of physics -- by gravity, stresses, and
>strength of materials -- to produce "works" that are balanced and
>symmetric.
Not only that, but in a time when other architects (Gropius, et al)
were creating impractical (and often ugly) designs, Wright (with the
possible exception of Falling Water) was designing buildings that no
only were aestectically pleasing, but were also ergonomic (as much
as it was understood at the time) and livable. In other words, Wright
designed buildings that the common person would want to live in.
Pollock didn't necessarily create paintings that the common person
would want to own. (Except as wallpaper -- see previous article.)
Parenthetically, Falling Water, although beautiful, was probably
one of Wright's less practical designs. I read recently that the
building is in big trouble due to erosion.
> Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
>can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
>something a person did, it ain't art.
If you could teach a monkey to weld, you might be able to describe
a great deal of modern sculpture. It's sad how many public buildings
have expensive, rusting hulks of scrap metal out front.
(Uh oh, I may have opened another can of worms here. :-))
Paul Hager
>On 19 Feb 2001 17:06:29 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
>>Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>: Y'know, if you just don't get or don't like a certain school of art,
>>: it's okay to say so. But the "my kid could have painted that" sort of
>>: criticism just makes one look like a horse's ass.
>>
>>: It is highly doubtful, Mr. Rafferty, that you could "take a few
>>: buckets of paint and some brushes" and create a piece of art on par
>>: with Pollock, anymore than you could tape a bunch of Polaroids
>>: together and create a David Hockney, or snap some photos of Yosemite
>>: and create pictures like Ansel Adams, or scribble some graffiti and be
>>: the equal of Keith Haring.
>>
>>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
>>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
>>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
>>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
>>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
>>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
>That can be said about a lot of art forms. All of them, actually. But
>the minority of works that fall into that category neither negate the
>entire form, nor do they really have much to do with what Mr. Rafferty
>said about Jackson Pollock.
Well, I've said my piece about Pollock, so let me sort of move ever
so slightly toward your side of the argument.
Art is ultimately what people say it is. I have some very rigid ideas
about esthics that government what I consider to be "art". So what!
If something is popular, it it sells, if people like it, if it
"speaks" to them, then it is art. If it has a short "shelf-life"
and is disposable, if it's "pop", if its misunderstood for 200 years
and then is "rediscovered" by a new audience, it's art.
Pollock is an artist because some people say he is. Pollock is
a "great" artist because some people consider him to be so. I'd
wager that Pollock will be a complete unknown in 50 years or less
but that is a side issue. Ed Harris admires Pollock -- and it
appears that you do too -- because of the stuggles he endured to
make his statement, his way, without compromise. I think he
wasted his time, but that's only my opinion, which in the world of
art, has no more validity than anyone elses.
>>I've seen art exhibits with a nail hammered into a piece of wood (not
>>an oversize nail in a painting - just an ol' block of wood with a nail
>>in it) and paintings of solid blue exhibited as some sort of new
>>achievements. Maybe these are extremes in local galleries that
>>wouldn't rate in the larger art world,
>What downtown Portland galleries consider "art" is, by and large, a
>travesty.
That's the problem with a loose definition of "art". One advantage of
my esthetic approach is that there is a measure of objectivity present.
(Of course, I haven't laid out my theories of ethetics here, merely
suggested that balance and symmetry play a role.) The loose definition,
which is what I apply to society -- but which I don't follow personally --
leads to statements like, "this image of paint splotches is a travesty",
whereas, "this canvas of paint dribblings is a work of genius."
>>But they make some of us much
>>more cynical about "art" in general, and I can see how people might
>>say the same about Pollock's paintings.
>We've all seen bad art. Say you chat with an acquaintance and it turns
>out the only Woody Allen movie she'd ever seen was "Small Time
>Crooks". Would you feel she was correct in asserting that he's a lousy
>filmmaker? Or would you point out that she doesn't have enough data to
>make an educated statement in that regard?
I haven't seen SMALL TIME CROOKS. Let's agree, however, that it is
lousy art. ANNIE HALL, however, may be good art. In my esthetic
system, everything of Pollock's I've seen has been lousy. Maybe
there's an ANNIE HALL lurking in his oeuvre, but I haven't seen it.
>What if the only Peckinpah movie you'd ever seen was "Convoy"? Would
>you have a valid point when you called him a hack - and then added,
>"Give me a camera, a semi and some lights and I could make a movie as
>good as Peckinpah"? Or would you be corrected for your ignorant and
>silly statment?
