@MattisSoderstorm I kind of agree with you there. I respect Picasso, but I think Andy Warhol was just a spoiled rich kid who had the money to do all his stupid pretentious stuff.
Critics of Pollock dislike him partly because his drip paintings imply a lack of effort. But every move is calculated. You ask any artist, one wrong move can ruin the entire equilibrium of the artist's vision. Imagine how many wasted paintings because of this. Francis Bacon used to throw away his work when he made mistakes, blemishes on otherwise technically brilliant, thoughtful and well-planned pieces. It's naive to assume Pollock's pioneering style was indolent. It was anything but.
Jackson Pollock was a simpleton and a con-artist. His only 'art' was his ability to find people who were more simple minded and gullible than he was. It's a sad reflection of our society that there could ever exist such a thing as his existence. Only a society which has degenerated as low as is humanly possible would tolerate it, which explains the aristocracy 'buying' it, but now the degradation appears to be spreading to the, once, truly intelligent common man masses.
It might be random at first, the worst wall or "artist block" one can have is a blank canvas. But Pollock went more for what a painting would evoke rather than images or faces drawn perfectly and realistically like in the renaissance. A dash of white in a black area to lighten it is not random. You know what colors you want and where they should be placed. It's about as organic to painting as you can get.
u must read this. once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste tob sa
Dont get me wrong....but isnt it a bit "easy" to draw random lines and splash paint and call it "abstract art"? I mean i dont know the guy but what i saw here was completely random paint splashing... imho
@k1llk1ngph30n1x every person is unique. if i throw paint at a canvas it will be different than you or pollock or whoever... i can easily call it art though...but sorry icant call randomness art...
people who don't like Pollock are often extremely informed and often understand a great deal about painting in the truest sense than fraterlucifer and any other of the untalented sheep that dig the second rate.I was going to paint something similar to JP and call it "Number 49 Drunk hits tree at high velocity"
people who dont like pollock are just uniformed and or ignorant about art in the twentieth century, abstraction ,specificly Pollock ie the evolution of painting along side of the evolution of music,his painting is akin to and inspired by jazz and the spirit of improvisation over formalism in composition,there is art theory and composition in his work,you cant look at one of his paintings and not hear it singin to you,like it or not, a good abstraction comunicates better than a bad rendering
There really is no structure in any given Pollock drip painting. It's just random drippings that signify NOTHING. Jackson Pollock is the ultimate Emperor with no clothes!
It's kinda like flower arranging: the balance you can strike out of radically complex asymmetry, a riot of more than colour that's not really a riot any more, at all
Freaking art theory...YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T! Pollock is painting the collective unconscious. If you are not grasping it consider doing tantra or eating mushrooms before viewing.
He is a phoney and this is cynical art for people who can't be bothered with a bit of hard graft. There's nought worse than when art students give up on what they are doing and take the easy route and splash a bit of paint here or there. His works are sold on the myth of his character rather than the quality of what he produced, that said it is a nice idea to smoke drink and be moody whilst splashing around all day on your ranch.
You don't understand Pollock. However, there are too many lazy thoughtless painters trying to make a living by creating loose abstracts now Just because someone has a canvas and some oil paintings doesn't make them an ARTIST. The 20th century is fascinating when viewed when informed by the real artists of the day. Why is Banksy is the most acclaimed living artist right now and compare to the aspects of modern western culture. Pollock phony? Study art and history more closely!
Paint in itself can be a beautiful thing. Paint thrown onto a canvas can be desirable if it is thrown on loose and heavy with some design structure. Make it big and the effect is greatly increased. But this art only works well with those who tend to reject rigid rules and order.
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.
Also, it may sound strange but Art can also be about the production of a piece. In a way the process of creating and making a piece can be more important than the actual outcome. The experience one goes through when making a Painting etc. comes across in the passion and energy felt through the piece. It's not all necessarily about figurative painting.
Yea... I actually don't like Jackson Pollock at all haha, but that was one of the few things I learned in my art humanities class that made sense. Part of it definitely is "feeling" the picture being made
@Super8StrikesBack There are infinite numbers of ways to draw a trees beautifully, you can use different color, compositions and perspective to compose an ordinary tree. Learn about art before you speak.
@Super8StrikesBack Nobody can perfectly reproduce anything. But some people can surely paint a picture like Jackson Pollock. He really wasn't extremely artistically gifted.
his will power was such that he broke free from the formal education and the aesthetic rules of norm that he had himself so much exposed to -he was even under a great American classics painter-, and created beauty of his own, and insinuated something in his own trencendentality, and to that, we give the glory.
The problem with this art is not the explanation, which may be valid, but the lack of skill involved. Why should a Jackson Pollock painting be worth millions when a sixth grader (non-painter) could possibly duplicate it?
@madsen385 Maybe, as far as copying a painting that is known to exist. What I mean is it is possible to duplicate a fake-original JP. I doubt anyone would get away with duplicating a fake-original Picasso.
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 there is a whole documentary on one woman trying to verify a painting that she believes to be a pollock and no one will. all you have to do is compare braque's and picasso's work to see that another could paint cubism on the same level.
@madsen385 Braque and Picasso both invented Cubism, so that is not a good example. I'd be interested to know what a JP expert is looking for to verify his work, because the fact that we have video of JP working and that the work is literally dropping paint it would seem that a person could study and copy almost exactly. And I only say almost because it seems only God would know the difference.
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 it still is an example of two artists creating works that are technically and conceptually very much a like. because cubism has constructed rules like many other practices it is a lot easier to create works in the same style. pollocks work has an intensity and use of color that is not easily learnt, his practice was autonomous yet thoughtful. it's very hard to learn they type of autonomy pollock used when painting
Pollock's drip paintings or his big breakthrough if you will, was and is pure technique. When artwork becomes pure technique, it is easy to replicate. Norman Rockwell showed this in his illustration called "the art critic". It wasn't meant to be an indictment of Pollock's work, but showed that it could be done.
Some of his paintings had nice rhythms & patterns, the trick is never try to compare him to art like Dali`s or the old masters, is just another thing. Having said that, i would never pay more than 20$ for something i can do myself!
Jackson Pollock dripped paint because he couldn't draw in his own admition. Lol, he certainly fooled a lot of people as I can see by the comments on this page.
@beradification and thats what makes them kids, their inability to see true expression from a different point of view. when you let go of preconditioned thinking you will one day appreciate this great artist.
@beradification I think You are just confused but thats ok you dont have to like it, try not to be disrespectful to someone who dedicated his life towards art. So what if hes a drunk? Who are you to judge?
