Pollock's paintings are in fact very sophisticated and not just random splashes. It is hard to convince people of this, who just see random splashes. Think if you heard a language that you never heard before. It would just be a noise. Haven't you ever heard a piece of music or even watched a movie or something that you thought was bad for whatever reason then heard or saw it again and changed your mind. Some people just hear random noise is Jazz music but it's not really like that at all.
Seems like a waste of paint. Intentional spills is ART? Deliberate dribble is TALENT? I'm guessing because he was ill made it 'special' so some call him a GENIUS. I can't appreciate the lacking of skill, though I bet it was fun to produce. I'd like to question why a lot of 'artists' could do what he did but not gain such credit. Is it because he was the first to do so?
@MarineBlue1981 and many of those cigarette butts actually fell into the paintings! i read about an art conservator restoring a pollock painting. the butt had disintegrated, so she smoked a camel down to the filter and stuck it back in.
actually, unlike most artists, he was very successful both financially and critically during his lifetime...Life magazine, Guggenheim, etc., his work commanded high prices and was in great demand...
He rocketed to popular status following an August 8, 1949 four-page spread in Life magazine that asked, "Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?"
pretty sure one of his works got the highest price ever paid for a painting: 140 mil in 2006
This guy practically committed suicide with alcohol ,due to frustration of not being able to paint some thing good for the masses ! His crap that he is calling paintings are just a mass of shit!!
You can tell in the desperation and hopeless of this guy trying to find a way to paint something that makes sense . Unfortunately this poor bastard could never paint anything wort seeing!
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if you don't like pollocks paintings or think that a 3 year old could make the same there's no point bashing it, that's like saying one type of music is better than another when it's not, they are just different and for different tastes
Pollock had a true vision but his drinking self indulgent importance overtook his art and soul, he had so much and he wasted it on what? Most artists struggle with
little recognition . . . or studio's, or girlfriends that know millionairesses who buy
your pictures for tax deductions. what a lucky guy he was
if you don´t understand human soul and deep feelings you´ll never understand Pollock , go and create some figurative and imitative art, if you don´t have anything new to say will be better that way, repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat ... is soOOOO EASY to speak...
I'm more of a Goya fan myself, which is so far from Pollock, but I don't think Pollock was as "worthless" as you all are saying. Granted I wouldn't want any of his paintings in my house, I wouldn't say he's horrible either. The one thing I do know is that it's so much easier to be a critic than an artist. Everybody is a critic. Everybody thinks they know what they look at, but they don't. Maybe it was a scam, maybe it was genius, I don't know. He knows.
Because of advances in science, we can now know that Pollock's pictures are the equivalent of this:"At Hiroshima: The common lot was random, indiscriminate and universal violence inflicting terrible pain, the physics of hydraulics and leverage and heat run riot." Pollock was no genius, he was a simpleton, but less of a simpleton than anyone who could actually stand in front of his "pictures," and actually patronize his psychopathic inarticulate cries for attention.
In 1480, Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art." This visual music contains a mathematical syntax. Experiencing of this syntax requires a developed cognitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to cognize "space." We can actually "see" this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of "Art."
an explanation for people who don't understand art:
work that is realistic is quite easy to do, if practiced enough. You only know certain artists like Da Vinci, Micheal angelo, etc because they became famous and their work was propagated after they died. As photography and film became a reality, what is the point of painting things teh way they are? People now evoked emotions and feelings into their work, the artist displays many techniques and principles...
no talent...... is that an art?... come on guys... the artist for me "caravaggio, Bronzino, leonardo da vinci, raffaelo, michelangelo.... hey are artist for me.... fucking pollock.
@MsSatirika those you mention are great artists aswell MsSatirika, but remember... Art is more than that!
Art is feelings, expressions, etc... that is created in any form, that be strange/abstract paintings, more "correct" paintings, pop music vs jazz?.. etc.
If its so easy this Pollock thing, why dont you do a collection and make some money? there's lots of money to earn on any kind of art!..
I prefer a Pollock before a Caravaggio in my living room imho.
@artistCeraso - Art isn't just about drawing or the final product. Art is about process and the steps you took to reach your final piece. Art is about examining the unexamined and bringing exposure to it. In Pollock's case, he tapped into the unconscious and utilized automatism (spontaneous action) to create something beautiful.
@Re1Mu2R3 just cause your too ignorant to understand art doesnt mean you should insult it. if you dont understand it fine. stop looking at it or ask some questions otherwise dont be a jerk. nobody wants to hear your ignorant ass comments
EXPLAIN THEN what every one of his paintings represent.
I could easily go piss in a canvas and tell critics: "I was so fascinated with the human body that I decided to share to you people (With love) how much I appreciate it. Human urine is such an underrated substance. The combination of salts and ammonia represents the randomness of...." or whatever BULLSHIT explanations like that and they'll believe me! I'll get rich by manipulating stupid people like Pollock did.
@Re1Mu2R3 His paintings represent motion, the human body in motion, when you look at each individual mark and splotch of paint, you think what did he do to make this the way it is and you think, in doing so you create a mental image of the artist in work. if you cant understand that then youll never understand, some people dot get art and some people do. it appears like your too closed minded to understand it
Oh sweet Christ stop replying. It took you 3 weeks to come up with that bullshit? Sorry but you never be as good a bullshitter as Pollock. Watch this video to understand what Pollock's "Art" represents and stop replying: /watch?v=5M1x03jgjIQ
@Re1Mu2R3 hey guy it took my three weeks to come up with that cause i dont spend every waking minute on youtube. i actually have better things to do, like college. do me a favor and quit spewing your bullshit all over the cyberspace.
Fuck the people who say squiggly lines aren't art. Jackson simply painted his emotions onto his canvas's, he didn't put them into some structure, some image our mind can recognize, some sort of analogy. When i look at jacksons paintings i see a mans fears and hopes, his dreams and nightmares, loves and fears. Its beautiful not because its simple but because its so complex.
@mrvendetor You are a deluded fool. Pollock simply did that to manipulate stupid people. Pollock was actually smart to have done that. You should too. You can make a lot of money there are billions of stupid people out there.
Why aren't you famous with your urinating art? Instead you are nobody (an internet commentator), criticising Jackson Pollock who definitely was somebody. Create something yourself before bashing others' creation.
