He used random movements to document subconscious and Truth, much like Burroughs did with cut-ups and writing. Art did follow his trend. Documenting Truth will always be done in ways not understood by many: Go to Google and search The Truth Contest, then click on the first result, then on The Present. Do not be many, be you. Seek and you will find.
Jack the Dripper, from Jack the Ripper because he butchered the innocent and good in art. People remember him as the "wanker" that gave birth to "wanky art" and hence the textbook genius's posting below... You know these ones because they are certain of what others have told them despite have never owning a creative thought in their lives... they follow others and are willing to spend millions on a representation of a chaotic event when the real thing is all around them.
@laszloseverance Hey Laszlo, let it go dude... no need to get so upset over a dude dripping paint on a canvass. I mean, come on.. it's not that amazing... Don't you think you might be being just a bit defensive??? You sound like your playing the victim... don't do that.. Your better than that. Perhaps mention some other work's you enjoy.. from other styles.. and we can all delight in your fav's, We all are passionate about art, and so we post... but let's not claim we know more than others...
the jeopardy answer was, jack the dripper,,, no chaos damn it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just trying to figure out what jack meant answering the question with no chaos damn it
@booriley781 "Graduated from an art college" is a soft way of saying that you're a jobless dickhead. Pollock's paintings suck. They're bullshit splatters. It's not art. He has never shown that he can even draw a stick figure. His "art" is as pointless and ridiculous as your silly rage. It's funny to hear a guy whom graduated from an art college act tough though. You're a real badass with your Bob Ross fro and your happy little trees, aren't you?
most abstract artists can paint and draw realistic stuff. as an artist i found it takes alot more time to perfect your abstract style. any artist can draw a person. and its perfect when it looks like the person. but when does an abstract painting become perfect? that is why i love it and i find it challenging and the process is more fun because you can move and be active and paint care free. thats my two cents :)
@snickledoosh Pollock never made very much from his paintings, in fact, his work was grossly under priced in comparison to that of European masters of the modernist era. Outside of the few major commissions he got, his canvases would fetch anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500. The most he got for a painting in his lifetime was $6,400 when Ben Olson bought "Blue Poles" from him. This is equivalent to about $52,000 in 2012 dollars. That painting is now valued at $180 million.
@seanskies In most cases, yes. The artist has to both accept and challenge the traditions, forms and vocabulary of art. Otherwise, his/her work becomes nothing but ornamentation, artifice, not the real thing.
Pollocks earlier work shows that he has great skill in applying concept/knowledge onto canvass and so we can rationalise his drip work to be significant. We require that justification.
But if we view the work from a present context, NOT historical BS, does it hold the same value? Art opens up the mind to explore and find knowledge, do we need to "understand" the universe any more or less to be involved in the work?
and by the way, POLLOCK ACTUALLY IS AWESOME! just thought I'd toss some points up. ps lol the upvoted comment! as if that mess understands anything about "the context". He just did something new. First person to do it. The rest is just marketing ploys by galleries so you buy up their shit. Anyone can do this. Just stop after your 5 colour and try and make em even. near enough is good enough. LOL
your all duped. he appealed to western capitalism in its finest hour. a quick and easy get rich scheme. go take a look at Rococo or Baroque and you will see true creation by diligence and focus. Who is to say the Flemish artists were not lost in their muse when delivering time/effort and detail beyond the "controversy" of art critics. Critics who just didn't have the guts to splatter paint like Pollock. Pollock who didn't have the guts to paint like he really saw the world. Abstract Exprresshole
@seanskies obviously it takes more guts to stay within a well established sensibility, continue repainting old styles. (Baroque in your case) Thats what artists do no? stick to the accepted and firmly remain in the comfort zone that society and ignorance creates
@seanskies Pollock did not "appeal to Western capitalism." In fact, his works did not sell well, nor fetch much money during his lifetime. Thanks for sharing your ignorance. Most Rococo and Baroque works are pretty staid, over ornamented pieces of decoration, nothing new or challenging about them, and a step down from the Mannerism that preceded them. And, Pollock wasn't painting the objective world, that was not the point. Too bad you don't get it.
ppl grow tired of reading other ppls criticism of this brillant mans work .and even while he was alive he realized how ppl were so ignorant not sincere as some ofthe ppl on this forum ignorantly suggested his work was
I like his clothes but the only thing that makes me annoyed about him is that "slowness" that were are supposed to think is hieratic and full of seriousness. but i mean its a nice change from the idiocy of many contemporary popculturized people...
Pollock had a very hard time with performing his art in front of the camera. And it ought to go without saying, but a film (or book) cannot compare with seeing the work in person. Sorry, internet!
Initially when my Art 101 teacher presented Poloock, I thought, this is art? All he did was slash paint around. But later, when I actually viewed it, you can see where the art is deliberate on his part. The color scheme is definitely painstakingly applied, and this art of abstract expresionism is one that is both complicated and intricate. I'm not a personal fan of his personality, but I can see the genius in his art.
I have to admit that Ab-Ex paintings by Pollock and others can seem like rubbish when viewed in books or on computer screens. One has to see them in person to truly appreciate the physicality and painterly aspects of these monumental works.
@xeal1387 You're absolutely right about that. But, you can say the same about any other kind of painting. Pollock's execution, sense of space, color, gesture and materials is totally astounding. I've been looking at his work for 37 years and he never fails to amaze.
@hakkujin it is art if you knew anything about it. Your two year old doesn't know what the hell she's doing because she's only two. Two year olds make art in the same way that cats with painted paws make art when they walk across a canvass. Abstract expressionism not only takes an understanding of the basic principles of DESIGNING a picture but ABSTRACTING it, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining what that means. Read a goddamn book before you make such ignorant statements.
@booriley781 You're an absolute moron if you think that I would just stumble upon a video like this by chance. I've taken several art classes. I know much about art. Pollock only did this bullshit. He never did anything else worth being labeled an artist. He threw paint onto a canvas while smoking and thinking about how bad his live was. Picasso painted "First Communion" before switching over to cubism. He proved that he was an artist before he did non-conventional art. Pollock was bullshit.
@hakkujin - I dont know as much about art as you probably do but im pretty sure pollock had a ton of good paintings before he discovered "this bullshit"
@hakkujin You're full of crap. Ever seen "Ocean Greyness?" Or, "The Deep?" Or the major Pollock paintings of the early 1940s? If you have, you wouldn't be parading your ignorance around. And, if you've taken "several art classes" and don't understand all-over painting, you wasted your money. Should have studied plumbing instead.
@laszloseverance I have seen them. They're still abstract art with a couple of badly drawn eyes or some smoke. I'm just stating the fact that Jackson Pollock never painted a portrait, landscape or anything else that proves to me that he had skills. Jackson Pollock's paintings are to art what this is to music. watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68
Sure, there's something there to look at or hear, but it's not pleasing. It's random and chaotic.
Tengo mucho respeto por el arte, y éste significa para mí sacrificio, esfuerzo, imaginación. No se puede decir que el arte lo es todo porque al decirlo simplemente es nada. Me parece que Pollock se burló de todo el mundo, es una pintura tan mala que resulta atractiva para muchos. La verdad no veo nada de atractivo aquí.
@EyeKillsEmSoftly There is nothing to understand. It is defined pictorial gibberish: unintelligible - meaningless and nonsense, and the equivalent of pure nothingness. Remember, the younger ARE the ones who can understand, because of their innocence, the Emperor HAS NO CLOTHES ON: he is naked.