I know I don't have to like it, which is why I say it sucks, and I love passing judgement on drunk people, its one of my favorite hobbies. He killed himself and someone else in a car crash while he was drunk. Is that what respectable people do?
i think its a safe bet to say that hype can certainly have a profound effect on the perception of art. Personally, I think this is a great con job on those who were (and still are) willing to fork over extravagant sums of money for any of these works.
Am I the only one who notices that our government only befriends poor, badly-run countries, and hates wealthy, stable countries? In 1990, the Iraqi dinar was worth THREE american dollars. Our government couldn't stand that, and worked up a big nonsensical story about how awful they were, but wthout telling us the truth. Until WE, the people fix it, we're in for some ROUGH times.
Pollock was what Mondrian would have been if Mondrian had lost his mind. Both artists had personal validity and integrity, they simply viewed life from different angles.
I don't care what you say, this is not ART lol....if anybody can paint like that, what makes that painting valuable? If anybody can create musical pieces like chopin and mozart, then what's the point? lol
@neonaction : The emotional input of the artist. You can chart it like a graph. Van Gogh, Munch, Hemingway, Serling, Aerosmith, Joan Jett, Judas Priest, Robert Mapplethorpe, Charlie Chaplin, The Barrymores, Man Ray, Marilyn Monroe, etc. They had(and have)something to say, and nothing could stop them.
@buzzclick500 that is not the only thing required of successful art, music and writing. Pollock isnt even close to the level of the artists you mentioned. you're an idiot for liking pollock
@neonaction : I didn't say I liked him or disliked him. I stated an objective fact. If he really felt like he was scamming the world, life certainly took care of that, right?
All right! I like this. I had never really paid much attention to Pollack in the past, but that was a mistake. I can see now that he was putting the experience of painting into the painting itself.
This kind of painting is all bullshit. I've seen dropcloths with similar patterns and they were called "dropcloths" not masterpieces. Fools and their money are soon departed. It's a weak or disturbed mind that sees otherwise than what's before your eyes. If someone suggest there's an outline of a chicken in your steak, you'll agree and you'll call it a miracle!
@bushna2007 Its not one of those magic images you saw as a kid with a mystery image hidden in it. I can understand most people doing abstract art and having no reason, but if you study Pollock you'll find this not the case.
@bushna2007 : Two years ago, Estee Lauder's son paid 135,000,000 dollars for a painting that I could, with a bit of practice, duplicate. People buy art for many reasons, one of which is to avoid taxes by purchasing things that lose monetary value.
@buzzclick500 I was unawear of that loophole, but it only proves my point that some forms of art are only purchased for the buyers best interest, not the so-called artist's abilities.
@bushna2007 : Absolutely. When a work sells for what seems an outrageous price, it's not because it'll look nice in the dining room. Also, images are licensed out for use on fabrics, album covers, placemats, napkins, etc. Buying a painting is not so different from buying an oil well(without the mess and work). Even if the buyer thinks it's ugly as %$##, they know who likes what.
Your are stupid for saying he couldn't draw. He could paint representationally. You should study first before you criticize. At that time it was the end of World War 2, he had captured the feeling of everyone at the time and this is what made his artwork special. You wouldn't feel the same way now but back then it was a big deal. Please, delete your comment so you wouldn't look so ignorant.
No one did what Pollock did. It is beautiful, and if you think it is so easy maybe you should try doing it yourself. It isn't as simple as it looks. Drawing has nothing to do with it.
I once had a culinary instructor tell me that if you served "shit" to a POSH crowd and called it "Poo-poo CaCa", the stupid sheep in the crowd would tell you it was the finest "Poo-poo CaCa" they had ever tasted.
If I were to do this exact same technique and call it "art", someone would make me clean the floor and then throw my ass out!
He couldn't draw (by his own admission) to begin with, how come this "magically" becomes "painting"?
You make a good point, but I think it really just comes down to expression. For me at least, I like Pollock's work b/c when I look at it, I feel like... well, this is going to be redundant, but I feel like I can feel what he was feeling. You get a similar experience from certain types of jazz, ya know.?. It might not sound pretty, but if you get someone talented enough w/i that genre, the experience can be extremely engaging... if you let it;):)
Assim como compositores classicos que se entregavam intenssamente de corpo e alma a suas composições com tamanho vigor e intensidade, que caiam mortos depois deste feito, a arte é isso, é algo que não podemos coceber uma idéia e final definição, não conhecia este artista mas vi o filme, e com tudo que passou, mostra como somos frageis, mais ainda artistas, e a sensibilidade salta a superficie da pele, gosto muito deste estilo, por que conversa diretamente com nossas almas
Muito bom o vídeo de vocês. Parabens. A pintura de Pollock toma forma real, no movimento de camera, como se fosse galhos de uma imensa arvore desfolhada Em outro momento como se tivesse lenços coloridos presos aos galhos dessa arvore depois de um vendaval desfolhante.
So he took this method because he couldn't draw to begin with? Shouldn't you be something of a master of a given craft (thoroughly enough to understand its limitations) in order to expand its possibilities?
he used a lot of your basic house paints at the time. and they went onto canvas that was originally to be used for making sails, which is why these paintings haven't deteriorated very much over the years. As Sailing canvas was impregnated with many chemicals to keep it from deteriorating out there on the sea. In his latter years he would have the "house Paint" mixed specifically for him to give it more flow.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What a bunch of fuckin retard bullshit , that is not an any way art. There is no creativity in splattering paint randomly . There is no deep meaning or message in it. its just some asshole ripping off other ignorant rich assholes. people are fucking idiots. He even admitted he is a talentless moron
well how much art is in anything? suppose he painted the perfect picture of a beach would that be great? no cus its just some bullshit ass picture of a beach even though its detailed. so its all opinion. thats why art is art and fart is fart
paintings are commentary on the way people observe the world around them/inside them....
Personally, I think it is sad that the National Gallery hangs Pollocks paintings on a wall, when he created these paintings by standing above them. I got in trouble for laying down at the museum and looking at one of his paintings from his original perspective. :)
@empiremonkey its funny how when i was watching the video i thought the same thing then i read your comment. Next time i go to the MoMa or the National Galllery i'll ask the question.
Problem will always be money, as decoration those paintings are sweet, if you`re on drugs you may see some nice stuff but now thinking to charge more than 100-500$ for something like that is too much, artists have to be honest, you can do 100 paintings like that in a month if you work enough
Same with pop musicians who expect to get rich by copying cds with their voices on them
I love how pollock paints, but not what he paints.
He did a couple of good ones, the rest is not that good, but if you have the right connections you can even sell packaged dung & ppl will buy it no doubt.
Then maybe you should study about surrealism and abstract expressionism as well. Art is not about drawing pretty realistic women with fruits, it's a representation of feelings. And "mess" can express feelings as well. Pollock just didn't want to paint in traditional ways, he didn't want to tell the viewer what to think about the picture. An abstract artist just tries to show indescribable emotions through various colors and forms. If you don't consider this art, you don't know what art is about.