@Leboylesanne Someone named Andres Serrano already did it before me. Chris Ofili already painted with Elephant Shit. I have to come up with something else... : (
Some people think all he did was fling paint on the canvas. But when you study his paintings and watch him paint you see it is controlled and diliberate the way he "places" the paint to create a structured composition. Like he says in the video "its no accident". That's the difference between someone just flinging paint at a canvas and what made him great. And then there is the fact that he created other types of works that exhibit his talent.
I used to think he was no big deal - as I had only ever seen his stuff in magazines or on TV. Two yrs ago, I faced the real thing at MOMA and was stunned speechless - for quite a long time too! omg Pollock IS in his painting. This is not just willy-nilly child's play. His work has tremendous power. I've been convinced. Respect jack.
what I see these days, is that the term 'action painting' is often confused with 'live painting'. But these are not the same. Live painting cán be action painting and action painting cán be live. Jackson Pollock didn't do any performances, like many action painters nowadays do. He painted in his studio without an audience. But what I notice in the process of Pollock's painting, is that in relatively very short time, he put a huge amount of influences on the canvas. For me that is ACTION painting
In a world where everything is planned, organized, protected and already said, art screams his need for freedom, spontaneity, innocence of uniqueness. Many people say anyone can make a similar picture. Absolutely wrong! No one can repeat a similar picture!
@Shran1970 I am not all to well familiar with the art world. But all I know is that usually "art" is a representation of emotion. If so, than Pollock must have been pissed off his entire life.
todays artists are TERRIBLE here in the uk! only yesterday, there was the new winner of the current Turner Prize! an artist recorded themselves singing a tune?? and had it played back in a gallery through 3 speakers?? I love guys like Pollock and all the greats! they are interesting in their views but todays arist is just an arrogant, trendy twat! with lack of imagination and character
If a toddler did this, he/she would be put in time out. If a toddler painted an actual, say, neoclassical painting, they would be the next child prodigy.
@Meskarune "An artist cannot talk about his art anymore than a plant can discuss horticulture." ~Jean Cocteau
of course it's BS. people ask me what my drawings are about all the time, and each time it's asked, there's a different answer. "Every good painter paints what he is."~Jackson Pollock. at least he's honest about it. you put down on paper what you are, and Pollock was a captivating mess.
@TasteForDisaster Then how did Pollock get his reputation? Also, if people believe its a scam now and have "fallen for it" then why do his works still sell for lots of money?
@snifxx0 very disingenuous comment on your part, obviously a misspelling, yes Pollock was the terrible artist I was refering to, and its true he was a murderer.
@snifxx0 Some of Pollacks paintings were recently in the MFA Boston and nobody cared because he is such a terrible artist. He fails in trying to illustrate something mysterious.
I find it absolutely amazing that all of his drip paintings are fractal! I've been studying the ties between math and art for a few months now and with the new information they've found, you can't just say he threw paint on a canvas because he definitely had a technique.
That`s incorrect, neither him or picasso or (almost) whatever modern painter you name, was able to paint like the old masters, now we need to see a painter that is good both on classical & modern styles!
Pollocks paintings are not about something in the way that da vinci's paintings are. He is trying to illustrate the intangible. The man had the guts to put himself on a canvas and display it. He's finding himself through painting, putting everything, his whole life on a canvas, You have to appreciate that if for no other reason, because you would be too frightened to do it yourself
@calebohcaleb what do you mean "he put his life on canvas" all i saw was his slappin' some paint on the canvas. i'm not a painter, but i am a musician, is it like when you can feel the emotion and expression that a performer is trying to portray in music? but how did this sell for 100million+ dollars? this is beyond abstract, it's like painting a whole picture black selling it.
@calebohcaleb You try to make him sound like a goddamned hero for slapping some paint on a canvas. 'Guts'? Is that bravery? He was an uncreative, lazy 'artist' and an adulterous drunk. It's just too bad that he had to bring someone down with him when he crashed that car (unless of course it was Barnett Newman)
@calebohcaleb no, he is splashing paint on a canvas. my 3 year old sister could do what he does, and make more money than him, because it would be considered great, creative art. this is a fucking retarded way to create "art."
@djangolad obviously not the same guy who taught Pollock to paint. He didn't really explain the whole "figures and scenery" bit too well, as you can see.
@kelseyweaves actually, if you study the arts of various world cultures seriously, you'll find that modern art is largely stolen from previous examples. For instance, Australians were making dot paintings thousands upon thousands of years before 'pointilism'
@kelseyweaves The funniest is, that even today (2011) we "all know how to do it".. but still are we ditching those who actually take their time and interest to do it!
...and no!, Im not part of "We" but more of them who use their time to make art, cause.. yes this is art!
Its like with everyting else... music, magic, other kinds of painting, photography, writing, cooking, teaching, football or other sports, etc... Its ridiculously easy, when you first know how to do it..
@kelseyweaves it's mostly about composition. i rarely like any abstract art, because it doesn't suite my eye. i like my eyes to move on their own when looking at a painting. remember when in grade school the teacher missed a spot whilst erasing a chalkboard, and it drove certain kids NUTS?! that's what a stroke or speck of paint out of place does it for me. to me real abstract art has no flaw, while technically speaking, the whole painting is a flaw.
Arad737 Son, your arrogance and ignorance is that of a 2 semester internet searched art expert. Someone with knowledge knows Pasiphae ( show cased in the Met.) and Guardians Of The Secret ( San Fran. MOA) ARE masterpieces of modern art not of the later drip style. There are many other early paintings you could think of painting, son. I suggest get a life and make that art as JP did it.. Work in this field and let that do the talking for you before you rewrite history and talk that %$#@.
Arad737 - Chill Man..... Whats relevant then with the Last Super or Mona Lisa . doesn't have the same relevance the in 50's Modern art/painting didn't happen overnight along with modern literature and science. The progression was made maybe from El Greco or E Delacroix ( this is debatable) Thru Manet, the impressionists, neo,& post, cubism with Braque and Picasso to name only a few.Art is more than just looking. Jackson Pollock a rebel at a time McCarthyism was real, painted his heart & ideas..
Also...keep in mind that he painted in a time period where art had to be a certain way, he gave art critics a big "fuck you" and went on to do what he pleased. He was the originator of that style of painting...and no one has the right to talk shit regarding that "anyone can do it" ideology because Pollock came up with that before anyone had it in mind...