Damn, I haven't seen CONVOY either -- well, some slow-mo bits and
pieces near the end. However, to the extent that a hack could
duplicate CONVOY it would be a true statement. I don't think
a hack could have done THE WILD BUNCH, but that's not really
the issue as far as I'm concerned.
>>Ed Harris will probably go on about what a genius Pollock was,
>>considering what he gave up to MAKE this film;
>If Ed Harris goes on about what a genius Pollock was, its probably
>because Pollock fits the definition of a genius.
Not to me, but that's a less significant point. What does have
validity is that Pollock impresses both Harris and you. While
I disagree with your assessment about Pollock, the fact that
his work has an influence on you and other people is "important"
in a cultural sense. So, even though the subject is not that
interesting to me, I might give the movie a try. Will it make
me think more of Pollock as a painter? I expect not. But as
a man and as a cultural phenomenon, it could be very illuminating.
[...]
Jeffrey Davis
Paul Hager wrote:
>
>
> As I suggested, context is important. But dribbled paint is, at
> best, anti-art and a meta-statement. It can't stand on its own
> because it violates root esthetics. Great art doesn't need a context
> to be understood.
Nonsense. Everything needs a context in order to be understood. To some
cultures, King Lear is unintelligible, Beethoven's Ninth is noise, etc.
There is an E on a stone at Delphi. Or maybe it isn't an E. It would
help if we knew the context. There are animals painted on cave walls in
the Dordogne. What's their significance? We don't know. We guess. Our
guesses add nothing to the shapes. There's a spooky movie by Sam Beckett
that consists of the camera pursuing a furtive Buster Keaton. What it
means will be apparent when the Book of Life is opened at Judgment Day.
Ditto several passage of The Cantos of Ezra Pound.
>
> >Pollock was a pioneer, a maverick, and a groundbreaker. It may just
> >look like a lot of drippy paint to you, Mr. Rafferty, but that's
> >because you don't understand what you're looking at. Sort of like
> >someone who's never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright touring Falling Water
> >and asking where the hell a fella would put their La-Z-Boy recliner.
>
> Not at all like Frank Lloyd Wright. For one thing, architects are
> constrained by the laws of physics -- by gravity, stresses, and
> strength of materials -- to produce "works" that are balanced and
> symmetric. Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
> can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
> something a person did, it ain't art. I have a mild interest in
> Paul Klee, but in the final analysis, I don't rank him as being
> a signigicant artist -- certainly not on the basis of his abstract
> work, which is what he is known for.
Art is any material that has been given a significant shape by a person.
Pollock shaped what he did so it's art. You apparently don't like the
shapes he produced or the methods he used.
I really don't see where this discussion, at loggerheads from the
get-go, can wind up. T'is and T'aint?
McNeeley
>McNeeley <n...@my.com> wrote:
>: On 19 Feb 2001 17:06:29 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
>
>:>No, but he raises a valid point about the art world (and I'm not
>:>making any statement about Pollock's art in particular), and that is
>:>that sometimes what the art world embraces as "art" has little true
>:>merit. People claim to like it whether they really do or not because
>:>they want to look sophisticated and trendy. Few have the guts to
>:>stand up and say, "This is CRAP!".
>
>: It takes no special courage or "guts" to call something "crap."
>
>Yeah, I guess it takes no special courage to say whatever the hell you
>want on Usenet when you have an email address like "n...@my.com". Try
>being a struggling artist and saying certain art is crap in the
>company of potential benefactors or fellow artists.
You will note that my email address is clearly noted in my signature
file. The fact that I don't want it to be harvested by spammers
doesn't speak to my courage, or lack of, in way at all.
I don't have to try being a struggling artist. I am one. Although,
lately it seems that my "day job" is quickly replacing my "career."
Why do you feel the need to call anything "crap" in front of
benefactors or fellow artists. For that matter, what was ever gained
by calling anything crap?
It does take courage to dissent in the face of popular opinion. It is
ultimately a silly gesture, unless you add a well formed opinion to
your dissent. A thoughtful, and intelligent argument is certainly
admirable. Further, I am certain that you are perfectly capable of
coming up with one, if you haven't already.
On the other hand, any jughead with rudimentary English skills can
call something "crap."
Again, that takes nothing special at all.
