Re: Quote by Jackson Pollock
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Thur wrote:
> <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1104344934.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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 ;-)
> >>
> > While I not a big fan of abstract art in general,
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Paul Mesken, feared administrator of www.nellarteforum.com
> >
> > my view is that Jackson Pollack was a better artist <
>
> How do you rate him against Eakins?
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-Eakins. 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 certain newsgroups 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 (as
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: Fernand Khnopff,
1856 - 1921.
Well, I said I was probably not the
best person to ask...ask me a question,
and I'll give you a lecture...whee...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
> Thur
Alan Hope
She was standing at the load-in when the trucks rolled up.
She was sniffing all around like a half-grown female pup.
-- Rosie (c) 1977, co-written by Donald Miller (who he? -- Ed.)
--
AH