@MrMikeludo That's a pretty ignorant round of statements. Pollock's painting are most readable, well-considered and totally challenge the concept of line vs. ground and the tension of negative and positive space. Go back to watching "The Family Guy," please.
@laszloseverance If you would like to see a more detailed explanation of these concepts, or if you feel as if you would like to discuss art further, you can find my explanation in a Philosophy Chat Forum, located here: “Philosophy Chat Forum (PCF) Philosophy Chat & Forums for discussion.” My post is in the “Art” category, titled: “What is art – Da Vinci The Annunciation.” They welcome new members.
@laszloseverance I love "The Family Guy." You're a pretentious, pompous douche if you like Pollocks, bullshit paintings. I just painted a Pollock last night. No, really. I went to Abuelo's for dinner and had too much chili bean dip. I came home, and had an ass-plosion all over the inside of the bowl. It was a beautiful triumph of line vs. ground and the tension of negative and positive space. Well, it was beautiful if you like Pollock's splatters anyway.
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM, i totally agree, im 35 and never heard of this dude, i also am old enuff to know for things U JUST HAD TO BE THERE, this was in a different space and time and can only be judged in that same SPACE AND TIME
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."
i have so much more respect for this guy now.for years i didnt see why people idolised him but when you see the affect (sorry if i spelt this wrong) on art as a whole its magnificent :) pollock is a beast!
If you have ever stretched your own canvas worked months on a painting that gives you faith in your art , then look at this guy just slugging wall paint on canvas or what have you and getting billions for this grey muk it really hurts the artist's that give a dam. j.
@ladyovemeans You are more than entitled to have whatever opinion you have about art and how your art applies to the world around you - really - that is the beauty of art. However, if you listen to what Pollock and other abstract impressionistic - esqu artists like him, you soon come to realize that not only did their art also sometimes takes months and months to complete but that they also 'give a damn'.
@aC1dxN1gHtM4rEs No, Pollock didn't give a damn. He was the first emo. "My life is hard and nobody understands me." He just threw paint onto a canvas. No artistic ability whatsoever. It's funny that pompous people whom think that they are the artistic elite claim to appreciate Pollock's splatters. If you have to explain it, it's not art. Van Gogh's paintings spoke for themselves. Pollock's paintings look like diarrhea splattered all over the inside of a toilet bowl.
his paintings are the worst piece of shit that ive ever seen, and ironically that worst piece of shit was sold for 149.7 million dollars...-___- peoples tastes now days..
its much more fun to express your emotion than actually make a direct imagie of them that what emotion arre no one certain image color thought idea there nothing and everything constant in this transverse world of society flowing freely as a bird but from begin to end.
Unless you understand the critical discourse surrounding the period in which this was made, you cannot comment on whether a Pollock is art or not. There's an entire social and historical context to his work that over half the people commenting have no idea about.
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM Very true. I only recently got into art, and the thing I realized is that the historical context or a painting or a style changes the way you see it. Pollock was trying to show his view of the universe in a way it had never been seen before
@laallaal75 There is a difference between a person who is good at drawing and an ARTIST. Jackson Pollock drastically redefined what art could be. He, along with other AbEx artists, created the movement responsible for making New York the new art capital of the world instead of Paris. Pollock's work isn't about just dripping (which, you would be surprised to know, actually involved a rather comprehensive knowledge of the properties of the paint he was using).
@laallaal75 Try what he did sometime. I dare you. It isn't quite so easy. You have to know quite a bit about the mechanics and problems of art, about execution and vocabulary, before you can attempt to paint in non-objective terms.
@laallaal75 His art involves a study of the symbolism of surrealism. Additionally, if you read ANY Clement Greenberg (which you clearly haven't) you would see how this painting played a HUGE role in defining what the category MODERN ART was. What Modern art did. It is hugely important in Modernist discourse, the idea of purity and medium specificity. Just because you're too dim-witted to understand it doesn't mean it isn't art.
little miss boom you seem to be forgetting that it is easy to look at something once it has been done and judge it, it is quite another to develop a style and actually SEE what has unfolded... yeah he dripped by accident and THEN the genius moment of understand what he was looking at and how to develop it. you stand on the outside and judge and I would bet YOU have never created anything yourself. I make that statement being someone that currently holds 12 US patents..
@laallaal75 Then if it is so easy, then why isn't everyone a great non-objective painter? Perhaps if you understood what Pollock was reacting against, and how he achieved his statement, you wouldn't make such ignorant, reductive slob comments.
what are you saying? elitist attitude towards this allowed this to flourish. i'm sorry everyone can't relate to the 'feelings' of an over privileged white guy that dripped paint onto a canvas. if anything Rothko conveyed feeling better, and pollock is a rip off of Kandinsky.
@TheJamaMohamed He was hardly and "over privileged white guy." Pollock made very little money from his work. He was mocked during his lifetime, and knuckleheads still don't get him over a half century later. A year after his death, his works quadrupled in value, yet, were still under priced in comparison to European masters of modernism. And, abstract painters do not convey "feeling." They present an image that the viewer reads. Learn something about art before you post.
funny how some call his work sh*t. this vid shows his drip style that lasted 5ish years, many of his paintings involved creative movement and color. if his work is 'child equivalent' oddly 5-6yrs ago one of his paintings sold for 140ish million, one of the top 10 prices paid ever for any painting. art is art there is no bad art, no one expects a style to pls everyone/every time. he created something that had never been done before,this is why his art was original and sought after.
@h2omanz That something is sold for a high price does not make it good, with most art buyers are not because they love the aesthetics, but because they want a status symbol. The vast majority of plastic art is somehow based on this ignorant peasant is a lot of trash. Only in the visual arts has madea big fraud.
1. I'm well aware of priced pieces and how it all works. And yes high dollars doesn't make a painting, but there is reason why millions are affixed to such works. Pollack's painting were/are quite intriguing and powerful. Not sure if you are familiar with his other works, surrounding this drip phase(as yes they do lack fundamental scholastics).
2.If not (for quick ref)Google image his paintings as they are extremely powerful. They were priced high as they were original/revolutionary, and his use of color, two big factors of what separates art and pursued art. Dying too always helps as production is halted.
stop fighting wheter this is art or not ok? it is art in it's own way just because you don't understand something it doesn't mean it's not art as for myself i admmit i don't understand this style but doesn't make it less art
Critics of Jackson Pollock are failing to see what he's done with art. He was not worried about what the art looked like, or about whether or not he has technical skill. Pollock made what he FELT (hence the term EXPRESSIONISM)......as he says "technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" and "I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them".....Pollock paints from within himself, as he was a broken man inside, and the product was something that people don't see as "pretty"
@KryKslr EVERYONE WHO IS TRYYYYYING TO DEFEND NON OBJ./ABSTRACTIONISTS NEEDS TO STOP SAYING " HE DIDN'T CARE WHAT THE ART LOOKED LIKE, OR HE WASNT WORRIED ABOUT AESTHETICS". if you looked at ANYYYYYY of his paintings you would realize you're wrong. grrrrrr you're supposed to be defending and you're just making it worse!!
@texmexman1 ha- thats actullay what a pollock painting represents, so everytime i see something with splatter paint on it its highlarious cuz theres jizz on the seiling or table or whatever.