Cheers,
Todd "It's art. Let it wash over you." McNeeley
McNeeley
wrote:
>Not only that, but in a time when other architects (Gropius, et al)
>were creating impractical (and often ugly) designs, Wright (with the
>possible exception of Falling Water) was designing buildings that no
>only were aestectically pleasing, but were also ergonomic (as much
>as it was understood at the time) and livable. In other words, Wright
>designed buildings that the common person would want to live in.
>Pollock didn't necessarily create paintings that the common person
>would want to own. (Except as wallpaper -- see previous article.)
I'd happily hang several of Pollock's works on my wall. (of course,
I'll have to find a place for my black-light Pink Floyd poster) :-)
Another good reason to live in Chicago is that you can't throw a
baseball around here without hitting a Wright building :-)
>Parenthetically, Falling Water, although beautiful, was probably
>one of Wright's less practical designs. I read recently that the
>building is in big trouble due to erosion.
>
>> Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
>>can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
>>something a person did, it ain't art.
>
>If you could teach a monkey to weld, you might be able to describe
>a great deal of modern sculpture. It's sad how many public buildings
>have expensive, rusting hulks of scrap metal out front.
>
>(Uh oh, I may have opened another can of worms here. :-))
Why is that a bad thing. I find those abstract hunks of scrap metal to
be pleasing. Would you suggest more tired statues of forgotten
military heroes :-) ?
Cheers,
Todd "I hate statues" McNeeley
Ron Christian
McNeeley <n...@my.com> wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2001 11:04:25 -0800, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
>wrote:
>>Not only that, but in a time when other architects (Gropius, et al)
>>were creating impractical (and often ugly) designs, Wright (with the
>>possible exception of Falling Water) was designing buildings that no
>>only were aestectically pleasing, but were also ergonomic (as much
>>as it was understood at the time) and livable. In other words, Wright
>>designed buildings that the common person would want to live in.
>>Pollock didn't necessarily create paintings that the common person
>>would want to own. (Except as wallpaper -- see previous article.)
>
>I'd happily hang several of Pollock's works on my wall. (of course,
>I'll have to find a place for my black-light Pink Floyd poster) :-)
We were specifically talking about Pollock's drip abstracts. I
like a few of his other works, but don't honestly see the value
in his drips.
>Another good reason to live in Chicago is that you can't throw a
>baseball around here without hitting a Wright building :-)
I remember seeing a few while I was there.
>>Parenthetically, Falling Water, although beautiful, was probably
>>one of Wright's less practical designs. I read recently that the
>>building is in big trouble due to erosion.
>>
>>> Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
>>>can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
>>>something a person did, it ain't art.
>>
>>If you could teach a monkey to weld, you might be able to describe
>>a great deal of modern sculpture. It's sad how many public buildings
>>have expensive, rusting hulks of scrap metal out front.
>>
>>(Uh oh, I may have opened another can of worms here. :-))
>
>Why is that a bad thing. I find those abstract hunks of scrap metal to
>be pleasing.
You're joking. They remind me of south San Jose, where rusting
hulks of scrap metal adorn many a curbside parking space. There
are many interesting abstract sculptures, but what I'm specifically
talking about are the random collections of untreated iron. They
look like junk and they get junkier with time. The US exhibit at
the Spokane expo comes to mind. We ought to be ashamed.
>Would you suggest more tired statues of forgotten
>military heroes :-) ?
There just *has* to be some other choices besides "forgotten war heros"
and "slag".
Jeffrey Davis
Albert Wittmann wrote:
> Just saw a Pollock in Philly and it did nothing for me. Art is
> anything the artist says it is, but one can make the argument that
> good art provokes the greatest thought in the most and most different
> people. A bit pedestrian of an explanation, but I am afraid I get
> stuck on this as well. Also on exhibit there (Philly Art Museum) is a
> string of light bulbs plugged into the wall. The artists says that
> every time these are plugged in, they lie a bit differently thus the
> piece is different every time...
I only addressed the issue of whether or not something or other is art.
Art has an almost meaninglessly low barrier: someone purposefully shaped
some material. Kids drawing families of stick men are as much art as Don
Giovanni or The Illiad. Whether or not something is "good" or not is a
completely different question. For me, the goodness question is entirely
personal: the amount of pleasure a work of art gives me is my only
criterion.