@sullivanmcnuggets I'm sure many many humans before Pollock create crap like this, but realized its crap and never hyped it up like a piece of art. Unfortunately at Pollock's time, hippies needed to feel different and superior so they followed him and then he got some good marketing and then people forced themselves to accept his shit as art. Art can be different, like Picasso, but it has to have "something" artistic and real. Painting a Picasso is terribly hard, painting a Pollock, not so much.
I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but some of the comments bashing Pollock seem to be from people that haven't seen a Pollock piece in person. Standing in front of a Pollock piece is an incredible experience. Pollock was an innovative artist and that's why his pieces are regarded as masterpieces...
Sounds like he had brain damage from all the shit he smoked to create ass crap like this. Look at the painting of the greats like DaVinci and Kamal-ol-Molk and then look at this guy who talks and paints like a retard... the difference in quality is clear.
@Arad737 Obviously you didn't listen to anything he said, you were too stuck on his vocal patterns to listen to the words. This is about expression, not necessarily quality.
Ok, I agree with that. Note, here are some gold nuggets in this short clip, JP's first phrase is "I enjoy".... and then, "i can be part of the painting", then "out of a need"... " express my feelings" I think its important to realize his early work was new and strong. IMO with his nature, I think he would have moved beyond or evolved, as his early work showed.
The point I was trying to make is the thrift store find is either a great painting or it isn't. It should be judged on its merits as a piece of art.
Let's leave value out of the equation. If I find a gorgeous painting that looks dead on like an original Van Gogh or a Monet, so much so that the experts can't even tell if its authentic or not, I would say it is a masterpiece and be thrilled to hang it in my house regardless of who the artist was.
Its disheartening hearing this from these ignorant people. Why are they here anyway? Myself and majority of artists put alot of time effort and expenses out without return for the love of creating and expressing because it inside oneself. If it awakens someone spirit or open a heart or mind isn't it worth more than money anyway?
din't really want to respond to the last few comments because you can't be artists and don't get it and are raising issues outside the effort of sincere work. In general and briefly art isn't created by anyone I know with a worth amount in mind. This is done outside the artists hand. (society) Yes one can make a piece of work as worthy as J. Pollock agian its society's influence at that point for importance Artist I know would rather produce their own truths/work otherwise its a knockoff
Here in our local zoo, elephants can paint like a Pollock...but I checked other videos here in Youtube. other elephants can paint BETTER THAN POLLOCK!
There is a painting found in a thrift store that many people believe is a genuine Pollack, and many others dispute. If it was 100% proven to be authentic, people would crowd around it and say what a masterpiece it was. If the same painting was completely proven not to be a Pollock, those same people would call it a cheap fake.
This doesn't make sense to me. A great piece of art should stand on it's artistic merits alone, shouldn't it?
artworldpirate: you are most def correct about today's society - they do not like to think. They can appreciate being threatened by a new though or outside of thier own values. If the art is not something they are familiar with then they cannot accept it. That is why I choose to work in pop art right now. It is a good medium which will be most easily accepted in years to come, sad to say.
Pollock did something totally new and that is hard to do. A good artist only has to be themself and then they can do no wrong. If you are always yourself you are always you and unique.
0:55 Uuugh... i know exactly what he means, i think i do, i probably don't. I just went from a Biology major back to an art major... It's annoying i'm trying to do 1 thing and a Jackson Polock like image get's into my head or an idea for a sculpture... i always come back to art.
Thanks for this short clip. IMO his early work (pre drip) was real strong also. He even states here that tech. is only a means to express. Another mid centry American artist Icon. artworldpirate, your missing it. Art comes from life and he lived it however saddly. If your not living, putting life as art and just following art you won't get it, not to be negitive.
Just never say never. Abstract art will die like any other style, as will the obsession with novelty. That is a very 20th century conceit. It reflects our anemic minds. Pollock is interesting to people today because his art requires so little to understand it, not because it is profound. In an age that doesn't read, much less draw or paint well, Pollock's nothingness is very appealing.
@artworldpirate You actually disprove your statement of Pollocks work being easy to understand by your sheer misunderstanding of his work... If you understood his work you would be less critical of it. For its not just the aesthetics but it was the time period and statement in which he made it. He broke the norm. Now can you do something we all haven't seen before?
@artworldpirate Reading, words, and even thoughts are just as abstract and unreal as abstract art, and are of no greater or lesser value than art in expressing Truth. All fall short of that noble aim, & are hence all exercises in abject futility. Your comment, your pompous words, the ideas that gave rise to them, and even your ego itself represent just as much nothingness as you smugly impute to Pollock's art. True "profundity" can only be grasped in deep meditation,when the mind is SILENT!
I cried the first time I saw his work, fell on my knees and cried like a baby right in the museum of fine arts in Houston. Ive been back there alote since then, even given a few classes there, I alwasys stop and look ay his work, always feel something dark and pure radiating from it.
I have a great appreciation for classical painting all the way to abstract expressionism. But I am really driven towards abstraction. Its that while a classical painting is beautiful, abstract work has such pure mystery and expression that classical painting doesn't have for me. I can look at a Rembrandt and say "I got it" while I can always come back to an abstract work and reinterpret it or try to figure it out.
While I may think Pollock's work is aesthetically pleasing its the context and statement thats important.
As far as art goes today or in the future I don't ever see it regressing to Classical. I'm sure as always people will paint realistically but I think we would all love to see something we haven't seen before! Keep on pushing it.
It's kind of like a plane crash, very sad but we all like to watch. Or, is this love of tragic things a sign of arrested development? I wonder, though, if the sensationalism of the art world will ever end. Everything, especially really dumb things, can be considered fine art, much of it costing millions.. What is next?
@artworldpirate What? What is next? People like you can never know it, because of no fantasy! By the way: Some art costing millions because there are people who want to pay it. (About me:
I have great respect for his process, but the end result is something I despise. The passionate feelings for his work, whether positive or negative, have contributed to his success. In a strange way I respect someone who can make a painting that I dislike with such great passion, but I feel as though he has contributed to destroying something that I love.
I agree. The ongoing argument justifies Pollock's work, whereas someone who doesn't generate any controversy or evoke any passion for their work does not. Nevertheless, as a painter I am left with a bad taste in my mouth after seeing how he affected the art world.
I think people will get bored of abstraction after awhile and will move back to a more classical based style, or will incorporate more classical into the abstraction.
Or maybe there will be an entirely new mode of expression that will breakthrough, that relies on skill more than the trick.