Very well put! Every line and drip he laid down was an expression of himself - movement of the human body - the cause of the effect. I can star for hours at a Pollock painting and never see it entirely. His paintings explode with energy! If you can't understand that as a artist, you might want to consider another line of work.
@JudiG FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. every word I just said is an expression of myself. The sound of the human voice. I can listen for hours to "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" and never hear it entirely. "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" explode with energy! If you can't understand that as a musician, you might want to consider another line of word.
@KasseyDee sure, art is not all about drawing women with fruists(WTF?), but art is not about dripping paints on canvas and embarrassing serious artists either. Fuck pollock!
@KasseyDee I do consider this art, but i hate people overanalyzing.. as you say, "he didn't want to tell the viewer what to think about the picture".. then we shouldnt.. We should just look and shut up..
Maybe, but then again even some graffiti is considered art. Besides, cops got more things to be worried about than paint on buildings.. like doughnuts ;)
Graffiti is on the wall that we pay with our money, Pollock paints in his house not on any wall of any city. If you want to be an artist you better start thinking about it, not telling us the story of graffitis and cops.
Why graffiters don't paint his own house?
I like graffitis but I don't like the actitude of these kind of personality, that they only think for himselfs, not for the rest of humans that live in the same world.
Good graffiti is a very cool artform. The problem is the surfaces they employ. If you owned a piece of property, would YOU want some stranger painting all over it?
Perhaps Sultans in Saudi Arabia have too much money and perhaps there's something they see in Pollack's paintings that is missing in their own lives, perhaps you might say they admire Pollack for his fearlessness to express himself freely perhaps because they desire to express themselves freely or perhaps there's some other reason, Idk, you'd have to ask them.
Pollack's success just like anybody's success, was highly circumstantial. Had Harold Rosenberg not written "The American Action Painters" we would not even know about Jackson Pollack. ...Genius is subjective!! You may be an asshole and call me a dummy, but you know what, I'm a sculptor, and I've had my fair share of art teachers and critics. Some have said I'm a genius, others have said that my work aspires to very little.
What makes me not like Pollack as you chandru1103 seem to have so keenly discovered, is the fact that he did not change his technique, became an alcoholic, stopped painting, and died in a drunken car accident. Either fame or painting made him unhappy after a while, or he just stopped caring about his well being. I think that he set himself up for disaster by painting the way he did... he became was a heroic painter, a hero with no one to save.
I agree with you on the matter that he did not evolve in a way. I mean dozen of his first paintings could be considered as art, like e new way of expressing, but i fail to grasp his ideas, most of his work looks the same with no changes or improvements over the time. Well maybe he could not draw (watch video 1:40) and never progressed by accepting a technique that takes you even more away from "real" drawing
I said nothing about Warhol, you digress to talk up Warhol as a counterargument because perhaps my statement offended you...?
You think Warhol is a genius; you think Pollack is too. I do not disagree, its just that I feel that Pollack was a bit too blessed by the art historical context which received him. Painters are a strange breed. they can spend their lives absorbed in the 2D magic of the marks they make, painting the same way for a long time without changing their technique very much.
The professionals of the Music world and the Art world define what music and art are respectively for the purposes keeping one another employed, they have arguments about Jackson Pollack because no one else has time for the argument. Pollack's work is art because art world people won his work into posterity and use it to talk about other new artists today. So the definition. Art= anything that can survive this Natural selection process. But believe that doesn't mean it's not a fucked process.
Now, If a musician was to make a career out of making music via instrument destruction, he should really practice his technique of guitar smashing and perform it over and over each time a little differently, perhaps somehow writing a new form of notation for his particular technique and make his technique and sound somehow resonant with his wide audience...
In response to Jerkwater Jones comment, some people who like Hendrix (who lit his guitar on fire and smashed it on stage live) say that he is the most talented guitar player in the history of Rock and Roll. Others might strongly disagree but that doesn't erase the fact that lots of people listen to his music and lots of people wrote about him and saw his concerts while he was living and helped make him so famous that his music is still sold and listened to.
I think it is rediculous to say that Jackson Pollock, someone who's paintings now sell for over $40 million is not talent worthy. Just by saying something like that shows us all that you either know nothing about art, or are completely missing the point of these paintings. As many others have challenged, if its so easy, go and do it yourself. Many art experts around the world would disagree with you, just like I am. Doesnt that account for something?
i dont know who you are talking to but no. its not ridiculous. "art experts" so to speak are a joke since art is subjective. they account for nothing. art has been around before the hierarchy of art. Yes he did something unique to his own ( i myself like his ideas but not the aesthetic ) but depending on ones preference for art its either going to be trash or gold. so your opinion is as good as mine when judging art or weather or not we are "Experts" in art.
Pollack & De Kooning may have only "screwed up Cubism", but Cubism had taken such a hold on Abstract art it was virtually unbreakable. The Surrealist's ended in literary tricks, the realists in propaganda. Expressionism had been linked to social criticism in Germany. So pollack cut through all that blockage. His was a reaction to Bauhaus Architecture also - and look's a lot like the "Space Graffitti" of now. We can't all be Latino Muralists?
I do not believe anyone can make splatter on canvas, not the way he does it. Its more than just dripping, there's an obvious amount of control. There's alot of technique behind it. The quicker your arm motions are the thinner the laying of the paint...the slower, the thicker. A lot of people think its simple and a load of crap, but i'd like to see someone with enough devotion to work on one painting for a year with 100's of layers, knowing when to stop so their paint does not get runny.
pollocks 'genius' isnt his technique, yes anyone can make splatter and squiggly lines, but he has a a lot of thought that goes into a piece and the lines and 'squggles' are how he expresses them. to dismiss him is to dismiss a lot of brilliant art made in the same vain.
I am so tired of reading comments like "it takes no talent", "anyone can do it". well, so what? does an artist deserve to be recognized only because he or she can do something that no one else can?
I think everyone should reflect on their definition of art. I believe that the artistic value lies in the thought behind the finished product. So, Yoganate79, do you mean that an artist is "good" in your definition if he can do what, let's say you, can?
"does an artist deserve to be recognized only because he or she can do something that no one else can?"
YES
that's what makes their work special. The fact that it's something that separates that artist from the person next to them is what makes it THEIR work, something you need to come to THEM to make, not the rest of the crowd.
The part that I personally am amazed about this artist is, not the work, but that he had enough courage to become famous from this style. He became its innovator.
damn now a lot of people are copying this style calling themselves artists,does it even mean anything???just paint randomly spilled to look nice,a painting supposed to come from the heart.