Pollock didn't want to create something "pretty." Pollock changed what was considered art, he was the product of his time. Pollock had an astounding skill. He wasn't uneducated, he didn't try to paint these to "get away with what he could to become famous," he was poor! He was expressing not illustrating. The people that have such a strong opinion either don't understand abstract expressionism or think that art is just an aesthetically pleasing picture of a woman. Do you're research or shut up.
@renrea22 Yes, I think we need to to more research. Research more bullshit! By the way, it's not "you're" research, it's YOUR. Learn basic grammar! Hahahahahahaha!
Okay first of all you're obviously a jerk and a dumb ass. Yeah, you're right I totally used the wrong "your," but you're going to give me problems about grammar and you said, "I think we need to to more research." Make sure your own writing is flawless before you critique someone else's dumb ass.
I've seen experiments that place Modern abstract art paintings next to paintings done by an elephant that used its trunk to hold a paintbrush and throw paint onto a canvas. Modern art experts choose which one of the unidentified paintings was done by a modern art professional. They, the experts, consistently chose the wrong artwork, which exemplifies to me the lack of skill involved in actually producing a lot of that modern abstract artwork. It's indecipherable from elephant crap.
@Fonveh Totally agree, this guy might as well have smashed his head off the canvas. He helped pave the way for the complete an utter mess that is *modern art*
any skill in terms of art? what does that even mean? do you mean he had no technical skill as a painter? cause that would make more sense, although youd be mistaken. whether you like his work or not is irrelevant, what he did was make art. his own, very personal, very original art.
Si tienes un talento. Poco o mucho aprovechalooooo.
Gracias a Dios el arte no entra solo en una defición ni en una sola verdad. Sino que es libre en todo caso como el ser humano. Es placer es goso... NO SOLO DEL QUE LO HACE... SINO DEL ESPECTADOR! QUE LO DISFRUTA!
El secreto esta con poco hacer mucho. ese es el milagro... de la vida. Y Pollock lo facturo. Esa gente es la realmente inteligente. No importa si lee o no. Importan sus obras. sus acciones... y toda su locura la puso en sus obras. Es un genio. Y el contexto estuvo de su lado. Para envidia de muchos frustrados... la barita no es para todos...
Yo no entiendo como hay 40 personas que no valoren el trabajo Pollock. Pero como todo me quedo con el resto (la mayoría) que si... que analiza el arte desde las miles de líneas... desde el placer del que lo hace hasta del que lo mira. Cuando se sambuye en la textura visual... en la textura táctil.. en el recorrido de las lineas. Es un gran artista un jugado... aposto todo su don a lo que el realmente amaba. No no no no es Genial... Pollock no es solo líneas si es lo que uno primero reconocegenio
@arteparaamigos Para mi es fácil entender como la gente puede no valorar a un campesino ignorante que sólo vertía pintura al azar en un lienzo y luego llamaba a eso arte. La única razón por la que alguien se tomaba en serio a Pollock fue por los millones que el gobierno de EEUU dio a las galerías para comprar su basura.
Todo eso para sacar la atención del público del realismo soviético o los artistas socialistas de Europa. Un fraude para que todo el arte careciera de contenido genuino.
@NLSJ Aún siendo, campesino, ignorante, viejo, de estados unidos... para ¿sacar valor a obras sovieticas? jajaja... si tiras la primera piedra te pueden llover muchas mas.
Peró aún asi... dandote toda la razón.
A mi me gusta. es jugado, lo entrega todo cuando lo hace. No especula... arriesga. El sentido se lo da la obra a el no el a la obra.
Es original... (no solo lo de sus manchas) y sabes que? hablamos de hombres. De artistas... de los gobiernos nadie se acuerda... NADIE. bueno usted
@arteparaamigos Yo me acuerdo, y los artistas de verdad que fueron perseguidos (como Chaplin que fue condenado por cartearse con Picasso mientras Pollock hacía millones) seguro que también se acordaron hasta el día de su muerte. El arte es reflexión, no vale de nada la acción de pintar pues eso implica que no se está valorando el producto final sino como se hizo. En ese sentido un video del artista trabajando sería "arte" (tanto como un chimpancé lanzando pintura) pero el lienzo no vale nada
@NLSJ Gracias a Dios el arte no entra solo en una defición ni en una sola verdad. Sino que es libre en todo caso como el ser humano. Es placer es goso... NO SOLO DEL QUE LO HACE... SINO DEL ESPECTADOR! QUE LO DISFRUTA!
Responder a este vídeo...Ni Picasso y sus formas locas... ni el cine mudo de Chaplin me conmueven con su arte. Pero los valoro muchísimo. Los respeto... aprendo con ellos. No juzgos sus trabajos ni sus interpretaciones de la vida como buenas o malas... tampoco con Pollock. Y sinceramente si me gustan la magnitud de las obras de Pollock la conección, la textura... lo que me provoca, verlo, hacerlo... ME encanta!
@NLSJ Acaso tienes tu la definición de arte? me parece que necesitas una dosis de dadaismo y/o pop art.
Que no te guste Pollok por su personalidad y por haberse lucrado y apoyado una causa que no compartes, a la inversa de Picasso, no le desmerece como artista: JFYI Dalí era mucho peor al respecto de todo esto, estaba a buenas con el regimen de Franco, y más dinero que el que facturaba hasata por cuadros que solo firmaba, y ni pintaba el: pero si alguien lo pagaba, ese era SU problema.
@fitobcnfito La diferencia es que Dalí si hacía arte, Pollock no. Poner pintura al azar en un lienzo para que luego un montón de elitistas pseudo-revolucionarios digan que eso es "rebeldía" o "innovación" es como hacer una bicicleta con las ruedas cuadradas porque hacerlas con ruedas redondas es muy "tradicional".
@NLSJ no estoy deacuerdo, me parece que tienes una concepción del arte muy basada en la tecnica mas que no en el sentimiento y/o expresion, pq llamas "azar" a lo que yo considero es "intención".
¿cual es tu opinión de Miró?: ¿que dibuja como un niño?
¿que piensas del expresionismo en general?
... parece que solo valores el realismo, y la tecnica, el arte es de todo.
@fitobcnfito En Miró al menos hay figuras reconocibles; uno puede señalar una escultura y decir: "Eso es una vagina". La técnica lo es todo, sin trabajo duro no hay recompensa. En literatura por ejemplo aun no se ha cometido el gran fraude de las artes plásticas por lo que un escritor aun dice que lo suyo es 1% inspiración y 99% sudor. Pero claro, es mucho más fácil vender basura atravez del dupolio del mercado de las artes plásticas y estafar a millonarios sin criterio.
@NLSJ Simplemente no comparto tu opinion en absoluto, el sudor y la tecnica no tiene nada que ver con la expresion de emocion que es lo que se supone es el arte, la tecnica es solo un medio muy diverso tanto como validas todas sus formas (tirar pintura es una tecnica: lo que hace pollok). PD:En poesia si se han hecho cosas similares, en catalunya hay quienes hacen dibujos con las letras al componer poesia donde el dibujo que forman es tanto o mas relevante que lo que las palabras expresan.
@NLSJ lo dejamos en que a ti te deben gustar los pintores realistas con tecnica estilo hollandes, por lo que el arte contemporaneo o abstracto no debes valorarlo tanto, si de tecnica se trata, esos son los mejores, pero el arte es muchisimo mas amplio que esa vision.
There are people who look at things from one side only. Thus, it is very difficult and scary to understand the meaning of originality and beauty in simple things. But Pollock's work can not be called simple, in contrast for example to Rothko. Anyway, abstract expressionism - is the experience and thoughts expressed by the artist on canvas. Tin, poor imagination, innate prejudices and lack of taste people never appreciate this trend in painting.