I hate the hype around Jackson Pollock. Still, he offered a new aesthetic. And for this, he should be considered. He may even deserve long time fame. However few have thought critically about his work. This will start when people actually look at his canvases without adding their own imaginations, expectations or agendas.
Pollock's paintings are in fact very sophisticated and not just random splashes. It is hard to convince people of this, who just see random splashes. Think if you heard a language that you never heard before. It would just be a noise. Haven't you ever heard a piece of music or even watched a movie or something that you thought was bad for whatever reason then heard or saw it again and changed your mind. Some people just hear random noise is Jazz music but it's not really like that at all.
effluxide 1 week ago
what did no chaos damn it mean? the answer does not drip from my mind
JazzKeyboardist1 1 week ago
Comment removed
JazzKeyboardist1 1 week ago
Seems like a waste of paint. Intentional spills is ART? Deliberate dribble is TALENT? I'm guessing because he was ill made it 'special' so some call him a GENIUS. I can't appreciate the lacking of skill, though I bet it was fun to produce. I'd like to question why a lot of 'artists' could do what he did but not gain such credit. Is it because he was the first to do so?
Tattpilot 3 weeks ago
Art Genius
ChazzMcNas 1 month ago
Comment removed
ChazzMcNas 1 month ago
He had a fag in his mouth the whole time with all those paint fumes - can't have been healthy
MarineBlue1981 2 months ago
@MarineBlue1981 and many of those cigarette butts actually fell into the paintings! i read about an art conservator restoring a pollock painting. the butt had disintegrated, so she smoked a camel down to the filter and stuck it back in.
mereubu 1 month ago
actually, unlike most artists, he was very successful both financially and critically during his lifetime...Life magazine, Guggenheim, etc., his work commanded high prices and was in great demand...
He rocketed to popular status following an August 8, 1949 four-page spread in Life magazine that asked, "Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?"
pretty sure one of his works got the highest price ever paid for a painting: 140 mil in 2006
99arthur1 2 months ago
This guy practically committed suicide with alcohol ,due to frustration of not being able to paint some thing good for the masses ! His crap that he is calling paintings are just a mass of shit!!
comentariopesado 2 months ago
You can tell in the desperation and hopeless of this guy trying to find a way to paint something that makes sense . Unfortunately this poor bastard could never paint anything wort seeing!
comentariopesado 3 months ago
i think he missed a spot
ZombieBunny501 3 months ago 5
"and Pollock was a captivating mess" -r0pp0nmatsu
brilliant
1m2a3t4t5 3 months ago
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if you don't like pollocks paintings or think that a 3 year old could make the same there's no point bashing it, that's like saying one type of music is better than another when it's not, they are just different and for different tastes
Anotherrnumber 3 months ago
Pollock's paintings are the element of gesture (contained within all paintings made by hand) amplified.
NotNamedJones 4 months ago
Pollock had a true vision but his drinking self indulgent importance overtook his art and soul, he had so much and he wasted it on what? Most artists struggle with
little recognition . . . or studio's, or girlfriends that know millionairesses who buy
your pictures for tax deductions. what a lucky guy he was
ladyovemeans 5 months ago
Jackson Pollock was a talentless hack.
hakkujin 5 months ago 2
if you don´t understand human soul and deep feelings you´ll never understand Pollock , go and create some figurative and imitative art, if you don´t have anything new to say will be better that way, repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat ... is soOOOO EASY to speak...
Isis7630 5 months ago
BUT ITS JUST SQUIGGLES!!! I dont understand
kingmanted 5 months ago
I'm more of a Goya fan myself, which is so far from Pollock, but I don't think Pollock was as "worthless" as you all are saying. Granted I wouldn't want any of his paintings in my house, I wouldn't say he's horrible either. The one thing I do know is that it's so much easier to be a critic than an artist. Everybody is a critic. Everybody thinks they know what they look at, but they don't. Maybe it was a scam, maybe it was genius, I don't know. He knows.
tf2weekly 6 months ago
Because of advances in science, we can now know that Pollock's pictures are the equivalent of this:"At Hiroshima: The common lot was random, indiscriminate and universal violence inflicting terrible pain, the physics of hydraulics and leverage and heat run riot." Pollock was no genius, he was a simpleton, but less of a simpleton than anyone who could actually stand in front of his "pictures," and actually patronize his psychopathic inarticulate cries for attention.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
In 1480, Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art." This visual music contains a mathematical syntax. Experiencing of this syntax requires a developed cognitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to cognize "space." We can actually "see" this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of "Art."
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
I create an original Jackson Pollock every time I eat Mexican food...
BeyondTheTreeline 7 months ago
My name is Jackson Pollock, and I'm a Mormon.
Huddiethegreat 7 months ago
an explanation for people who don't understand art:
work that is realistic is quite easy to do, if practiced enough. You only know certain artists like Da Vinci, Micheal angelo, etc because they became famous and their work was propagated after they died. As photography and film became a reality, what is the point of painting things teh way they are? People now evoked emotions and feelings into their work, the artist displays many techniques and principles...
StarNightsDream 8 months ago
no talent...... is that an art?... come on guys... the artist for me "caravaggio, Bronzino, leonardo da vinci, raffaelo, michelangelo.... hey are artist for me.... fucking pollock.
MsSatirika 8 months ago
@MsSatirika those you mention are great artists aswell MsSatirika, but remember... Art is more than that!
Art is feelings, expressions, etc... that is created in any form, that be strange/abstract paintings, more "correct" paintings, pop music vs jazz?.. etc.
If its so easy this Pollock thing, why dont you do a collection and make some money? there's lots of money to earn on any kind of art!..
I prefer a Pollock before a Caravaggio in my living room imho.
ZidokTV 8 months ago
no talent i bet he couldnt draw
artistCeraso 9 months ago
@artistCeraso - Art isn't just about drawing or the final product. Art is about process and the steps you took to reach your final piece. Art is about examining the unexamined and bringing exposure to it. In Pollock's case, he tapped into the unconscious and utilized automatism (spontaneous action) to create something beautiful.
sarskid 8 months ago
epitome of silent art
samsoundworld 9 months ago
Im doing this for homework :)
uliseto 9 months ago
@uliseto ya im doin it for a project too
fart23332 8 months ago
dude is a fucking idiot
DfektRiskProductions 9 months ago
It is actually quite easy to detect a phony Pollock painting. It turns out that his work follows a fractal pattern (as in math).
xabixnaq 11 months ago
Hey guys I just pissed on a canvas. Please buy my "art."