To stand before a major Pollack is to lose any ability to not like it. The works hang of their own merit in the greatest museums in the world. Go see them and then post your comment. To criticize Pollack based on the history surrounding him is to 100% miss the point of his work. Sorry, bud, but Pollack in the original is an undeniably powerfully artistic experience.
and than modern art went to shit. WAKE UP PEOPLE. to put pollock and dali in the same video is a disgrace to dali's life memory and work. pollocks not creative or inavative it says so right in the video dripping and splatter has been around for years. dali was a fucking master, pollock was a fucking joke that nobody got. theres no comosition no thought and no attention to detail whereas dali was all about that i promise you anyone with knowlage of colors can do what he did if not better
I think what makes Pollock timeless is that its not just about his work its about the inner emotions that were coming out onto the canvas. Thats what sets it apart and gives it meaning, its the art and the artist. Who cares if someone else did drip painting before Pollock, its his emotions on the canvas not theirs.
The Polloch style was done since 1890's in europe, but USA wanted to show to the world that they also can be intelligent, but nothing special, compared with Modigliani, Picasso, Dali, Bacon etc. These are real artists, not Pollock, which paintings only are bought by American collectors!
yeh thats why sultans in Saudi Arabia are buying him up like mad, because he was trite and unoriginal and only for the American art market...c'mon dummy.
There's no obrigation do like every work of art but it's not good to disquallify something you don't like. Art can be taste (like or dislike it) but it's also an intelectual and/or spiritual experience that someone is trying to comunicate. Artists struggle hard for this and for the coherence of his output with his inner thoughts and visions. It's clear that Pollock had and have a significant and thrilling contribuition for the human culture.
Pollock is a mix of Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso.
Hes selling paintings nobody understands for lot of money to the rich and getting famous and remembered in history for it.
MattisSoderstorm 1 month ago
@MattisSoderstorm I kind of agree with you there. I respect Picasso, but I think Andy Warhol was just a spoiled rich kid who had the money to do all his stupid pretentious stuff.
papppappful 3 days ago
@papppappful Well he didnt start rich but what im saying is that basically the rich are retarded and theyll believe its art if you say it is.
MattisSoderstorm 3 days ago
@MattisSoderstorm Oh yeah, I'm sorry I don't really know much about Andy Warhol. I just think he's kinda crap.
papppappful 3 days ago
@papppappful I dont blame you for that opinion he didnt put alot of effort into his works.
MattisSoderstorm 3 days ago
Looks like crap to me. ,,,And to re produce means to make multiple (many) copies of .
CookieGMB 2 months ago
Critics of Pollock dislike him partly because his drip paintings imply a lack of effort. But every move is calculated. You ask any artist, one wrong move can ruin the entire equilibrium of the artist's vision. Imagine how many wasted paintings because of this. Francis Bacon used to throw away his work when he made mistakes, blemishes on otherwise technically brilliant, thoughtful and well-planned pieces. It's naive to assume Pollock's pioneering style was indolent. It was anything but.
VincentsBlog 4 months ago
jackson pollock stands apart because he created art with feeling, and it turned out beautiful. not a lot of people can do that.
sexytokeburgers 5 months ago
Jackson Pollock was a simpleton and a con-artist. His only 'art' was his ability to find people who were more simple minded and gullible than he was. It's a sad reflection of our society that there could ever exist such a thing as his existence. Only a society which has degenerated as low as is humanly possible would tolerate it, which explains the aristocracy 'buying' it, but now the degradation appears to be spreading to the, once, truly intelligent common man masses.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
It might be random at first, the worst wall or "artist block" one can have is a blank canvas. But Pollock went more for what a painting would evoke rather than images or faces drawn perfectly and realistically like in the renaissance. A dash of white in a black area to lighten it is not random. You know what colors you want and where they should be placed. It's about as organic to painting as you can get.
DINOLOVER6717 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
u must read this. once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste tob sa
KarlC329 7 months ago
Dont get me wrong....but isnt it a bit "easy" to draw random lines and splash paint and call it "abstract art"? I mean i dont know the guy but what i saw here was completely random paint splashing... imho
nemogre 7 months ago
@nemogre lol, try it
k1llk1ngph30n1x 7 months ago
@k1llk1ngph30n1x every person is unique. if i throw paint at a canvas it will be different than you or pollock or whoever... i can easily call it art though...but sorry icant call randomness art...
nemogre 7 months ago
@nemogre it's not random
k1llk1ngph30n1x 7 months ago
people who don't like Pollock are often extremely informed and often understand a great deal about painting in the truest sense than fraterlucifer and any other of the untalented sheep that dig the second rate.I was going to paint something similar to JP and call it "Number 49 Drunk hits tree at high velocity"
Garvain66 8 months ago
people who dont like pollock are just uniformed and or ignorant about art in the twentieth century, abstraction ,specificly Pollock ie the evolution of painting along side of the evolution of music,his painting is akin to and inspired by jazz and the spirit of improvisation over formalism in composition,there is art theory and composition in his work,you cant look at one of his paintings and not hear it singin to you,like it or not, a good abstraction comunicates better than a bad rendering
fraterlucifer888 8 months ago
There really is no structure in any given Pollock drip painting. It's just random drippings that signify NOTHING. Jackson Pollock is the ultimate Emperor with no clothes!
manco82 1 year ago
It's kinda like flower arranging: the balance you can strike out of radically complex asymmetry, a riot of more than colour that's not really a riot any more, at all
reforest4fertility 1 year ago
all art is in the moment
DanOlooney 1 year ago
Freaking art theory...YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T! Pollock is painting the collective unconscious. If you are not grasping it consider doing tantra or eating mushrooms before viewing.
thebunniez 1 year ago
He is a phoney and this is cynical art for people who can't be bothered with a bit of hard graft. There's nought worse than when art students give up on what they are doing and take the easy route and splash a bit of paint here or there. His works are sold on the myth of his character rather than the quality of what he produced, that said it is a nice idea to smoke drink and be moody whilst splashing around all day on your ranch.
FchristianoF 1 year ago
You don't understand Pollock. However, there are too many lazy thoughtless painters trying to make a living by creating loose abstracts now Just because someone has a canvas and some oil paintings doesn't make them an ARTIST. The 20th century is fascinating when viewed when informed by the real artists of the day. Why is Banksy is the most acclaimed living artist right now and compare to the aspects of modern western culture. Pollock phony? Study art and history more closely!
empiremonkey 1 year ago
Paint in itself can be a beautiful thing. Paint thrown onto a canvas can be desirable if it is thrown on loose and heavy with some design structure. Make it big and the effect is greatly increased. But this art only works well with those who tend to reject rigid rules and order.
artistdalehammond 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
Also, it may sound strange but Art can also be about the production of a piece. In a way the process of creating and making a piece can be more important than the actual outcome. The experience one goes through when making a Painting etc. comes across in the passion and energy felt through the piece. It's not all necessarily about figurative painting.
holsss 1 year ago
@holsss
Yea... I actually don't like Jackson Pollock at all haha, but that was one of the few things I learned in my art humanities class that made sense. Part of it definitely is "feeling" the picture being made
kluaf 1 year ago
Comment removed
holsss 1 year ago
Comment removed
holsss 1 year ago
shit art becomes famous. i just feel sorry for individuals who can paint amazing abstract images.
queenanalsex 1 year ago
How many times can you draw trees and riders on horses?