"This is not art. It lacks any aesthetic value, it lacks any intellectual value, and it lacks any emotional value. If one believes that this abomination is fine art, then they have proven themselves to be lacking in any taste whatsoever.
A film about smoking and dancing. I wonder how much a pair of old Jackson Pollack's black jeans would go for nowadays. I'm just being snarky. Pollack had a time where he needed to be here. I had an epiphany about this painting of his at the Art Institute in Chicago. The placard said all this stuff about it, but I looked at it and saw a portrait of a man and a woman, (w 2 friends) talking. Our minds have since become so media literate and capable of abstraction that it wasn't alien anymore.
Jackson Pollock was really interested in fish. he ate fish a lot and said that one of the reasons he changed his name to Pollock was, not only to be better received by all-american audiences, after leaving Wyoming. He learnt about the aggressive scottish sweet-water fish, the Pollock, and decided that taking on this name would help inspire him.
@andreaprodan Uh. . .no. He got the name "Pollock" from his father, not a fish. His father had been a "McCoy" put adopted the name of the family that took him in after his parents died.
This is not art. It lacks any aesthetic value, it lacks any intellectual value, and it lacks any emotional value. If one believes that this abomination is fine art, then they have proven themselves to be lacking in any taste whatsoever.
@Johannes999999999 Yeah, there's no skill involved. There couldn't have ever been a time when this guy went "oh shit I messed up". The entire thing was just a big mess.
"...look passively and try to receive what the painting has to offer and not bring a subject matter or preconceived idea of what they are to be looking for." - Pollock
i think everybody see art in a different way, to give a meaning or an explanation to a painting will totally kill it. it's whatever you see, whatever makes you feel, whatever emotion you get from it. thats ART.
The best painter of all time. Painting is all about new ideas and pollock changed peoples ideas about what a painting should; be, look like, and feel like. A creative genious.
He used random movements to document subconscious and Truth, much like Burroughs did with cut-ups and writing. Art did follow his trend. Documenting Truth will always be done in ways not understood by many: Go to Google and search The Truth Contest, then click on the first result, then on The Present. Do not be many, be you. Seek and you will find.
Anaemnesis 20 hours ago 4
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 5 days ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 5 days ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 5 days ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 5 days ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 5 days ago
Jack the Dripper, from Jack the Ripper because he butchered the innocent and good in art. People remember him as the "wanker" that gave birth to "wanky art" and hence the textbook genius's posting below... You know these ones because they are certain of what others have told them despite have never owning a creative thought in their lives... they follow others and are willing to spend millions on a representation of a chaotic event when the real thing is all around them.
seanskies 6 days ago
@laszloseverance Hey Laszlo, let it go dude... no need to get so upset over a dude dripping paint on a canvass. I mean, come on.. it's not that amazing... Don't you think you might be being just a bit defensive??? You sound like your playing the victim... don't do that.. Your better than that. Perhaps mention some other work's you enjoy.. from other styles.. and we can all delight in your fav's, We all are passionate about art, and so we post... but let's not claim we know more than others...
seanskies 6 days ago
the jeopardy answer was, jack the dripper,,, no chaos damn it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just trying to figure out what jack meant answering the question with no chaos damn it
JazzKeyboardist1 1 week ago
@laszloseverance Thank you. And you're 100% right. I'm glad someone can see art in a sea of ignorant comments.
booriley781 1 week ago
@hakkujin You've taken several art classes? Bitch, I graduated from art college. I'd like to think I know what the fuck I was talking about.
booriley781 1 week ago
@booriley781 "Graduated from an art college" is a soft way of saying that you're a jobless dickhead. Pollock's paintings suck. They're bullshit splatters. It's not art. He has never shown that he can even draw a stick figure. His "art" is as pointless and ridiculous as your silly rage. It's funny to hear a guy whom graduated from an art college act tough though. You're a real badass with your Bob Ross fro and your happy little trees, aren't you?
hakkujin 5 hours ago
His work was doo doo......
Serpo71 1 week ago
most abstract artists can paint and draw realistic stuff. as an artist i found it takes alot more time to perfect your abstract style. any artist can draw a person. and its perfect when it looks like the person. but when does an abstract painting become perfect? that is why i love it and i find it challenging and the process is more fun because you can move and be active and paint care free. thats my two cents :)
xXINeedNoNameXx 3 weeks ago
Quelle création, une inspiration pure, le graphisme est en Jackson Pollock.
Bref un maitre!!!
JF BRIVAUD
JFBRIVAUD1 4 weeks ago
Autonomy
Marcusscalius 1 month ago
does anyone know if he made any money from his paintings? or did he die and now his stuff is famous and he never got to experience that???
snickledoosh 1 month ago
@snickledoosh Pollock never made very much from his paintings, in fact, his work was grossly under priced in comparison to that of European masters of the modernist era. Outside of the few major commissions he got, his canvases would fetch anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500. The most he got for a painting in his lifetime was $6,400 when Ben Olson bought "Blue Poles" from him. This is equivalent to about $52,000 in 2012 dollars. That painting is now valued at $180 million.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
I don't understand people who don't understand abstract art and say that everyone, even a child could do what Pollock, Piccaso and Dan Flavin did
MsYperite 1 month ago
@MsYperite I agree. Those dimwits just don't get it, and don't waste your time trying to explain. Shovelheads can't be educated or enlightened.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
Is there a difference between artists and revolutionaries? does an artwork need to revolutionise the way we view art to be worth value?
seanskies 1 month ago
@seanskies In most cases, yes. The artist has to both accept and challenge the traditions, forms and vocabulary of art. Otherwise, his/her work becomes nothing but ornamentation, artifice, not the real thing.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
Pollocks earlier work shows that he has great skill in applying concept/knowledge onto canvass and so we can rationalise his drip work to be significant. We require that justification.
But if we view the work from a present context, NOT historical BS, does it hold the same value? Art opens up the mind to explore and find knowledge, do we need to "understand" the universe any more or less to be involved in the work?
seanskies 1 month ago
i'm looking for a documentry on pollock that is from a dvd set called portriats of artist or something like that
KaydaAmaya 2 months ago
this guy has swag
tkdman360 2 months ago
genius
duje65 2 months ago
@Alias828 your right
seanskies 2 months ago
His art reminds me of looking up into trees during the winter time.
Alias828 2 months ago
and by the way, POLLOCK ACTUALLY IS AWESOME! just thought I'd toss some points up. ps lol the upvoted comment! as if that mess understands anything about "the context". He just did something new. First person to do it. The rest is just marketing ploys by galleries so you buy up their shit. Anyone can do this. Just stop after your 5 colour and try and make em even. near enough is good enough. LOL
seanskies 2 months ago
your all duped. he appealed to western capitalism in its finest hour. a quick and easy get rich scheme. go take a look at Rococo or Baroque and you will see true creation by diligence and focus. Who is to say the Flemish artists were not lost in their muse when delivering time/effort and detail beyond the "controversy" of art critics. Critics who just didn't have the guts to splatter paint like Pollock. Pollock who didn't have the guts to paint like he really saw the world. Abstract Exprresshole
seanskies 2 months ago
@seanskies You don't get art.