I'm starting a movement called Pissism. Anybody wanna join?
Or should I go to France instead?
Re1Mu2R3 11 months ago
Comment removed
mrJxin594 11 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3
i want to punch your parents' in the face for fucking each other and giving birth to a fuck up like you
mrJxin594 11 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3
go play your fucking video games you cocksucking faggot
i am ashamed to exist in the same world as you do
mrJxin594 11 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3
LMAO!
Well done.
Skeletonwitharaygun 11 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3 just cause your too ignorant to understand art doesnt mean you should insult it. if you dont understand it fine. stop looking at it or ask some questions otherwise dont be a jerk. nobody wants to hear your ignorant ass comments
Kentucky72edneck2009 10 months ago
@Kentucky72edneck2009
EXPLAIN THEN what every one of his paintings represent.
I could easily go piss in a canvas and tell critics: "I was so fascinated with the human body that I decided to share to you people (With love) how much I appreciate it. Human urine is such an underrated substance. The combination of salts and ammonia represents the randomness of...." or whatever BULLSHIT explanations like that and they'll believe me! I'll get rich by manipulating stupid people like Pollock did.
Re1Mu2R3 10 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3 His paintings represent motion, the human body in motion, when you look at each individual mark and splotch of paint, you think what did he do to make this the way it is and you think, in doing so you create a mental image of the artist in work. if you cant understand that then youll never understand, some people dot get art and some people do. it appears like your too closed minded to understand it
Kentucky72edneck2009 9 months ago
@Kentucky72edneck2009
Oh sweet Christ stop replying. It took you 3 weeks to come up with that bullshit? Sorry but you never be as good a bullshitter as Pollock. Watch this video to understand what Pollock's "Art" represents and stop replying: /watch?v=5M1x03jgjIQ
Re1Mu2R3 9 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3 hey guy it took my three weeks to come up with that cause i dont spend every waking minute on youtube. i actually have better things to do, like college. do me a favor and quit spewing your bullshit all over the cyberspace.
Kentucky72edneck2009 9 months ago
Every house painter in the country has these. They're called drop cloths.
DoctorLawyerWhatever 11 months ago
Fuck the people who say squiggly lines aren't art. Jackson simply painted his emotions onto his canvas's, he didn't put them into some structure, some image our mind can recognize, some sort of analogy. When i look at jacksons paintings i see a mans fears and hopes, his dreams and nightmares, loves and fears. Its beautiful not because its simple but because its so complex.
mrvendetor 1 year ago
@mrvendetor You are a deluded fool. Pollock simply did that to manipulate stupid people. Pollock was actually smart to have done that. You should too. You can make a lot of money there are billions of stupid people out there.
Re1Mu2R3 10 months ago
@Re1Mu2R3
Why aren't you famous with your urinating art? Instead you are nobody (an internet commentator), criticising Jackson Pollock who definitely was somebody. Create something yourself before bashing others' creation.
Leboylesanne 10 months ago
@Leboylesanne Someone named Andres Serrano already did it before me. Chris Ofili already painted with Elephant Shit. I have to come up with something else... : (
Re1Mu2R3 10 months ago
Some people think all he did was fling paint on the canvas. But when you study his paintings and watch him paint you see it is controlled and diliberate the way he "places" the paint to create a structured composition. Like he says in the video "its no accident". That's the difference between someone just flinging paint at a canvas and what made him great. And then there is the fact that he created other types of works that exhibit his talent.
artgal28 1 year ago
art is what you can get away with- andy warhol
thetwodragons 1 year ago
i am the 300.000 viewer. i55 .tinypic.com /feght5 .png
sibemol007 1 year ago
I used to think he was no big deal - as I had only ever seen his stuff in magazines or on TV. Two yrs ago, I faced the real thing at MOMA and was stunned speechless - for quite a long time too! omg Pollock IS in his painting. This is not just willy-nilly child's play. His work has tremendous power. I've been convinced. Respect jack.
egris00 1 year ago
what I see these days, is that the term 'action painting' is often confused with 'live painting'. But these are not the same. Live painting cán be action painting and action painting cán be live. Jackson Pollock didn't do any performances, like many action painters nowadays do. He painted in his studio without an audience. But what I notice in the process of Pollock's painting, is that in relatively very short time, he put a huge amount of influences on the canvas. For me that is ACTION painting
remkoleeuw 1 year ago 5
I try to translate, sorry for my English...
In a world where everything is planned, organized, protected and already said, art screams his need for freedom, spontaneity, innocence of uniqueness. Many people say anyone can make a similar picture. Absolutely wrong! No one can repeat a similar picture!
dtyerisd 1 year ago
Could somebody please tell me how in the flying fuck this is art?
macarthur19 1 year ago
@macarthur19 Why is the Mona Lisa "art"?
Shran1970 1 year ago
@Shran1970 I am not all to well familiar with the art world. But all I know is that usually "art" is a representation of emotion. If so, than Pollock must have been pissed off his entire life.
macarthur19 1 year ago
@macarthur19
no one ever could. you don't want to know.
bonbonchanson 1 year ago
It's art. I don't have to like it, but I should be able to see past my distrust of his method to see the merit and structure of his technique.
For those who think it is easy, try and do a Pollock yourself. I would be interested to see what happens.
sybercat6 1 year ago
Jackson Pollock...more like Jackson Bullshit.
Disrupptive 1 year ago
@Disrupptive Bullshit worth several million dollars.
Shran1970 1 year ago
todays artists are TERRIBLE here in the uk! only yesterday, there was the new winner of the current Turner Prize! an artist recorded themselves singing a tune?? and had it played back in a gallery through 3 speakers?? I love guys like Pollock and all the greats! they are interesting in their views but todays arist is just an arrogant, trendy twat! with lack of imagination and character
Fender1976uk 1 year ago
If a toddler did this, he/she would be put in time out. If a toddler painted an actual, say, neoclassical painting, they would be the next child prodigy.
PyroPortrayal 1 year ago
So much bullshit..... "I work from all sides of the cavas, to be closer to it...."