Now how many times can you reproduce a Pollock?
No body can reproduce a Pollock.
Super8StrikesBack 1 year ago 16
@Super8StrikesBack thats is all nonsense, Da Vince was a painter , thats are impostors
jrferrio 9 months ago
@Super8StrikesBack There are infinite numbers of ways to draw a trees beautifully, you can use different color, compositions and perspective to compose an ordinary tree. Learn about art before you speak.
neonaction 9 months ago
@Super8StrikesBack What does reproduce mean?
letsif 2 months ago
@Super8StrikesBack Nobody can perfectly reproduce anything. But some people can surely paint a picture like Jackson Pollock. He really wasn't extremely artistically gifted.
papppappful 3 days ago
@Super8StrikesBack I'd say he's more innovative than skilled.
papppappful 3 days ago
his will power was such that he broke free from the formal education and the aesthetic rules of norm that he had himself so much exposed to -he was even under a great American classics painter-, and created beauty of his own, and insinuated something in his own trencendentality, and to that, we give the glory.
pakk82 1 year ago
it is so stupid to say - i could do that... -- why didn't you then???
BreakDaMaT 1 year ago
First dripper?? CANVAS POOPER IS MORE LIKE IT !!!
yoheff988 1 year ago
Literally garbage
yoheff988 1 year ago
Another great video of JP who's always inspiration for me personally in my own work. Thank you!
tomroseart 1 year ago
The problem with this art is not the explanation, which may be valid, but the lack of skill involved. Why should a Jackson Pollock painting be worth millions when a sixth grader (non-painter) could possibly duplicate it?
Thisisnotmyrealname8 1 year ago
@Thisisnotmyrealname8
rosmia2 1 year ago
@rosmia2 That's my youtube screen name, don't wear it out.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 1 year ago
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 his works are actually considered one of the hardest to fake
madsen385 1 year ago
@madsen385 Maybe, as far as copying a painting that is known to exist. What I mean is it is possible to duplicate a fake-original JP. I doubt anyone would get away with duplicating a fake-original Picasso.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 1 year ago
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 there is a whole documentary on one woman trying to verify a painting that she believes to be a pollock and no one will. all you have to do is compare braque's and picasso's work to see that another could paint cubism on the same level.
madsen385 1 year ago
@madsen385 Braque and Picasso both invented Cubism, so that is not a good example. I'd be interested to know what a JP expert is looking for to verify his work, because the fact that we have video of JP working and that the work is literally dropping paint it would seem that a person could study and copy almost exactly. And I only say almost because it seems only God would know the difference.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 1 year ago
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 it still is an example of two artists creating works that are technically and conceptually very much a like. because cubism has constructed rules like many other practices it is a lot easier to create works in the same style. pollocks work has an intensity and use of color that is not easily learnt, his practice was autonomous yet thoughtful. it's very hard to learn they type of autonomy pollock used when painting
madsen385 1 year ago
Pollock's drip paintings or his big breakthrough if you will, was and is pure technique. When artwork becomes pure technique, it is easy to replicate. Norman Rockwell showed this in his illustration called "the art critic". It wasn't meant to be an indictment of Pollock's work, but showed that it could be done.
carnisero43 1 year ago
This is art as therapy, which isn't art at all but more like the manifestation of his immanent disharmony.
marcolopolis555 1 year ago
@marcolopolis555
rosmia2 1 year ago
Some of his paintings had nice rhythms & patterns, the trick is never try to compare him to art like Dali`s or the old masters, is just another thing. Having said that, i would never pay more than 20$ for something i can do myself!
trinitaterion 1 year ago
Jackson Pollock dripped paint because he couldn't draw in his own admition. Lol, he certainly fooled a lot of people as I can see by the comments on this page.
liz2porter 1 year ago
the emperor has no clothes
mjones410 1 year ago
Great art doesn't match your - GODDAM - sofa.
ANewNormalcy 1 year ago
pollack is an all-round terrible painter,
he is part of the attempt by America to get some of their artists known in spite of the fact they hadn't any talent.
Dali is much better than him by any criteria.
beradification 1 year ago
@beradification You are cluless
nyshoefly 1 year ago
@nyshoefly even at my school, RISD, where most of the kids are hippie artists,
people think Pollack is basically a pitiful drunk loser..
to some that's something to shoot for.
beradification 1 year ago
@beradification and thats what makes them kids, their inability to see true expression from a different point of view. when you let go of preconditioned thinking you will one day appreciate this great artist.
nyshoefly 1 year ago
@nyshoefly never, this 'true expression' you mean is just the surplus value of a hangover, you are confusing a distinction and a difference.
beradification 1 year ago
@beradification I think You are just confused but thats ok you dont have to like it, try not to be disrespectful to someone who dedicated his life towards art. So what if hes a drunk? Who are you to judge?
nyshoefly 1 year ago
@nyshoefly
I know I don't have to like it, which is why I say it sucks, and I love passing judgement on drunk people, its one of my favorite hobbies. He killed himself and someone else in a car crash while he was drunk. Is that what respectable people do?
He's a murderer.
beradification 1 year ago
i think its a safe bet to say that hype can certainly have a profound effect on the perception of art. Personally, I think this is a great con job on those who were (and still are) willing to fork over extravagant sums of money for any of these works.
jesusgrc1762 1 year ago
Am I the only one who notices that our government only befriends poor, badly-run countries, and hates wealthy, stable countries? In 1990, the Iraqi dinar was worth THREE american dollars. Our government couldn't stand that, and worked up a big nonsensical story about how awful they were, but wthout telling us the truth. Until WE, the people fix it, we're in for some ROUGH times.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
Pollock was what Mondrian would have been if Mondrian had lost his mind. Both artists had personal validity and integrity, they simply viewed life from different angles.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
I don't care what you say, this is not ART lol....if anybody can paint like that, what makes that painting valuable? If anybody can create musical pieces like chopin and mozart, then what's the point? lol
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction : Do you want to know the secret of powerful and successful art, music and writing?
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@buzzclick500 what is the secret according to you?