Alias828 2 months ago
@seanskies obviously it takes more guts to stay within a well established sensibility, continue repainting old styles. (Baroque in your case) Thats what artists do no? stick to the accepted and firmly remain in the comfort zone that society and ignorance creates
francis13oww 1 month ago
Would you mind rephrasing your point here? What then is your thoughts on this artwork?
seanskies 1 month ago
@seanskies Pollock did not "appeal to Western capitalism." In fact, his works did not sell well, nor fetch much money during his lifetime. Thanks for sharing your ignorance. Most Rococo and Baroque works are pretty staid, over ornamented pieces of decoration, nothing new or challenging about them, and a step down from the Mannerism that preceded them. And, Pollock wasn't painting the objective world, that was not the point. Too bad you don't get it.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
ppl grow tired of reading other ppls criticism of this brillant mans work .and even while he was alive he realized how ppl were so ignorant not sincere as some ofthe ppl on this forum ignorantly suggested his work was
nukecat 3 months ago
FUCKING GENIUS
Sukkie69er 3 months ago
@Sukkie69er No, just fucking
NLSJ 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absolutely anyone could do this.
dbbonecrusher 3 months ago
I suffer from a mental illness and i my self am an abstract artist, I find polloks work motivational and inspiring.
ilovemazzystar 3 months ago
@ilovemazzystar Art is good for that.
Alias828 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like his clothes but the only thing that makes me annoyed about him is that "slowness" that were are supposed to think is hieratic and full of seriousness. but i mean its a nice change from the idiocy of many contemporary popculturized people...
ippolytos1 3 months ago
Comment removed
ippolytos1 3 months ago
Comment removed
ippolytos1 3 months ago
Fractal geometry
kontrapunkti 3 months ago
Jackson Pollock really puts artists like Rembrandt to shame.
mrswozzle 4 months ago
@mrswozzle Are you kidding rigth?
NLSJ 3 months ago
visted that barn with a friend yesterday in long island;
im glad he did something! to get people out and see new things,
way to go
in the lifetime of pollock
YalkOne 4 months ago
Pollock had a very hard time with performing his art in front of the camera. And it ought to go without saying, but a film (or book) cannot compare with seeing the work in person. Sorry, internet!
gnjax100 4 months ago
i barfed that painting all over a pizza hut box last weekend.
hola4adola 4 months ago
@hola4adola youre an idiot for saying this .
nukecat 4 months ago
Comment removed
hola4adola 4 months ago
@nukecat No, he is just sincere
NLSJ 3 months ago
Oops POLLOCK :)
searching4quiet 4 months ago
Initially when my Art 101 teacher presented Poloock, I thought, this is art? All he did was slash paint around. But later, when I actually viewed it, you can see where the art is deliberate on his part. The color scheme is definitely painstakingly applied, and this art of abstract expresionism is one that is both complicated and intricate. I'm not a personal fan of his personality, but I can see the genius in his art.
searching4quiet 4 months ago
Abstract Expressionist art stimulates and interests lots of people, so for my money that makes it a good thing!
jamie1234591 4 months ago
I have to admit that Ab-Ex paintings by Pollock and others can seem like rubbish when viewed in books or on computer screens. One has to see them in person to truly appreciate the physicality and painterly aspects of these monumental works.
xeal1387 5 months ago
@xeal1387 You're absolutely right about that. But, you can say the same about any other kind of painting. Pollock's execution, sense of space, color, gesture and materials is totally astounding. I've been looking at his work for 37 years and he never fails to amaze.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
@hakkujin it is art if you knew anything about it. Your two year old doesn't know what the hell she's doing because she's only two. Two year olds make art in the same way that cats with painted paws make art when they walk across a canvass. Abstract expressionism not only takes an understanding of the basic principles of DESIGNING a picture but ABSTRACTING it, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining what that means. Read a goddamn book before you make such ignorant statements.
booriley781 5 months ago
@booriley781 You're an absolute moron if you think that I would just stumble upon a video like this by chance. I've taken several art classes. I know much about art. Pollock only did this bullshit. He never did anything else worth being labeled an artist. He threw paint onto a canvas while smoking and thinking about how bad his live was. Picasso painted "First Communion" before switching over to cubism. He proved that he was an artist before he did non-conventional art. Pollock was bullshit.
hakkujin 3 months ago
@hakkujin - I dont know as much about art as you probably do but im pretty sure pollock had a ton of good paintings before he discovered "this bullshit"
backahjack 1 month ago
@hakkujin You're full of crap. Ever seen "Ocean Greyness?" Or, "The Deep?" Or the major Pollock paintings of the early 1940s? If you have, you wouldn't be parading your ignorance around. And, if you've taken "several art classes" and don't understand all-over painting, you wasted your money. Should have studied plumbing instead.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
@laszloseverance I have seen them. They're still abstract art with a couple of badly drawn eyes or some smoke. I'm just stating the fact that Jackson Pollock never painted a portrait, landscape or anything else that proves to me that he had skills. Jackson Pollock's paintings are to art what this is to music. watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68
Sure, there's something there to look at or hear, but it's not pleasing. It's random and chaotic.
hakkujin 1 week ago
@booriley781 Well put. Most of these clowns who dismiss abstract art have an aesthetic sense that begins and ends with "The Family Guy."
laszloseverance 1 week ago
Where do I find the full version of this film?
MrConorLumsden 5 months ago
did he dump a cigarette lighter (zippo) out of his boot?
srfrr 5 months ago
This is not art. It's bullshit. My two year old does the exact same thing with her finger-paints.
hakkujin 5 months ago
@hakkujin No she doesn't.
gwalkron 3 months ago
The king of abstract expressionism!
Cerebralator 6 months ago
To know the truth about Jackson Pollock Google Jackson Pollock Long Leash
Nenedaz 6 months ago
If there is no accident then why do his shoes have paint all over them? I kid, I kid.
tf2weekly 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 6 months ago
As soon as art needs explaination, it stops being art. Genuine art speaks for itself
and doesn't need sales talk. A lot of so-called artists damaged the purity of art.
Pollock and Warhol made rubbish accompanied by a nice sounding story.
We have to go back to artistic silence without a smoke curtain of words.
keesvangulik127 6 months ago
Tengo mucho respeto por el arte, y éste significa para mí sacrificio, esfuerzo, imaginación. No se puede decir que el arte lo es todo porque al decirlo simplemente es nada. Me parece que Pollock se burló de todo el mundo, es una pintura tan mala que resulta atractiva para muchos. La verdad no veo nada de atractivo aquí.
andrester7 6 months ago
WE YOUNGER PPL CAN ONLY HOPE TO ENJOY IT AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE COME TO UNDERSTAND
EyeKillsEmSoftly 6 months ago
@EyeKillsEmSoftly There is nothing to understand. It is defined pictorial gibberish: unintelligible - meaningless and nonsense, and the equivalent of pure nothingness. Remember, the younger ARE the ones who can understand, because of their innocence, the Emperor HAS NO CLOTHES ON: he is naked.
MrMikeludo 6 months ago
@MrMikeludo That's a pretty ignorant round of statements. Pollock's painting are most readable, well-considered and totally challenge the concept of line vs. ground and the tension of negative and positive space. Go back to watching "The Family Guy," please.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
@laszloseverance If you would like to see a more detailed explanation of these concepts, or if you feel as if you would like to discuss art further, you can find my explanation in a Philosophy Chat Forum, located here: “Philosophy Chat Forum (PCF) Philosophy Chat & Forums for discussion.” My post is in the “Art” category, titled: “What is art – Da Vinci The Annunciation.” They welcome new members.
