This is exactly why modern art is complete trash.

[PatboyX]

not a fan of pollock...at least not that gimmick. i guess people forget that
1. artists have more than one piece or series of work. that stuff was his "hit." he did other stuff
2. its easy to sit around and say "i could do that" or "my kid could do that." and maybe you could. if you thought of it...which you didnt. or maybe you did but were too lazy to do it (jealousy? bitterness?)
its important to not that while a lot of people probably spent most of their life accepting (or being told that) "splatter paint = pollock = art" this wasnt always so. consider it.
3. art speaks to people differently, some people dont like it at all...different things do it for different people.
4. this stuff looks better in person. always. you may not believe it could possibly look that different but even pollock, who is someone i dont dig at all, looks pretty amazing when you see it up close and as gigantic as it should be.

 

[bret]

used to be an artist that would drink food cooring and then barf it up and sell the paintings.. and make alot of $$$$$$

 

[rh71]

I see 2 monkeys, with whips. And the black splatter is the dead bug.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: rh71
I see 2 monkeys, with whips. And the black splatter is the dead bug.

G'damn must have forgotten to turn my webcam off

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Modern art is not about beauty, skill, accuracy, or profound meaning.

It's about making a quick buck from people with too much moeny for their own good.

Modern art is like modern society, only more honest; it is cynical, dissillusioned, greatly inferior to what came before it, creates with simplistic forms and shapes that even the lower primates could master, cares virtually nothing for beauty and elegance except to mock it, and is more concerned with the price of the final product than anything else at all relating to it.

It might as well come with 50 foot flaming letters, screaming "True Art is dead!!" The ultimate goal of all moderm art is the same message that we all seem to agree on; it's complete and utter sh!t,but will fetch thousands to millious of dollars... for no reason whatsoever.

:|

That might be the truest thing I've ever read on these boards

 

[syzygy]

you need to take historical view of the work. pollock did not paint in a social or cultural vacuum.

his innovations were unique for their time and fell in line with the developments of the period, which
put less and less emphasis on traditional representational means and methods. the process away from
salon painting begun with the impressionists gained momentum with each passing decade. so blame
manet, monet, renoir, and the rest for the toilet bowls you see today on art gallery walls.

if you think you could paint like pollock today and make a living you are mad.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: xSkyDrAx

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Would you pay 82.5 millions for Portrait of Dr. Gachet buy Van Gogh. (a rich Japanese person pay for it in 1990)

The Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir is beautiful but does it worth the cool $78 million in 1990.

I personally don't find what the hoopla all about in the by Pablo Picasso, but some one thought that it worth $104.1 million in 2004.

Does the still life Rideau Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne worth $55 million in 1999 when every high school & first year art student have to draw similar things and easily replicate it?

And, who in their right mind would paid 2.5 million in 2002 for a Urinal that was signed by Marcel Duchamp.

And, wouldn't even bother to look at Action Painting, or pay a dime for any of Pollock paintings.

At least for everything save the urinal at the end, it took a good amount of skill to create such a painting and even though it's not really worth the amount it sells for, it is at least something that the buyer could probably not have reproduced themselves.. I know I can't do something like that but in the OP's link, I could splatter paint on a canvas and "say" I was portraying my emotions even thought it really isnt jack sh!t.

Also QFT

 

[40Hands]

Remember the paining of the pixel that sold on ebay? It was nothing but a blue square on canvas. Nuff said.

 

[xospec1alk]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art almost a year ago. In the modern art section they had a piece of canvas that was simply painted brown. No joke.

Hhe you should hit up moma, or the whitney, they have tons of those canvases painted a certain color..

but my friend told me...supposedly it was a new shade of that color or something....:roll:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: NOLOVE
Allow me to elaborate -

Where would we be today if artists, musicians, dancers, actors just did the same stuff as before? Where would we be without people who let go of the archaic figure drawings and let their own person take over? Where would we be without some of the avant garde actor movements in history? We'd still be scared of the edge of a flat earth, and we'd probably be way behind on acting as we laugh at Leave It To Beaver jokes.

Whether you like the work or not, it is changing the world around you.

Edit: Let me just say that I don't find this guy's work at all amusing, or even interesting, but I do respect what it is and what he is doing.

I think you're confusing artists with scientists and mathematicians. It wasn't artists who realized that the earth is round. And, judging from some of the modern artists, I'm not sure they even understand geometry.

 

[Ilmater]

Art

For those of you that don't know, that is what art is supposed to look like. Art is meant to bring about emotion: any kind. If you look at a Pollock painting and you think to yourself, "That makes me feel this way," then that's art to you. But the fact is, anyone could do that. You could splatter paint on canvases that protrayed your feelings or emotions, and that would be art TO YOU. Maybe other people would feel that emotion too. Great. But PAYING for THAT kind of artwork or putting it up in a museum is just retarded. I'm sure that if it's in a museum, a bunch of impressionable art-lovers will derive some meaning from it, but had they been shown that same piece in someone's garage, they would have shrugged and called it sh1t.

Paying millions for that is stupid. Period.

 

[Ricochet]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: ricochet
Da Vinci and Michaelangelo are rolling in their graves. What gets me is schools, libraries, and public buildings paying good money for this sh!t when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Like having some kindergartners do the artwork and giving the money to the school?