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction : The emotional input of the artist. You can chart it like a graph. Van Gogh, Munch, Hemingway, Serling, Aerosmith, Joan Jett, Judas Priest, Robert Mapplethorpe, Charlie Chaplin, The Barrymores, Man Ray, Marilyn Monroe, etc. They had(and have)something to say, and nothing could stop them.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@buzzclick500 that is not the only thing required of successful art, music and writing. Pollock isnt even close to the level of the artists you mentioned. you're an idiot for liking pollock
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction : I didn't say I liked him or disliked him. I stated an objective fact. If he really felt like he was scamming the world, life certainly took care of that, right?
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@neonaction When you talk about music and writing you re still talking about art.
TheWizzKidz 9 months ago
funny, this is how I keep my canvas on the floor but yet cannot control the flow of paint in the symbolism of fate.
bernhardsart 1 year ago
All right! I like this. I had never really paid much attention to Pollack in the past, but that was a mistake. I can see now that he was putting the experience of painting into the painting itself.
MellowCricket 1 year ago
This kind of painting is all bullshit. I've seen dropcloths with similar patterns and they were called "dropcloths" not masterpieces. Fools and their money are soon departed. It's a weak or disturbed mind that sees otherwise than what's before your eyes. If someone suggest there's an outline of a chicken in your steak, you'll agree and you'll call it a miracle!
bushna2007 1 year ago
@bushna2007 Its not one of those magic images you saw as a kid with a mystery image hidden in it. I can understand most people doing abstract art and having no reason, but if you study Pollock you'll find this not the case.
bcbird 1 year ago
@bushna2007 : Two years ago, Estee Lauder's son paid 135,000,000 dollars for a painting that I could, with a bit of practice, duplicate. People buy art for many reasons, one of which is to avoid taxes by purchasing things that lose monetary value.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@buzzclick500 I was unawear of that loophole, but it only proves my point that some forms of art are only purchased for the buyers best interest, not the so-called artist's abilities.
bushna2007 1 year ago
@bushna2007 : Absolutely. When a work sells for what seems an outrageous price, it's not because it'll look nice in the dining room. Also, images are licensed out for use on fabrics, album covers, placemats, napkins, etc. Buying a painting is not so different from buying an oil well(without the mess and work). Even if the buyer thinks it's ugly as %$##, they know who likes what.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@buzzclick500
bushna2007 1 year ago
@bushna2007 : Yes?
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@bushna2007 Pollock "paintings" sell for $1 million+. Lots of insane wealthy folks with nothing better to do!
manco82 1 year ago
Your are stupid for saying he couldn't draw. He could paint representationally. You should study first before you criticize. At that time it was the end of World War 2, he had captured the feeling of everyone at the time and this is what made his artwork special. You wouldn't feel the same way now but back then it was a big deal. Please, delete your comment so you wouldn't look so ignorant.
inkypaint 1 year ago
No one did what Pollock did. It is beautiful, and if you think it is so easy maybe you should try doing it yourself. It isn't as simple as it looks. Drawing has nothing to do with it.
netageweb 1 year ago
the painting in the last shot reminded me of an aireal shot from a plane
playmat76 1 year ago
I once had a culinary instructor tell me that if you served "shit" to a POSH crowd and called it "Poo-poo CaCa", the stupid sheep in the crowd would tell you it was the finest "Poo-poo CaCa" they had ever tasted.
If I were to do this exact same technique and call it "art", someone would make me clean the floor and then throw my ass out!
He couldn't draw (by his own admission) to begin with, how come this "magically" becomes "painting"?
Elodea 1 year ago
You make a good point, but I think it really just comes down to expression. For me at least, I like Pollock's work b/c when I look at it, I feel like... well, this is going to be redundant, but I feel like I can feel what he was feeling. You get a similar experience from certain types of jazz, ya know.?. It might not sound pretty, but if you get someone talented enough w/i that genre, the experience can be extremely engaging... if you let it;):)
yobhsiFehT 1 year ago
Assim como compositores classicos que se entregavam intenssamente de corpo e alma a suas composições com tamanho vigor e intensidade, que caiam mortos depois deste feito, a arte é isso, é algo que não podemos coceber uma idéia e final definição, não conhecia este artista mas vi o filme, e com tudo que passou, mostra como somos frageis, mais ainda artistas, e a sensibilidade salta a superficie da pele, gosto muito deste estilo, por que conversa diretamente com nossas almas
anderrante 2 years ago
Muito bom o vídeo de vocês. Parabens. A pintura de Pollock toma forma real, no movimento de camera, como se fosse galhos de uma imensa arvore desfolhada Em outro momento como se tivesse lenços coloridos presos aos galhos dessa arvore depois de um vendaval desfolhante.
Saudações.
Luciano Garcia
MORRODESAOPAULOTV 2 years ago
I love Pollock!
JacquelineProduction 2 years ago
So he took this method because he couldn't draw to begin with? Shouldn't you be something of a master of a given craft (thoroughly enough to understand its limitations) in order to expand its possibilities?
EzratheDog 2 years ago
at 3:08, in the left, there's mickey mouse xD
darkwitch442 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
a typical con-artist of the 20th century...
vaporizer08 2 years ago
you know nothing about art if you think he is a conartist.
AlligatorZebra 1 year ago
he was a conartist and you are an idiot
vaporizer08 1 year ago
@vaporizer08 : In the creative world, there are no con-artists. It's an open field.
buzzclick500 1 year ago
what kind of paint did he use?
tippin1 2 years ago
he used a lot of your basic house paints at the time. and they went onto canvas that was originally to be used for making sails, which is why these paintings haven't deteriorated very much over the years. As Sailing canvas was impregnated with many chemicals to keep it from deteriorating out there on the sea. In his latter years he would have the "house Paint" mixed specifically for him to give it more flow.
jeffreycollins 2 years ago
house paint
TheArtHistory 2 years ago
Most likely oil paint
NeccoWecco 1 year ago
I find blogs irratating..
philshaer 2 years ago
it's cool how he doesn't seem to just randomly mixed the colors. i think he layers them one at a time. like making pizza...
statix888 2 years ago
"like making pizza" ? .. you mean like being an Artist?
routinemagic 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a bunch of fuckin retard bullshit , that is not an any way art. There is no creativity in splattering paint randomly . There is no deep meaning or message in it. its just some asshole ripping off other ignorant rich assholes. people are fucking idiots. He even admitted he is a talentless moron
manateewizard 2 years ago
well how much art is in anything? suppose he painted the perfect picture of a beach would that be great? no cus its just some bullshit ass picture of a beach even though its detailed. so its all opinion. thats why art is art and fart is fart
itchyscratcher 2 years ago
"Randomness" is an art in itself...
joegreaser 2 years ago 2
getting acclaim, sometimes money, and recognition as an artist attributes him as a talentless moron? well, at least he got somewhere.
OceanAndSilence 2 years ago 2
go take an art history class and you might realize why Pollock is special.