MrMikeludo 1 week ago
@laszloseverance I love "The Family Guy." You're a pretentious, pompous douche if you like Pollocks, bullshit paintings. I just painted a Pollock last night. No, really. I went to Abuelo's for dinner and had too much chili bean dip. I came home, and had an ass-plosion all over the inside of the bowl. It was a beautiful triumph of line vs. ground and the tension of negative and positive space. Well, it was beautiful if you like Pollock's splatters anyway.
hakkujin 1 week ago
@hakkujin Kill yourself.
BESTRKSOE 10 hours ago
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM, i totally agree, im 35 and never heard of this dude, i also am old enuff to know for things U JUST HAD TO BE THERE, this was in a different space and time and can only be judged in that same SPACE AND TIME
EyeKillsEmSoftly 6 months ago
Me encanta este cabron es uno de mis artistas favoritos y de las mas grandes influencias en mi trabajo.
TheTrionixxx 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
Best of youtube!
ugoodHomeBoy 7 months ago
i have so much more respect for this guy now.for years i didnt see why people idolised him but when you see the affect (sorry if i spelt this wrong) on art as a whole its magnificent :) pollock is a beast!
weestitch 7 months ago
If you have ever stretched your own canvas worked months on a painting that gives you faith in your art , then look at this guy just slugging wall paint on canvas or what have you and getting billions for this grey muk it really hurts the artist's that give a dam. j.
ladyovemeans 7 months ago
@ladyovemeans You are more than entitled to have whatever opinion you have about art and how your art applies to the world around you - really - that is the beauty of art. However, if you listen to what Pollock and other abstract impressionistic - esqu artists like him, you soon come to realize that not only did their art also sometimes takes months and months to complete but that they also 'give a damn'.
aC1dxN1gHtM4rEs 7 months ago
@aC1dxN1gHtM4rEs No, Pollock didn't give a damn. He was the first emo. "My life is hard and nobody understands me." He just threw paint onto a canvas. No artistic ability whatsoever. It's funny that pompous people whom think that they are the artistic elite claim to appreciate Pollock's splatters. If you have to explain it, it's not art. Van Gogh's paintings spoke for themselves. Pollock's paintings look like diarrhea splattered all over the inside of a toilet bowl.
hakkujin 5 hours ago
Comment removed
francis13oww 5 months ago
his paintings are the worst piece of shit that ive ever seen, and ironically that worst piece of shit was sold for 149.7 million dollars...-___- peoples tastes now days..
kik0chan 8 months ago
@kik0chan Ever see a Pollock in reality? Like.... face to face with paint and canvas - not a print... Just curious.
aC1dxN1gHtM4rEs 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kik0chan It is obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about. It is you who is sad
lettheorinocoflow 7 months ago
@kik0chan You've probably never actually seen one. Who are you trying to kid?
laszloseverance 1 week ago
...this is sad..
kik0chan 8 months ago
its much more fun to express your emotion than actually make a direct imagie of them that what emotion arre no one certain image color thought idea there nothing and everything constant in this transverse world of society flowing freely as a bird but from begin to end.
BirdMan33201 8 months ago
beradific,u suck! pollock rules and so do drunk artists!!!
japajue 8 months ago
Unless you understand the critical discourse surrounding the period in which this was made, you cannot comment on whether a Pollock is art or not. There's an entire social and historical context to his work that over half the people commenting have no idea about.
juliajuliajuliaBOOM 9 months ago 19
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM Do you consider John Cage's "4'33" music? My 10 year old brother could paint better than this.
gusg1982 2 months ago
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM Very true. I only recently got into art, and the thing I realized is that the historical context or a painting or a style changes the way you see it. Pollock was trying to show his view of the universe in a way it had never been seen before
aijaman 2 months ago
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM Yes i can. Its not art. It takes the finesse, experience, and general skillfulness of a 3 year old.
laallaal75 2 months ago
@laallaal75 There is a difference between a person who is good at drawing and an ARTIST. Jackson Pollock drastically redefined what art could be. He, along with other AbEx artists, created the movement responsible for making New York the new art capital of the world instead of Paris. Pollock's work isn't about just dripping (which, you would be surprised to know, actually involved a rather comprehensive knowledge of the properties of the paint he was using).
juliajuliajuliaBOOM 2 months ago
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM Oh fantastic, this is the guy that raped art? That empowered a bunch of pretentious crackpots to call themselves artists.
Woop dee doo, he knew paint properties and could drizzle like a pro. It makes him just that. Not an artist.
laallaal75 2 months ago
@laallaal75 Try what he did sometime. I dare you. It isn't quite so easy. You have to know quite a bit about the mechanics and problems of art, about execution and vocabulary, before you can attempt to paint in non-objective terms.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
@laallaal75 His art involves a study of the symbolism of surrealism. Additionally, if you read ANY Clement Greenberg (which you clearly haven't) you would see how this painting played a HUGE role in defining what the category MODERN ART was. What Modern art did. It is hugely important in Modernist discourse, the idea of purity and medium specificity. Just because you're too dim-witted to understand it doesn't mean it isn't art.
juliajuliajuliaBOOM 2 months ago
little miss boom you seem to be forgetting that it is easy to look at something once it has been done and judge it, it is quite another to develop a style and actually SEE what has unfolded... yeah he dripped by accident and THEN the genius moment of understand what he was looking at and how to develop it. you stand on the outside and judge and I would bet YOU have never created anything yourself. I make that statement being someone that currently holds 12 US patents..
12mikeg12 1 month ago
@laallaal75 Then if it is so easy, then why isn't everyone a great non-objective painter? Perhaps if you understood what Pollock was reacting against, and how he achieved his statement, you wouldn't make such ignorant, reductive slob comments.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
@juliajuliajuliaBOOM
what are you saying? elitist attitude towards this allowed this to flourish. i'm sorry everyone can't relate to the 'feelings' of an over privileged white guy that dripped paint onto a canvas. if anything Rothko conveyed feeling better, and pollock is a rip off of Kandinsky.
TheJamaMohamed 1 month ago
@TheJamaMohamed He was hardly and "over privileged white guy." Pollock made very little money from his work. He was mocked during his lifetime, and knuckleheads still don't get him over a half century later. A year after his death, his works quadrupled in value, yet, were still under priced in comparison to European masters of modernism. And, abstract painters do not convey "feeling." They present an image that the viewer reads. Learn something about art before you post.
laszloseverance 1 week ago
i hate people who don't understand pollock his art has meaning its meaning i think is that anything is art if you label it art
colpetne 9 months ago
Jackson Pollock was a drunken bum who was also talentless, for a great painter check out Salvador Dali.
beradification 9 months ago
funny how some call his work sh*t. this vid shows his drip style that lasted 5ish years, many of his paintings involved creative movement and color. if his work is 'child equivalent' oddly 5-6yrs ago one of his paintings sold for 140ish million, one of the top 10 prices paid ever for any painting. art is art there is no bad art, no one expects a style to pls everyone/every time. he created something that had never been done before,this is why his art was original and sought after.
h2omanz 9 months ago
@h2omanz That something is sold for a high price does not make it good, with most art buyers are not because they love the aesthetics, but because they want a status symbol. The vast majority of plastic art is somehow based on this ignorant peasant is a lot of trash. Only in the visual arts has madea big fraud.