Meskarune 1 year ago
@Meskarune "An artist cannot talk about his art anymore than a plant can discuss horticulture." ~Jean Cocteau
of course it's BS. people ask me what my drawings are about all the time, and each time it's asked, there's a different answer. "Every good painter paints what he is."~Jackson Pollock. at least he's honest about it. you put down on paper what you are, and Pollock was a captivating mess.
r0pp0nmatsu 1 year ago 7
The sound track is eerie
A dead man talking to me
johnjacopelleartistgallerycom
jaco2627 1 year ago
lol, he sure fooled a lot of people and made a mint.
liz2porter 1 year ago
@liz2porter yeah he did, he probably laughed all the way to the bank.
coltpage 1 year ago
@coltpage If its so easy and such a scam why don't you do it?
Huddiethegreat 7 months ago
@Huddiethegreat cause people most likley won't fall for it again? who will he be able to sell it to if he has no reputation?
TasteForDisaster 7 months ago
@TasteForDisaster Then how did Pollock get his reputation? Also, if people believe its a scam now and have "fallen for it" then why do his works still sell for lots of money?
Huddiethegreat 7 months ago
Abstract Art was the last real important art created. Who wants to look at Warhol's reproduction circus. It's all kitsch.
Super8StrikesBack 1 year ago
@Super8StrikesBack Of course it is. And Warhol knew that too. He revelled in the commercial, and sought to turn it into art.
jamesmiller85 1 year ago
@snifxx0 behind the wheel, on the sauce
beradification 1 year ago
@snifxx0 very disingenuous comment on your part, obviously a misspelling, yes Pollock was the terrible artist I was refering to, and its true he was a murderer.
beradification 1 year ago
@Ozzrya91 good point
beradification 1 year ago
@snifxx0 Some of Pollacks paintings were recently in the MFA Boston and nobody cared because he is such a terrible artist. He fails in trying to illustrate something mysterious.
And lets not forget he was a murderer.
beradification 1 year ago
pure garbage
yoheff988 1 year ago
it's a chemical expression. the talk is bullshit, as usual. it's all chemical. everything.
newnewly 1 year ago
His left hand got caught in a vice when he was a small child.
sptfgpn 1 year ago
I <3 Pollock, so free~
weirdOfranchise 1 year ago
Ive seen Pollock's paintings in London and have been completely mesmerised by all of them.
Only when you have seen them face to face can you realise the true beauty of the paintings.
NOGOODHOODnz 1 year ago
this is the same movie repeat a lot of times
TeRRoriStaDLfLow 1 year ago
short loop
deman1877 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goglear Los Mandalas de Kamen
kamenabstracto blogspot com/
Darioleandro2002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goglear Los Mandalas de Kamen
kamenabstracto blogspot com/
Darioleandro2002 1 year ago
I know what you mean, I accidental spilled some paint and total fractals total crap
TheGodofWarmars 1 year ago
I find it absolutely amazing that all of his drip paintings are fractal! I've been studying the ties between math and art for a few months now and with the new information they've found, you can't just say he threw paint on a canvas because he definitely had a technique.
razorlax007 1 year ago
@razorlax007 He threw paint on a canvas, but it worked for him.
aryul 1 year ago
WOW! This guy is soooooooo talented. Eat shit Michelangelo. Eat shit Da Vinci. You've got nothing on this genius!
PresidenteCamacho 1 year ago
Jackson Pollock could paint a realistic painting perfectly, if he wanted to, but he wanted to do something different and amazing.
ARURTOREYES 1 year ago
That`s incorrect, neither him or picasso or (almost) whatever modern painter you name, was able to paint like the old masters, now we need to see a painter that is good both on classical & modern styles!
trinitaterion 1 year ago
@trinitaterion Picasso painted like a master as young as 13 years old. Look at his painting "First Communion" 1895/96.
EATHhable 1 year ago
That painting wasn`t done by him and its a travesty that art books around the world credit it as his, because it wasn`t done by his hand.
trinitaterion 1 year ago
Pollocks paintings are not about something in the way that da vinci's paintings are. He is trying to illustrate the intangible. The man had the guts to put himself on a canvas and display it. He's finding himself through painting, putting everything, his whole life on a canvas, You have to appreciate that if for no other reason, because you would be too frightened to do it yourself
calebohcaleb 1 year ago 31
@calebohcaleb well said
70SLA 1 year ago
@calebohcaleb what do you mean "he put his life on canvas" all i saw was his slappin' some paint on the canvas. i'm not a painter, but i am a musician, is it like when you can feel the emotion and expression that a performer is trying to portray in music? but how did this sell for 100million+ dollars? this is beyond abstract, it's like painting a whole picture black selling it.
TasteForDisaster 7 months ago
@calebohcaleb You try to make him sound like a goddamned hero for slapping some paint on a canvas. 'Guts'? Is that bravery? He was an uncreative, lazy 'artist' and an adulterous drunk. It's just too bad that he had to bring someone down with him when he crashed that car (unless of course it was Barnett Newman)
BeyondTheTreeline 7 months ago
@calebohcaleb no, he is splashing paint on a canvas. my 3 year old sister could do what he does, and make more money than him, because it would be considered great, creative art. this is a fucking retarded way to create "art."
azaria1123 7 months ago
@azaria1123 Ahhhhhgh! Do minds like yours really still exist? Who taught you how to use a computer?
djangolad 5 months ago
@djangolad obviously not the same guy who taught Pollock to paint. He didn't really explain the whole "figures and scenery" bit too well, as you can see.
azaria1123 4 months ago
modern art = i could do that + yeah but you didn't
sure you could splatter paint on to a canvas but did you have the creativity and innovation to think of it in the first place?
kelseyweaves 1 year ago 47
@kelseyweaves actually, if you study the arts of various world cultures seriously, you'll find that modern art is largely stolen from previous examples. For instance, Australians were making dot paintings thousands upon thousands of years before 'pointilism'
beradification 1 year ago
@kelseyweaves Where is the creativity? Innovative sure. Impressive, nicht.
macarthur19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelseyweaves Where is the creativity? Innovative sure. Impressive, nicht.
macarthur19 1 year ago
@kelseyweaves Yes. But there is a lot more to 'modern art' than mere originality!
aydansavaskan 9 months ago
@kelseyweaves The funniest is, that even today (2011) we "all know how to do it".. but still are we ditching those who actually take their time and interest to do it!
...and no!, Im not part of "We" but more of them who use their time to make art, cause.. yes this is art!
Its like with everyting else... music, magic, other kinds of painting, photography, writing, cooking, teaching, football or other sports, etc... Its ridiculously easy, when you first know how to do it..