AlligatorZebra 1 year ago
paintings are commentary on the way people observe the world around them/inside them....
Personally, I think it is sad that the National Gallery hangs Pollocks paintings on a wall, when he created these paintings by standing above them. I got in trouble for laying down at the museum and looking at one of his paintings from his original perspective. :)
empiremonkey 2 years ago 9
@empiremonkey its funny how when i was watching the video i thought the same thing then i read your comment. Next time i go to the MoMa or the National Galllery i'll ask the question.
MasterDevil 1 year ago
@empiremonkey was it on the celling?
DanOlooney 1 year ago
@DanOlooney Was he on the floor when he painted? No. It was on the wall and I was on the floor.
empiremonkey 1 year ago
Never let the propaganda about an artist fool you, remember there is a lot of agenda$ in critics/galerists/historians words
Why some rich people pay 40millions$ for a Pollock or whatever artist?
The answer is extremely simple, because they want to show to others that they can afford them. that gives them power.
trinitaterion 2 years ago
Problem will always be money, as decoration those paintings are sweet, if you`re on drugs you may see some nice stuff but now thinking to charge more than 100-500$ for something like that is too much, artists have to be honest, you can do 100 paintings like that in a month if you work enough
Same with pop musicians who expect to get rich by copying cds with their voices on them
trinitaterion 2 years ago
you don't know what you're talking about.
YogiToad 2 years ago
i second that
iwannabeyourdog1969 2 years ago
I love how pollock paints, but not what he paints.
He did a couple of good ones, the rest is not that good, but if you have the right connections you can even sell packaged dung & ppl will buy it no doubt.
trinitaterion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pollock is so cheap
0517bogota 2 years ago
Hey, this isn't Ed Harris. Kidding. Fascinatin'.
pegleyjr 2 years ago
how can this mess be a work of art?
8poseur8 2 years ago
i second tht mate :) and i study art and design
lacebian 2 years ago
Then maybe you should study about surrealism and abstract expressionism as well. Art is not about drawing pretty realistic women with fruits, it's a representation of feelings. And "mess" can express feelings as well. Pollock just didn't want to paint in traditional ways, he didn't want to tell the viewer what to think about the picture. An abstract artist just tries to show indescribable emotions through various colors and forms. If you don't consider this art, you don't know what art is about.
KasseyDee 2 years ago 21
Very well put! Every line and drip he laid down was an expression of himself - movement of the human body - the cause of the effect. I can star for hours at a Pollock painting and never see it entirely. His paintings explode with energy! If you can't understand that as a artist, you might want to consider another line of work.
JudiG 2 years ago 2
@JudiG FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. every word I just said is an expression of myself. The sound of the human voice. I can listen for hours to "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" and never hear it entirely. "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" explode with energy! If you can't understand that as a musician, you might want to consider another line of word.
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction : Have you read Art Buchwald's "Rape of the A.P.E.(American Puritan Ethic)"? I'm sure you'll crack up laughing. ;]
buzzclick500 1 year ago
@KasseyDee sure, art is not all about drawing women with fruists(WTF?), but art is not about dripping paints on canvas and embarrassing serious artists either. Fuck pollock!
neonaction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KasseyDee I do consider this art, but i hate people overanalyzing.. as you say, "he didn't want to tell the viewer what to think about the picture".. then we shouldnt.. We should just look and shut up..
maksenDK 1 year ago
Maybe it's like the old saying goes, "Art for the sake of art." You find in it what you want to...
bodiza420 2 years ago
and then the cops arrest u for spraying graffiti.
8poseur8 2 years ago
Maybe, but then again even some graffiti is considered art. Besides, cops got more things to be worried about than paint on buildings.. like doughnuts ;)
bodiza420 2 years ago
Don't be silly man!!!
Graffiti is on the wall that we pay with our money, Pollock paints in his house not on any wall of any city. If you want to be an artist you better start thinking about it, not telling us the story of graffitis and cops.
Why graffiters don't paint his own house?
I like graffitis but I don't like the actitude of these kind of personality, that they only think for himselfs, not for the rest of humans that live in the same world.
bepmolldelafuente 2 years ago
Good graffiti is a very cool artform. The problem is the surfaces they employ. If you owned a piece of property, would YOU want some stranger painting all over it?
JudiG 2 years ago
Perhaps Sultans in Saudi Arabia have too much money and perhaps there's something they see in Pollack's paintings that is missing in their own lives, perhaps you might say they admire Pollack for his fearlessness to express himself freely perhaps because they desire to express themselves freely or perhaps there's some other reason, Idk, you'd have to ask them.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
Pollack's success just like anybody's success, was highly circumstantial. Had Harold Rosenberg not written "The American Action Painters" we would not even know about Jackson Pollack. ...Genius is subjective!! You may be an asshole and call me a dummy, but you know what, I'm a sculptor, and I've had my fair share of art teachers and critics. Some have said I'm a genius, others have said that my work aspires to very little.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago 3
Correct. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people just can't grasp that human concept.
JudiG 2 years ago
0000000000000000, this is art, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder! LOL. I am an artist! : )
neonaction 1 year ago
What makes me not like Pollack as you chandru1103 seem to have so keenly discovered, is the fact that he did not change his technique, became an alcoholic, stopped painting, and died in a drunken car accident. Either fame or painting made him unhappy after a while, or he just stopped caring about his well being. I think that he set himself up for disaster by painting the way he did... he became was a heroic painter, a hero with no one to save.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
I agree with you on the matter that he did not evolve in a way. I mean dozen of his first paintings could be considered as art, like e new way of expressing, but i fail to grasp his ideas, most of his work looks the same with no changes or improvements over the time. Well maybe he could not draw (watch video 1:40) and never progressed by accepting a technique that takes you even more away from "real" drawing
Lilonius 2 years ago
I said nothing about Warhol, you digress to talk up Warhol as a counterargument because perhaps my statement offended you...?
You think Warhol is a genius; you think Pollack is too. I do not disagree, its just that I feel that Pollack was a bit too blessed by the art historical context which received him. Painters are a strange breed. they can spend their lives absorbed in the 2D magic of the marks they make, painting the same way for a long time without changing their technique very much.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
The professionals of the Music world and the Art world define what music and art are respectively for the purposes keeping one another employed, they have arguments about Jackson Pollack because no one else has time for the argument. Pollack's work is art because art world people won his work into posterity and use it to talk about other new artists today. So the definition. Art= anything that can survive this Natural selection process. But believe that doesn't mean it's not a fucked process.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
Now, If a musician was to make a career out of making music via instrument destruction, he should really practice his technique of guitar smashing and perform it over and over each time a little differently, perhaps somehow writing a new form of notation for his particular technique and make his technique and sound somehow resonant with his wide audience...