NLSJ 9 months ago
@NLSJ
1. I'm well aware of priced pieces and how it all works. And yes high dollars doesn't make a painting, but there is reason why millions are affixed to such works. Pollack's painting were/are quite intriguing and powerful. Not sure if you are familiar with his other works, surrounding this drip phase(as yes they do lack fundamental scholastics).
h2omanz 9 months ago
2.If not (for quick ref)Google image his paintings as they are extremely powerful. They were priced high as they were original/revolutionary, and his use of color, two big factors of what separates art and pursued art. Dying too always helps as production is halted.
h2omanz 9 months ago
stop fighting wheter this is art or not ok? it is art in it's own way just because you don't understand something it doesn't mean it's not art as for myself i admmit i don't understand this style but doesn't make it less art
ionutk9 10 months ago
Critics of Jackson Pollock are failing to see what he's done with art. He was not worried about what the art looked like, or about whether or not he has technical skill. Pollock made what he FELT (hence the term EXPRESSIONISM)......as he says "technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" and "I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them".....Pollock paints from within himself, as he was a broken man inside, and the product was something that people don't see as "pretty"
KryKslr 10 months ago
@KryKslr EVERYONE WHO IS TRYYYYYING TO DEFEND NON OBJ./ABSTRACTIONISTS NEEDS TO STOP SAYING " HE DIDN'T CARE WHAT THE ART LOOKED LIKE, OR HE WASNT WORRIED ABOUT AESTHETICS". if you looked at ANYYYYYY of his paintings you would realize you're wrong. grrrrrr you're supposed to be defending and you're just making it worse!!
judes1485 10 months ago
What a load off toss
CUNTWAP 10 months ago
great.
ANDREA SANA punto com
MrDadada2424 11 months ago
i blasted your girlfriends face like a jackson pollock - seth green entourage
texmexman1 11 months ago
@texmexman1 ha- thats actullay what a pollock painting represents, so everytime i see something with splatter paint on it its highlarious cuz theres jizz on the seiling or table or whatever.
judes1485 10 months ago
It fine if he paints like that but for people to be buying those for big money is mental...
Re1Mu2R3 11 months ago
I've seen many Pollock paintings and thought, yeah, I had that day, I had that confrontation, that nails it.
carma9090 11 months ago
Pollock didn't want to create something "pretty." Pollock changed what was considered art, he was the product of his time. Pollock had an astounding skill. He wasn't uneducated, he didn't try to paint these to "get away with what he could to become famous," he was poor! He was expressing not illustrating. The people that have such a strong opinion either don't understand abstract expressionism or think that art is just an aesthetically pleasing picture of a woman. Do you're research or shut up.
renrea22 11 months ago 19
@renrea22 mmmmmmhumm. thankyou!
judes1485 10 months ago
@renrea22 Yes, I think we need to to more research. Research more bullshit! By the way, it's not "you're" research, it's YOUR. Learn basic grammar! Hahahahahahaha!
OuKrokodil 6 months ago
@OuKrokodil
Okay first of all you're obviously a jerk and a dumb ass. Yeah, you're right I totally used the wrong "your," but you're going to give me problems about grammar and you said, "I think we need to to more research." Make sure your own writing is flawless before you critique someone else's dumb ass.
renrea22 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@renrea22 Typographical error, DIMWIT! Whereas yours could not possibly be one! LMAO!!
OuKrokodil 6 months ago
I've seen experiments that place Modern abstract art paintings next to paintings done by an elephant that used its trunk to hold a paintbrush and throw paint onto a canvas. Modern art experts choose which one of the unidentified paintings was done by a modern art professional. They, the experts, consistently chose the wrong artwork, which exemplifies to me the lack of skill involved in actually producing a lot of that modern abstract artwork. It's indecipherable from elephant crap.
coil311 11 months ago
Absolute garbage. Pollock didn't have any skill whatsoever in terms of art.
Fonveh 11 months ago
@Fonveh so true
NLSJ 11 months ago
@Fonveh Totally agree, this guy might as well have smashed his head off the canvas. He helped pave the way for the complete an utter mess that is *modern art*
210dd 11 months ago
@Fonveh
any skill in terms of art? what does that even mean? do you mean he had no technical skill as a painter? cause that would make more sense, although youd be mistaken. whether you like his work or not is irrelevant, what he did was make art. his own, very personal, very original art.
rockisdead81 11 months ago
@rockisdead81 No, what he did is called shit, his own very personal shit.
NLSJ 10 months ago
Si tienes un talento. Poco o mucho aprovechalooooo.
Gracias a Dios el arte no entra solo en una defición ni en una sola verdad. Sino que es libre en todo caso como el ser humano. Es placer es goso... NO SOLO DEL QUE LO HACE... SINO DEL ESPECTADOR! QUE LO DISFRUTA!
asi lo veo yo respeto las otras miradas.
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
El secreto esta con poco hacer mucho. ese es el milagro... de la vida. Y Pollock lo facturo. Esa gente es la realmente inteligente. No importa si lee o no. Importan sus obras. sus acciones... y toda su locura la puso en sus obras. Es un genio. Y el contexto estuvo de su lado. Para envidia de muchos frustrados... la barita no es para todos...
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
Yo no entiendo como hay 40 personas que no valoren el trabajo Pollock. Pero como todo me quedo con el resto (la mayoría) que si... que analiza el arte desde las miles de líneas... desde el placer del que lo hace hasta del que lo mira. Cuando se sambuye en la textura visual... en la textura táctil.. en el recorrido de las lineas. Es un gran artista un jugado... aposto todo su don a lo que el realmente amaba. No no no no es Genial... Pollock no es solo líneas si es lo que uno primero reconocegenio
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
@arteparaamigos Para mi es fácil entender como la gente puede no valorar a un campesino ignorante que sólo vertía pintura al azar en un lienzo y luego llamaba a eso arte. La única razón por la que alguien se tomaba en serio a Pollock fue por los millones que el gobierno de EEUU dio a las galerías para comprar su basura.
Todo eso para sacar la atención del público del realismo soviético o los artistas socialistas de Europa. Un fraude para que todo el arte careciera de contenido genuino.
NLSJ 11 months ago
@NLSJ Aún siendo, campesino, ignorante, viejo, de estados unidos... para ¿sacar valor a obras sovieticas? jajaja... si tiras la primera piedra te pueden llover muchas mas.
Peró aún asi... dandote toda la razón.
A mi me gusta. es jugado, lo entrega todo cuando lo hace. No especula... arriesga. El sentido se lo da la obra a el no el a la obra.
Es original... (no solo lo de sus manchas) y sabes que? hablamos de hombres. De artistas... de los gobiernos nadie se acuerda... NADIE. bueno usted
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
@arteparaamigos Yo me acuerdo, y los artistas de verdad que fueron perseguidos (como Chaplin que fue condenado por cartearse con Picasso mientras Pollock hacía millones) seguro que también se acordaron hasta el día de su muerte. El arte es reflexión, no vale de nada la acción de pintar pues eso implica que no se está valorando el producto final sino como se hizo. En ese sentido un video del artista trabajando sería "arte" (tanto como un chimpancé lanzando pintura) pero el lienzo no vale nada
NLSJ 11 months ago
@NLSJ Gracias a Dios el arte no entra solo en una defición ni en una sola verdad. Sino que es libre en todo caso como el ser humano. Es placer es goso... NO SOLO DEL QUE LO HACE... SINO DEL ESPECTADOR! QUE LO DISFRUTA!
asi lo veo yo respeto las otras miradas.