ZidokTV 8 months ago
@kelseyweaves ...Creativity means nothing if it's a shitty idea.
TheRemotestCipher 7 months ago
@TheRemotestCipher Good thing its not a shitty idea then
Huddiethegreat 7 months ago
@kelseyweaves it's mostly about composition. i rarely like any abstract art, because it doesn't suite my eye. i like my eyes to move on their own when looking at a painting. remember when in grade school the teacher missed a spot whilst erasing a chalkboard, and it drove certain kids NUTS?! that's what a stroke or speck of paint out of place does it for me. to me real abstract art has no flaw, while technically speaking, the whole painting is a flaw.
patbelski 7 months ago
Arad737 Son, your arrogance and ignorance is that of a 2 semester internet searched art expert. Someone with knowledge knows Pasiphae ( show cased in the Met.) and Guardians Of The Secret ( San Fran. MOA) ARE masterpieces of modern art not of the later drip style. There are many other early paintings you could think of painting, son. I suggest get a life and make that art as JP did it.. Work in this field and let that do the talking for you before you rewrite history and talk that %$#@.
70SLA 1 year ago
Arad737 - Chill Man..... Whats relevant then with the Last Super or Mona Lisa . doesn't have the same relevance the in 50's Modern art/painting didn't happen overnight along with modern literature and science. The progression was made maybe from El Greco or E Delacroix ( this is debatable) Thru Manet, the impressionists, neo,& post, cubism with Braque and Picasso to name only a few.Art is more than just looking. Jackson Pollock a rebel at a time McCarthyism was real, painted his heart & ideas..
70SLA 1 year ago
Also...keep in mind that he painted in a time period where art had to be a certain way, he gave art critics a big "fuck you" and went on to do what he pleased. He was the originator of that style of painting...and no one has the right to talk shit regarding that "anyone can do it" ideology because Pollock came up with that before anyone had it in mind...
sullivanmcnuggets 1 year ago 2
@sullivanmcnuggets I'm sure many many humans before Pollock create crap like this, but realized its crap and never hyped it up like a piece of art. Unfortunately at Pollock's time, hippies needed to feel different and superior so they followed him and then he got some good marketing and then people forced themselves to accept his shit as art. Art can be different, like Picasso, but it has to have "something" artistic and real. Painting a Picasso is terribly hard, painting a Pollock, not so much.
Arad737 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but some of the comments bashing Pollock seem to be from people that haven't seen a Pollock piece in person. Standing in front of a Pollock piece is an incredible experience. Pollock was an innovative artist and that's why his pieces are regarded as masterpieces...
sullivanmcnuggets 1 year ago
Comment removed
sullivanmcnuggets 1 year ago
Sounds like he had brain damage from all the shit he smoked to create ass crap like this. Look at the painting of the greats like DaVinci and Kamal-ol-Molk and then look at this guy who talks and paints like a retard... the difference in quality is clear.
Charlatan fooled all the pot-head of the time.
Arad737 1 year ago
@Arad737 Obviously you didn't listen to anything he said, you were too stuck on his vocal patterns to listen to the words. This is about expression, not necessarily quality.
JacobMPierce 1 year ago
I hope Billy Finds The Broken Glass Under The House On Market Street
Theglasswillbebluegreen
Pascagoula,Mississippik
JacksonPaulPollockherbi
Pascagoula,Mississippik
Theglasswillbebluegreen
DoubleDutchBust 1 year ago
Ok, I agree with that. Note, here are some gold nuggets in this short clip, JP's first phrase is "I enjoy".... and then, "i can be part of the painting", then "out of a need"... " express my feelings" I think its important to realize his early work was new and strong. IMO with his nature, I think he would have moved beyond or evolved, as his early work showed.
70SLA 1 year ago
The point I was trying to make is the thrift store find is either a great painting or it isn't. It should be judged on its merits as a piece of art.
Let's leave value out of the equation. If I find a gorgeous painting that looks dead on like an original Van Gogh or a Monet, so much so that the experts can't even tell if its authentic or not, I would say it is a masterpiece and be thrilled to hang it in my house regardless of who the artist was.
mkhaas 1 year ago
Yes, thanks Archeretick.
Its disheartening hearing this from these ignorant people. Why are they here anyway? Myself and majority of artists put alot of time effort and expenses out without return for the love of creating and expressing because it inside oneself. If it awakens someone spirit or open a heart or mind isn't it worth more than money anyway?
70SLA 1 year ago
It's funny how common people refuse to understand what art is really about.
It looks like we have a new class system: normal people and ignorant people.
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
din't really want to respond to the last few comments because you can't be artists and don't get it and are raising issues outside the effort of sincere work. In general and briefly art isn't created by anyone I know with a worth amount in mind. This is done outside the artists hand. (society) Yes one can make a piece of work as worthy as J. Pollock agian its society's influence at that point for importance Artist I know would rather produce their own truths/work otherwise its a knockoff
70SLA 1 year ago
Here in our local zoo, elephants can paint like a Pollock...but I checked other videos here in Youtube. other elephants can paint BETTER THAN POLLOCK!
nerskie 1 year ago
There is a painting found in a thrift store that many people believe is a genuine Pollack, and many others dispute. If it was 100% proven to be authentic, people would crowd around it and say what a masterpiece it was. If the same painting was completely proven not to be a Pollock, those same people would call it a cheap fake.
This doesn't make sense to me. A great piece of art should stand on it's artistic merits alone, shouldn't it?
mkhaas 1 year ago
meet me at the cedar bar!
zaprudermacphee 1 year ago
artworldpirate: you are most def correct about today's society - they do not like to think. They can appreciate being threatened by a new though or outside of thier own values. If the art is not something they are familiar with then they cannot accept it. That is why I choose to work in pop art right now. It is a good medium which will be most easily accepted in years to come, sad to say.
HateClips 1 year ago
Pollock did something totally new and that is hard to do. A good artist only has to be themself and then they can do no wrong. If you are always yourself you are always you and unique.
HateClips 1 year ago 2
0:55 Uuugh... i know exactly what he means, i think i do, i probably don't. I just went from a Biology major back to an art major... It's annoying i'm trying to do 1 thing and a Jackson Polock like image get's into my head or an idea for a sculpture... i always come back to art.
@artworldpirate, it's ok if you can't see it.