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
In response to Jerkwater Jones comment, some people who like Hendrix (who lit his guitar on fire and smashed it on stage live) say that he is the most talented guitar player in the history of Rock and Roll. Others might strongly disagree but that doesn't erase the fact that lots of people listen to his music and lots of people wrote about him and saw his concerts while he was living and helped make him so famous that his music is still sold and listened to.
jessucasoup89 2 years ago
I can smash a guitar against a rock, but that doesn't make it music.
JerkwaterJones 2 years ago
yes it does.
chandru1103 2 years ago
Nope.
JerkwaterJones 2 years ago
ok so where do you draw the line to limit free expression...exactly where does that line lie.
chandru1103 2 years ago
yeah its called noise music you should take a listen to lightning bolt.
AlligatorZebra 1 year ago
damn what sort of paint did he use???
xg8512 2 years ago
household enamel paint
quenchedinlife 2 years ago
I think it is rediculous to say that Jackson Pollock, someone who's paintings now sell for over $40 million is not talent worthy. Just by saying something like that shows us all that you either know nothing about art, or are completely missing the point of these paintings. As many others have challenged, if its so easy, go and do it yourself. Many art experts around the world would disagree with you, just like I am. Doesnt that account for something?
joelupham1 2 years ago
i dont know who you are talking to but no. its not ridiculous. "art experts" so to speak are a joke since art is subjective. they account for nothing. art has been around before the hierarchy of art. Yes he did something unique to his own ( i myself like his ideas but not the aesthetic ) but depending on ones preference for art its either going to be trash or gold. so your opinion is as good as mine when judging art or weather or not we are "Experts" in art.
demoncleaner09 2 years ago
what art is, IS NOT SUBJECTIVE
what you personally like IS.
chandru1103 2 years ago
unfortunately there lies your flaw. Define what
ART is. Are you talking literally , technically ,textbook definition?
demoncleaner09 2 years ago
Pollack & De Kooning may have only "screwed up Cubism", but Cubism had taken such a hold on Abstract art it was virtually unbreakable. The Surrealist's ended in literary tricks, the realists in propaganda. Expressionism had been linked to social criticism in Germany. So pollack cut through all that blockage. His was a reaction to Bauhaus Architecture also - and look's a lot like the "Space Graffitti" of now. We can't all be Latino Muralists?
PhotonDrive 2 years ago
Algo muito interessante.
cleytonC 2 years ago
I do not believe anyone can make splatter on canvas, not the way he does it. Its more than just dripping, there's an obvious amount of control. There's alot of technique behind it. The quicker your arm motions are the thinner the laying of the paint...the slower, the thicker. A lot of people think its simple and a load of crap, but i'd like to see someone with enough devotion to work on one painting for a year with 100's of layers, knowing when to stop so their paint does not get runny.
BRIisFINEart 3 years ago
just cuz u cant understand it doesnt mean u should bash on it open up your mind
kingdarf666 3 years ago
pollocks 'genius' isnt his technique, yes anyone can make splatter and squiggly lines, but he has a a lot of thought that goes into a piece and the lines and 'squggles' are how he expresses them. to dismiss him is to dismiss a lot of brilliant art made in the same vain.
niftyneek 3 years ago
that dude talking about dancing and ribbons of paint is lame. pollock a beast
utah2 3 years ago
of course i meant, what you CAN´T do?
robertfroberg 3 years ago
I am so tired of reading comments like "it takes no talent", "anyone can do it". well, so what? does an artist deserve to be recognized only because he or she can do something that no one else can?
I think everyone should reflect on their definition of art. I believe that the artistic value lies in the thought behind the finished product. So, Yoganate79, do you mean that an artist is "good" in your definition if he can do what, let's say you, can?
robertfroberg 3 years ago
"does an artist deserve to be recognized only because he or she can do something that no one else can?"
YES
that's what makes their work special. The fact that it's something that separates that artist from the person next to them is what makes it THEIR work, something you need to come to THEM to make, not the rest of the crowd.
The part that I personally am amazed about this artist is, not the work, but that he had enough courage to become famous from this style. He became its innovator.
snakeinmaboots 3 years ago
damn now a lot of people are copying this style calling themselves artists,does it even mean anything???just paint randomly spilled to look nice,a painting supposed to come from the heart.
xg8512 3 years ago
To stand before a major Pollack is to lose any ability to not like it. The works hang of their own merit in the greatest museums in the world. Go see them and then post your comment. To criticize Pollack based on the history surrounding him is to 100% miss the point of his work. Sorry, bud, but Pollack in the original is an undeniably powerfully artistic experience.
hidale4820 3 years ago
and than modern art went to shit. WAKE UP PEOPLE. to put pollock and dali in the same video is a disgrace to dali's life memory and work. pollocks not creative or inavative it says so right in the video dripping and splatter has been around for years. dali was a fucking master, pollock was a fucking joke that nobody got. theres no comosition no thought and no attention to detail whereas dali was all about that i promise you anyone with knowlage of colors can do what he did if not better
killakev128 3 years ago
The most expensive accident of the history. I imagine it to pollock laughing at all from the hell. A plaudit is said by swindler in colors!
mentaltrip 3 years ago
I saw the movie, the author who made the Pollock, interpreted very well, was similar to it!
kahloezer 3 years ago
dam, this fool is crazy..im feelin his art.. at some
i prefer Picaso's art due tohis tones of colors and as wdell shades...and his crazy ideas that other artist couldn't compare...
segsdgsdf 3 years ago
I think what makes Pollock timeless is that its not just about his work its about the inner emotions that were coming out onto the canvas. Thats what sets it apart and gives it meaning, its the art and the artist. Who cares if someone else did drip painting before Pollock, its his emotions on the canvas not theirs.
Dolph1n777 3 years ago 2
The Polloch style was done since 1890's in europe, but USA wanted to show to the world that they also can be intelligent, but nothing special, compared with Modigliani, Picasso, Dali, Bacon etc. These are real artists, not Pollock, which paintings only are bought by American collectors!
rictit 3 years ago
yeh thats why sultans in Saudi Arabia are buying him up like mad, because he was trite and unoriginal and only for the American art market...c'mon dummy.
chandru1103 2 years ago
There's no obrigation do like every work of art but it's not good to disquallify something you don't like. Art can be taste (like or dislike it) but it's also an intelectual and/or spiritual experience that someone is trying to comunicate. Artists struggle hard for this and for the coherence of his output with his inner thoughts and visions. It's clear that Pollock had and have a significant and thrilling contribuition for the human culture.
Thiago1950 3 years ago
Anyone can do what he does. Just slap some paint onto a white canvas. This isn't talent at all.
YogaNate79 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so do it
Thiago1950 3 years ago