This is exactly why modern art is complete trash.

[amoeba]

some will say the atonal musical works of Shoenberg was crap.

It is what it is. Obviously from the fractal example somebody pointed out, there are things different between a pollack and a monkey dripping paint.

 

[Ikonomi]

You guys are awfully closed-minded. Maybe Pollock isn't your cup of tea, but there are plenty of modern artists who create works of skill. Try taking a second level art history or even art appreciation class before condemning all contemporary art as trash.

 

[Doboji]

The mvtherfvcker didnt even have the creativity to name that piece of garbage

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: Doboji
The mvtherfvcker didnt even have the creativity to name that piece of garbage

One of the greatest symphonys is called the 9th.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: Doboji
The mvtherfvcker didnt even have the creativity to name that piece of garbage

One of the greatest symphonys is called the 9th.

You said the key word....

 

[Jzero]

Pollock is overrated, but he should not be considered representative of "modern art" when we've got folks like Alfred Gockel and Jean-Michel Basquiat to look at as well.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Ikonomi
You guys are awfully closed-minded. Maybe Pollock isn't your cup of tea, but there are plenty of modern artists who create works of skill. Try taking a second level art history or even art appreciation class before condemning all contemporary art as trash.

I have an art degree from a very respectable art school (Emily Carr Institute of Art & Design) with more than enough art history courses that I wouldn?t need to take art history if I decide to pursue a master in art. I also have a minor in anthropology with a computer science degree.

Pollock is definitely not my cup of tea. There are way too many people that eat up the BS that artists spew out, because there isn?t anything culturally interesting in our golden era (thanks to modernization of communication/traveling and economic globalization).

IMHO, cave paintings are much more interesting, and have higher culture significant than the craps that many Action Painter/Color Field/Performance artists puke out.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

That's because 100 years ago, art became crap anyone could crank out with a couple buckets of paint and a large canvas.

Because of the recording instrument such as the printing press and specially camera...the average person can own and create art instantaneously. And, because of globalization in commerce, travel/migration, and communication.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 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.

Too bad most don't use it.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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?

You're not going to answer me are you?

 

[EpsiIon]

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You actually take this stuff seriously!? Do you own a mac? Is your name... Raven?

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: 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?

You're not going to answer me are you?

I love how you can define ART for Everyone. Pollock might not be what you like, but I believe he made good enough impact at the time to bring further developement of art into other areas. Abstract Expressionism brought forward pop art and other types of art. Keep in mind that he didnt make this thinking "oh im the greatest and I'll make millions". Unlike some artist of today like , Hurst who does make MILLIOINS for his art works, they were in a period where america was not considered too important in artworld and being in a period of WW2, they didnt have much restrictions. Also , it was period right after Dadaism which rebelled against the set restrictions of art upto that point, so they had enough freedom to do whatever they like.

Perhaps you dont like it, but I see it as an important step in art. We cant improve unless we try different things and see what works and what doesnt. That is all.

 

[rickn]

looks like lasts night dinner, upchucked of course

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
reminds me of this.

I could have been happier not knowing about that. Ack.

 

[mercanucaribe]

There was a significant point to the painting when it was made. Jackson Pollock was the first to create art like that, and the reason it's worth so much is historical. But there's a lot to abstract art that you all don't realize. For one thing, it has ties to fascism. Most modernist writers and artists were fascists and supported Hitler and Mussolini.

The point of the entire Modernist movement was separation from reality, especially the masses, which they saw as inferior and in need of control. One reason for abstract art is elitism. If the common man does not understand it, it is good. Another reason is emptying out of meaning. Contrary to what some art elitists will say, Pollock's art does not have meaning. And that's the whole point.
Same with Modernist literature like James Joyce.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
The reason modern art exists is so that "art lovers" can put their nose in the air and tell the rest of us who think it's stupid how we're inferior to them, and that if we were their equal we'd understand.

Sounds like a Mac vs PC debate.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: MustangSVTWe cant improve unless we try different things and see what works and what doesnt. That is all.

That doesn't necessarily preclude Pollock's work from being CRAP!

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
The point of the entire Modernist movement was separation from reality, especially the masses, which they saw as inferior and in need of control. One reason for abstract art is elitism. If the common man does not understand it, it is good. Another reason is emptying out of meaning. Contrary to what some art elitists will say, Pollock's art does not have meaning. And that's the whole point.
Same with Modernist literature like James Joyce.

You have very eloquently verbalized why the rest of us should hate this art. Thanks.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Triumph
You have very eloquently verbalized why the rest of us should hate this art. Thanks.

Hate is a powerful emotion. You have very ineloquently and inadvertantly verbalized the significance of this art. Thanks.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Pollocks Number 12.

Link.

Some lameass paid $11.65 million for this painting. Anyone else interested in something like this? For only 100K I too can drip paint on canvas.

I always wondered what something would be worth if the artist just signed his name on a blank canvas.

The "what is art?" or "you call that crap art?" arguments are over a 100 years old. Please take a course in Art and actually learn something about it.

Do tell what the artist's intentions were, because all I see is paint splashed on a canvas. Enlighten me oh great one!

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: MustangSVTWe cant improve unless we try different things and see what works and what doesnt. That is all.

That doesn't necessarily preclude Pollock's work from being CRAP!

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
The point of the entire Modernist movement was separation from reality, especially the masses, which they saw as inferior and in need of control. One reason for abstract art is elitism. If the common man does not understand it, it is good. Another reason is emptying out of meaning. Contrary to what some art elitists will say, Pollock's art does not have meaning. And that's the whole point.
Same with Modernist literature like James Joyce.

You have very eloquently verbalized why the rest of us should hate this art. Thanks.

exactly. Now you and many ppl think its "crap". Thus no more of the art done in his style.
someone had to do it.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Triumph
You have very eloquently verbalized why the rest of us should hate this art. Thanks.

Hate is a powerful emotion. You have very ineloquently and inadvertantly verbalized the significance of this art. Thanks.

sounds like you epitomize the elitists mercanucaribe was talking about.

 

[LS20]

equating art to a pretty picture is analogous to equating poem to rhymes

 

[sisq0kidd]

Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it, like my heart's going to cave in.

 

[ZeroEffect]

Think of it this way kids... what do you think the average person thought the first time
they heard/saw the Sex Pistols?

"They call that music?"

"My second grade son could do that."

"This is an outrage!"

That's the point! Early punk bands like the Pistols took popular music and turned it
on it's head. They said things you weren't supposed to say. They were loud and brazen.
They had funny color hair!!! They were musicians... yet they couldn't sit down and
play Mozart for you.

Now, the Sex Pistols may not be your cup of tea, but they showed a different way of
doing things... loosened things up... took the piss out of FM radio mainstays...
Put you on edge...

sometimes that's the point!

 

[skace]

The people who buy these things arn't stupid though. Because years later, they will turn around and sell it for more money. These people never lose out. The only stupid people are the ones who go to museums and try to understand these paintings, never intending to purchase them.