Paul Hager
>Paul Hager wrote:
>>
>>
>> As I suggested, context is important. But dribbled paint is, at
>> best, anti-art and a meta-statement. It can't stand on its own
>> because it violates root esthetics. Great art doesn't need a context
>> to be understood.
>Nonsense. Everything needs a context in order to be understood. To some
>cultures, King Lear is unintelligible, Beethoven's Ninth is noise, etc.
>There is an E on a stone at Delphi. Or maybe it isn't an E. It would
>help if we knew the context. There are animals painted on cave walls in
>the Dordogne. What's their significance? We don't know. We guess. Our
>guesses add nothing to the shapes. There's a spooky movie by Sam Beckett
>that consists of the camera pursuing a furtive Buster Keaton. What it
>means will be apparent when the Book of Life is opened at Judgment Day.
>Ditto several passage of The Cantos of Ezra Pound.
Are we talking about KING LEAR translated or in English? Given that
empirically, Shakespeare is probably the most translated playwright,
it would appear that he, in fact, does translate very well. Kurosawa
used Lear, for example, though he reworked it.
Music, on the other hand, may be less translateable, however, the basic
mathematics of music are invariant across all cultures and all times,
and, since there is also the empirically observable pheonomenon of
world music -- in which there are a lot of cross-cultural borrowings --
I don't think this statement of yours is supportable either. The cave
paintings may be religious in nature, or they may be merely the result
of people having time on their hands. However, they do have a resonance
that reaches across 20,000 years -- they're art in my book for that
reason. I don't need to know the context to appreciate the eye and
hand and brain that captured a moment in time and rendered it onto
a cave wall. Now if some neolithic abstract expressionist had put
a bunch of scratches and paint marks on the wall, I'd have no idea
what the hell it was -- the best guess would be he was testing his
paint mixture or sharpening his stylus. Of course, he could have
been a neolithic Jackson Pollock...
I haven't seen Beckett's film work so I won't comment except to say
that it may well be anti-art in the same sense as Pollock's paint
dribblings are.
>>
>> >Pollock was a pioneer, a maverick, and a groundbreaker. It may just
>> >look like a lot of drippy paint to you, Mr. Rafferty, but that's
>> >because you don't understand what you're looking at. Sort of like
>> >someone who's never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright touring Falling Water
>> >and asking where the hell a fella would put their La-Z-Boy recliner.
>>
>> Not at all like Frank Lloyd Wright. For one thing, architects are
>> constrained by the laws of physics -- by gravity, stresses, and
>> strength of materials -- to produce "works" that are balanced and
>> symmetric. Pollock just dribbled paint. Here's my rule. If you
>> can't tell the difference between something a monkey could do and
>> something a person did, it ain't art. I have a mild interest in
>> Paul Klee, but in the final analysis, I don't rank him as being
>> a signigicant artist -- certainly not on the basis of his abstract
>> work, which is what he is known for.
>Art is any material that has been given a significant shape by a person.
>Pollock shaped what he did so it's art. You apparently don't like the
>shapes he produced or the methods he used.
In fairness, I later said that art is anything a person fashions that
someone recognizes as art. However, I also think that anyone who
wants to pontificate about "artistic genius" in a forum such as this
should expect to be challenged.
I also think that one can approach art in a more rigorous, neuro-scientific
way in terms of how people perceive things and how they may react to
certain patterns of images or sounds. This may actually allow one to
get a handle commonalities observed in "art" across cultures.
>I really don't see where this discussion, at loggerheads from the
>get-go, can wind up. T'is and T'aint?
I did, after all, say "degustibus...". I also agree with the poster
who likened Pollock's attraction to be analogous to the pet rock
fad. His work won't have legs ultimately because it violates fundamental
esthetics.
McNeeley
wrote:
>>Why is that a bad thing. I find those abstract hunks of scrap metal to
>>be pleasing.
>
>You're joking. They remind me of south San Jose, where rusting
>hulks of scrap metal adorn many a curbside parking space. There
>are many interesting abstract sculptures, but what I'm specifically
>talking about are the random collections of untreated iron. They
>look like junk and they get junkier with time. The US exhibit at
>the Spokane expo comes to mind. We ought to be ashamed.
Hmmm... You are taking about literal piles of scrap metal it seems...
I'll have to get back to you on this, but I will say that everything
has inherent beauty... Even rust...
Cheers,
Todd "And... RUST NEVER SLEEPS" McNeeley