BioFan1000xMK2 1 year ago
Thanks for this short clip. IMO his early work (pre drip) was real strong also. He even states here that tech. is only a means to express. Another mid centry American artist Icon. artworldpirate, your missing it. Art comes from life and he lived it however saddly. If your not living, putting life as art and just following art you won't get it, not to be negitive.
Again, nice short clip of a rebel painter
70SLA 1 year ago
Hát ez gyönyörű bazdmeg
Bogi911 2 years ago
he is first drink in 2 years (1950). 5 years later, He is died in the car crash.
crazybkw1989 2 years ago
Paint some shit and give philosophical meaning to it. some fools will believe and buy your "art".
nerskie 2 years ago
Interesting
erolorhun 2 years ago 2
"" i want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them.""
distinct36 2 years ago 2
non disturbate
c'e' un GENIO all'opera
Grande Pollock !!!
latte60 2 years ago
@latte60 Si, si, si, si !!!!!!!
airamanno 2 years ago
Just never say never. Abstract art will die like any other style, as will the obsession with novelty. That is a very 20th century conceit. It reflects our anemic minds. Pollock is interesting to people today because his art requires so little to understand it, not because it is profound. In an age that doesn't read, much less draw or paint well, Pollock's nothingness is very appealing.
artworldpirate 2 years ago
@artworldpirate You actually disprove your statement of Pollocks work being easy to understand by your sheer misunderstanding of his work... If you understood his work you would be less critical of it. For its not just the aesthetics but it was the time period and statement in which he made it. He broke the norm. Now can you do something we all haven't seen before?
dmannn156 2 years ago
Dear friend, I respect your opininion
I think that Pollock is at the same level of artists like Giotto, Vermeer, Monet, Fontana, Licini, Cavellini
These are artists who have charted a new pahts.
Pollock has innovated the language of art.
Toulouse Lautrec said:
Painting is like shit. Feels can not be explained.
latte60 2 years ago
@artworldpirate Reading, words, and even thoughts are just as abstract and unreal as abstract art, and are of no greater or lesser value than art in expressing Truth. All fall short of that noble aim, & are hence all exercises in abject futility. Your comment, your pompous words, the ideas that gave rise to them, and even your ego itself represent just as much nothingness as you smugly impute to Pollock's art. True "profundity" can only be grasped in deep meditation,when the mind is SILENT!
frogrfb 1 year ago
Yawn.
artworldpirate 1 year ago
@artworldpirate
Ignoramus.
TheMintyMuffin 1 year ago
@artworldpirate nice steal, no imagination huh?
MrWowforever 1 year ago
I cried the first time I saw his work, fell on my knees and cried like a baby right in the museum of fine arts in Houston. Ive been back there alote since then, even given a few classes there, I alwasys stop and look ay his work, always feel something dark and pure radiating from it.
CrustOpera 2 years ago
I have a great appreciation for classical painting all the way to abstract expressionism. But I am really driven towards abstraction. Its that while a classical painting is beautiful, abstract work has such pure mystery and expression that classical painting doesn't have for me. I can look at a Rembrandt and say "I got it" while I can always come back to an abstract work and reinterpret it or try to figure it out.
dmannn156 2 years ago
While I may think Pollock's work is aesthetically pleasing its the context and statement thats important.
As far as art goes today or in the future I don't ever see it regressing to Classical. I'm sure as always people will paint realistically but I think we would all love to see something we haven't seen before! Keep on pushing it.
dmannn156 2 years ago
It's kind of like a plane crash, very sad but we all like to watch. Or, is this love of tragic things a sign of arrested development? I wonder, though, if the sensationalism of the art world will ever end. Everything, especially really dumb things, can be considered fine art, much of it costing millions.. What is next?
artworldpirate 2 years ago
@artworldpirate What? What is next? People like you can never know it, because of no fantasy! By the way: Some art costing millions because there are people who want to pay it. (About me:
I would never sell my paintings for no prize)
airamanno 2 years ago
I have great respect for his process, but the end result is something I despise. The passionate feelings for his work, whether positive or negative, have contributed to his success. In a strange way I respect someone who can make a painting that I dislike with such great passion, but I feel as though he has contributed to destroying something that I love.
AtomicBobBomb 2 years ago 2
The important thing is that there is an argument.
TheSZimmer 2 years ago
I agree. The ongoing argument justifies Pollock's work, whereas someone who doesn't generate any controversy or evoke any passion for their work does not. Nevertheless, as a painter I am left with a bad taste in my mouth after seeing how he affected the art world.
AtomicBobBomb 2 years ago
I think people will get bored of abstraction after awhile and will move back to a more classical based style, or will incorporate more classical into the abstraction.
Or maybe there will be an entirely new mode of expression that will breakthrough, that relies on skill more than the trick.
TheSZimmer 2 years ago
Agree on the process issue, that process can be accomplished to create great art rather just geometric designs like he did.
trinitaterion 1 year ago
I hate the hype around Jackson Pollock. Still, he offered a new aesthetic. And for this, he should be considered. He may even deserve long time fame. However few have thought critically about his work. This will start when people actually look at his canvases without adding their own imaginations, expectations or agendas.
artworldpirate 2 years ago 2
great vid!! :)
sharonspaintings 2 years ago
I wish I could paint that way and get payed for it. Looks like fun.
canadarox14 2 years ago
dimeloloco - I was being sarcastic.
daccasham84 2 years ago
Crap.
TadMoody 2 years ago
genius
europa51 2 years ago
This is shit.
FalloutHeaven 2 years ago
I'm just going to pop down the shed and raid my Dad's paints. Perhaps I'll be the next Pollock.
daccasham84 2 years ago
This is what I'm doing for my high school art major.
truocnojj 2 years ago
@daccasham84 and that's exactly why you'll suck. you wouldn't have been the first.
dimeloloco 2 years ago
Be the painting and the painting will be you!
EnergicCookie 2 years ago
wonderful! I'd love to see the whole thing :)
lionsrose 2 years ago
That's ART.
wairawaira 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sad waste of paint!
ab2ghu 2 years ago
your life: sad waste of oxigen and natural resources.
KEPHALLE 2 years ago
Comment removed
JWREmmett 2 years ago
Comment removed
JWREmmett 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Crap.
TadMoody 2 years ago
still better than your thoughts
KEPHALLE 2 years ago
Yea, Crap
FalloutHeaven 2 years ago