Like using the money on art supplies and books so thousands of students can learn art.

 

[phantom309]

Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's all criticize things we know nothing about!

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's all criticize things we know nothing about!

I think you smell funny and you look like a turd.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's all criticize things we know nothing about!

Speak for yourself. Art is whatever it is to every person. Art is all about opinions... I think my link above is artwork, some would pay $10M for a canvas painted brown... it's opinion. Someone with extensive art history knowledge can call themselves and expert - and they are - but that doesn't mean they're better at telling me what is "good" and "bad" art.

 

[MustangSVT]

take some art history and try to learn why some ppl are paying that much for that painting.

 

[Atomicus]

I'd rather have my TV tuned to Xbox DOA:Volleyball Extreme, flip through the gallery art section, and leave my TV on than pay for "modern art" like that. At least then my friends will have a reason to come over my house and admire the art

 

[Triumph]

All of you people denigrating this painting and Jackson Pollock can take solace in the fact that this clown was an alcoholic and killed himself while driving high on the happy sauce.

I know I do.

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Art

For those of you that don't know, that is what art is supposed to look like. Art is meant to bring about emotion: any kind. If you look at a Pollock painting and you think to yourself, "That makes me feel this way," then that's art to you. But the fact is, anyone could do that. You could splatter paint on canvases that protrayed your feelings or emotions, and that would be art TO YOU. Maybe other people would feel that emotion too. Great. But PAYING for THAT kind of artwork or putting it up in a museum is just retarded. I'm sure that if it's in a museum, a bunch of impressionable art-lovers will derive some meaning from it, but had they been shown that same piece in someone's garage, they would have shrugged and called it sh1t.

Paying millions for that is stupid. Period.

what are is "SUPPOSED" to look like? good work, dipshit.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: MustangSVT

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Art

For those of you that don't know, that is what art is supposed to look like. Art is meant to bring about emotion: any kind. If you look at a Pollock painting and you think to yourself, "That makes me feel this way," then that's art to you. But the fact is, anyone could do that. You could splatter paint on canvases that protrayed your feelings or emotions, and that would be art TO YOU. Maybe other people would feel that emotion too. Great. But PAYING for THAT kind of artwork or putting it up in a museum is just retarded. I'm sure that if it's in a museum, a bunch of impressionable art-lovers will derive some meaning from it, but had they been shown that same piece in someone's garage, they would have shrugged and called it sh1t.

Paying millions for that is stupid. Period.

what are is "SUPPOSED" to look like? good work, dipshit.

Are you correcting my grammar, or disagreeing with my choices in good artwork?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: MustangSVT
take some art history and try to learn why some ppl are paying that much for that painting.

I understand that there's history behind it, but it still drove a movement that I think is just ridiculous. I don't think it's worth that much money even given the history behind it.

 

[Triumph]

Art is not just about a display of skill. It isn't about being able to perform a physical act that no one else can do. But I firmly believe that an artist must possess exceptional skill so that he is not limited by it. A musician should be proficient enough with the physical motor skills so that he can play whatever it is he is trying to express. A painter should be able to sketch or paint at a very high level, otherwise the images in his head can't make it to canvass.

But personally, I find more enjoyment (some might call it art), in what would typically be called craftsmanship. A piece of fine furniture, a Victorian era house, or the musical instrument itself. So much personal energy, effort, and painstaking attention to detail is put into these things that it's impossible not to appreciate them or provoke some response.

Oh, and Pollock is garbage. Most modern art is.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Art is not just about a display of skill. It isn't about being able to perform a physical act that no one else can do. But I firmly believe that an artist must possess exceptional skill so that he is not limited by it. A musician should be proficient enough with the physical motor skills so that he can play whatever it is he is trying to express. A painter should be able to sketch or paint at a very high level, otherwise the images in his head can't make it to canvass.

But personally, I find more enjoyment (some might call it art), in what would typically be called craftsmanship. A piece of fine furniture, a Victorian era house, or the musical instrument itself. So much personal energy, effort, and painstaking attention to detail is put into these things that it's impossible not to appreciate them or provoke some response.

Oh, and Pollock is garbage. Most modern art is.

You're absolutely right that art can be found in anything, including any kind of building or structure. It can certainly be found in the randomness of nature.

But it can not (IMO) be found in the works of Pollock.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: syzygy
you need to take historical view of the work. pollock did not paint in a social or cultural vacuum.

his innovations were unique for their time and fell in line with the developments of the period, which
put less and less emphasis on traditional representational means and methods. the process away from
salon painting begun with the impressionists gained momentum with each passing decade. so blame
manet, monet, renoir, and the rest for the toilet bowls you see today on art gallery walls.

if you think you could paint like pollock today and make a living you are mad.

This I agree with. The work is still crap but put into the context of the times it was created in, it was innovative and had it's appeal to the art world. People don't pay these multimillion dollar figures for the work itself, they pay it to buy a piece of art history. The same goes for the trash you see on the walls of a modern art gallery today. Some of it will also command very high prices in the future because the work, and it's artist, will be a part of art history that people will want to collect.

Also, there is the old axiom: There's no accounting for taste.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's all criticize things we know nothing about!

Everyone has inside them everything they need to know about art.