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
Responder a este vídeo...Ni Picasso y sus formas locas... ni el cine mudo de Chaplin me conmueven con su arte. Pero los valoro muchísimo. Los respeto... aprendo con ellos. No juzgos sus trabajos ni sus interpretaciones de la vida como buenas o malas... tampoco con Pollock. Y sinceramente si me gustan la magnitud de las obras de Pollock la conección, la textura... lo que me provoca, verlo, hacerlo... ME encanta!
arteparaamigos 11 months ago
@arteparaamigos Asunto tuyo lo que te guste, por mi te puede gustar la marihuana, eso es asunto tuyo. El problema es cuando empiezas a decirle arte.
NLSJ 11 months ago
@NLSJ Acaso tienes tu la definición de arte? me parece que necesitas una dosis de dadaismo y/o pop art.
Que no te guste Pollok por su personalidad y por haberse lucrado y apoyado una causa que no compartes, a la inversa de Picasso, no le desmerece como artista: JFYI Dalí era mucho peor al respecto de todo esto, estaba a buenas con el regimen de Franco, y más dinero que el que facturaba hasata por cuadros que solo firmaba, y ni pintaba el: pero si alguien lo pagaba, ese era SU problema.
fitobcnfito 11 months ago
@fitobcnfito La diferencia es que Dalí si hacía arte, Pollock no. Poner pintura al azar en un lienzo para que luego un montón de elitistas pseudo-revolucionarios digan que eso es "rebeldía" o "innovación" es como hacer una bicicleta con las ruedas cuadradas porque hacerlas con ruedas redondas es muy "tradicional".
NLSJ 11 months ago
@NLSJ no estoy deacuerdo, me parece que tienes una concepción del arte muy basada en la tecnica mas que no en el sentimiento y/o expresion, pq llamas "azar" a lo que yo considero es "intención".
¿cual es tu opinión de Miró?: ¿que dibuja como un niño?
¿que piensas del expresionismo en general?
... parece que solo valores el realismo, y la tecnica, el arte es de todo.
fitobcnfito 11 months ago
@fitobcnfito En Miró al menos hay figuras reconocibles; uno puede señalar una escultura y decir: "Eso es una vagina". La técnica lo es todo, sin trabajo duro no hay recompensa. En literatura por ejemplo aun no se ha cometido el gran fraude de las artes plásticas por lo que un escritor aun dice que lo suyo es 1% inspiración y 99% sudor. Pero claro, es mucho más fácil vender basura atravez del dupolio del mercado de las artes plásticas y estafar a millonarios sin criterio.
NLSJ 11 months ago
@NLSJ Simplemente no comparto tu opinion en absoluto, el sudor y la tecnica no tiene nada que ver con la expresion de emocion que es lo que se supone es el arte, la tecnica es solo un medio muy diverso tanto como validas todas sus formas (tirar pintura es una tecnica: lo que hace pollok). PD:En poesia si se han hecho cosas similares, en catalunya hay quienes hacen dibujos con las letras al componer poesia donde el dibujo que forman es tanto o mas relevante que lo que las palabras expresan.
fitobcnfito 11 months ago
@NLSJ lo dejamos en que a ti te deben gustar los pintores realistas con tecnica estilo hollandes, por lo que el arte contemporaneo o abstracto no debes valorarlo tanto, si de tecnica se trata, esos son los mejores, pero el arte es muchisimo mas amplio que esa vision.
fitobcnfito 11 months ago
Comment removed
NikoAgeev2008 11 months ago
There are people who look at things from one side only. Thus, it is very difficult and scary to understand the meaning of originality and beauty in simple things. But Pollock's work can not be called simple, in contrast for example to Rothko. Anyway, abstract expressionism - is the experience and thoughts expressed by the artist on canvas. Tin, poor imagination, innate prejudices and lack of taste people never appreciate this trend in painting.
NikoAgeev2008 11 months ago 2
It sounds like he is reading a script.
tothatextent 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"This is not art. It lacks any aesthetic value, it lacks any intellectual value, and it lacks any emotional value. If one believes that this abomination is fine art, then they have proven themselves to be lacking in any taste whatsoever.
@Johannes999999999 1 month ago Johannes999999999 1 month ago"
done your research? nope!
panthroliss 1 year ago
A film about smoking and dancing. I wonder how much a pair of old Jackson Pollack's black jeans would go for nowadays. I'm just being snarky. Pollack had a time where he needed to be here. I had an epiphany about this painting of his at the Art Institute in Chicago. The placard said all this stuff about it, but I looked at it and saw a portrait of a man and a woman, (w 2 friends) talking. Our minds have since become so media literate and capable of abstraction that it wasn't alien anymore.
gwendefortun 1 year ago
It's funny that nearly every video you watch, regardless of the subject matter, there is always an argument going on.
THELIVINGJOKE 1 year ago
"When I paint, I have a general notion of what I am about"
ARURTOREYES 1 year ago
Cliche: "Art for art's sake and money for God's sake"
BangkokJohnny
RTD
Royaume de Thailande
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
A real change 60 years ago!
SozialeEnergie 1 year ago
I can paint like that too if I had some acid.
macarthur19 1 year ago
Jackson Pollock was really interested in fish. he ate fish a lot and said that one of the reasons he changed his name to Pollock was, not only to be better received by all-american audiences, after leaving Wyoming. He learnt about the aggressive scottish sweet-water fish, the Pollock, and decided that taking on this name would help inspire him.
andreaprodan 1 year ago
@andreaprodan Uh. . .no. He got the name "Pollock" from his father, not a fish. His father had been a "McCoy" put adopted the name of the family that took him in after his parents died.
Shran1970 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cornelius: grow up, man... angels doesn't exist... There's no accounting for taste.
ludalo 1 year ago
This is not art. It lacks any aesthetic value, it lacks any intellectual value, and it lacks any emotional value. If one believes that this abomination is fine art, then they have proven themselves to be lacking in any taste whatsoever.
Johannes999999999 1 year ago
@Johannes999999999 Yeah, there's no skill involved. There couldn't have ever been a time when this guy went "oh shit I messed up". The entire thing was just a big mess.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
GENIUS ,I ADMIRE JACKSON POLLOCK(johan capiau ,google my name)
capjoartist1200 1 year ago
"...look passively and try to receive what the painting has to offer and not bring a subject matter or preconceived idea of what they are to be looking for." - Pollock
eriksmith33 1 year ago 2
i think everybody see art in a different way, to give a meaning or an explanation to a painting will totally kill it. it's whatever you see, whatever makes you feel, whatever emotion you get from it. thats ART.
MasterDevil 1 year ago
@MasterDevil I feel I could place the word religion everywhere you placed the word art and painting.
ScotterS69 1 year ago
he can "see trought the glass"
Vitorbaraujo 1 year ago
shit
ThePullupselecta 1 year ago
thank u for add!
paolaLaltra 1 year ago
Yes, but i think you will agree we both spilt paint
MrSIRusername 1 year ago
When he threw away his cigarrette that means that he was getting into it.
panamanubian 1 year ago
Jackson pollock!!!! Love his art. Wish I have one on my wall. Art is about self expression!!
Love all these comments people leave in here!!! Freedom of expression. See that's also art!!!
MrRobertcastillo 1 year ago
The best painter of all time. Painting is all about new ideas and pollock changed peoples ideas about what a painting should; be, look like, and feel like. A creative genious.
MrMike4uk 1 year ago
Worthless shit...
lt53666 1 year ago