Does anyone REALLY like Jackson Pollock?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone actually likes these paintings, I think it's all just a big bandwagon where people are afraid to say it's crap in fear of being ridiculed by the rest of the art community (who are also afraid to say it's crap)

Never even heard of him

Absolutely, I like him. Rather his work, never met the fellow.

Each piece is a case study in itself of visual weight and abstract expressionism. For instance, the fact that the second piece you posted can feel so unified and singular while being comprised of such chaotic [and at first glance careless] brush strokes/splatters is beautiful. His work is probably more conceptually than aesthetically profound, but I do rather like the look of them as well.

That said you have every right to think its crap. That's the beauty of art.

His paintings are rubbish.

The second one looks like a battle between some kind of Knight, and a Chaos Lord. I wouldnt buy it, but i could stare at it for a bit.

Well I kind of have to like it as an australian since our governement brought one of his "blue polls" for a million dollars and now it is worth 115 mill so overall a good investment.

I hate Miro. Unfortunately I can't find the incredible painting of a single line over a blank sheet and nothing else.

Originally Posted by God

Not a fan of abstract art, it's hard on the eyes. I don't like having to rationalize a concept or a 'message' in order to see 'beauty' in something.

This one is better and not even by Pollock

Jackson Pollok believed that the art springs from unprincipled.
Believed also that the criterion for her estimate should be how much the art achieves it externalizes the expressive disposal of author.
The theorist Klement Gkrinmpergk from the other, patron and admirable the painter on line of years, considered that the value of painting of Pollok was recommended in that maintained “the integrity of painting of surface”, a phrase that became more famous from any other the time of backward modernism.
Irrelevantly however with the what recommends the greatness of art (and with whether finally this greatness exists) Jackson Pollok existed one from the most appeared forms of art of 20th century and continues be considered one of the few American artists that can to stand by with the European schoolteachers of modernism.

a great painter....

Believed also that the criterion for her estimate should be how much the art achieves it externalizes the expressive disposal of author.

Of course he believed that, because his art wasn't any good under any objective criticism. It's bullcrap though.

Who is to say Pollock's works express more about himself than the much more impressive art of people like Picasso and Dali?

Also, did you just refer to art as a person?

I prefer Frank Frazetta.

Originally Posted by Pallantides

I prefer Frank Frazetta.

hey I can actually see something there!

And I'm not adverse to abstract art like Picasso. With OPicassso his was meant to show emotion and like guernica terror and you can ACTUALLY see that in his paintings unlike Polluck.

Originally Posted by the_mango55

Of course he believed that, because his art wasn't any good under any objective criticism. It's bullcrap though.

art my friend is like food...any person have different taste about food...

Who is to say Pollock's works express more about himself than the much more impressive art of people like Picasso and Dali?

Klement Gkrinmpergk was considered for a lot of years the most vital and acute theorist of art of 20th century.
Afterwards the theorists of metamonternismoy devoted in they bring down his theories. In point of fact, it is henceforth relatively easy distinguishes no one the enormous voids in the regard of art that developed the American critic. However, the work of Gkrinmpergk constituted the theoretical backbone of backward modernism (high modernism) and ensured the essential glamour in the postwar American art, fact that rendered him most popular her season and ensured in America the primacy in the world figurative scene. Moreover, while wrote simply also popularized, Gkrinmpergk it contributed a lot in becomes the theory of their art accessible in artistic, that it is supposed that it concerns.

He was accused a lot, often fairly, that it promoted the selfrelated in art and that it developed the role of criticism in such degree that without her(criticism)art was incomprehensible. As pointed out Tom Wolfe in his excellent satyr for the modernism “The Painted Word”, “this time I cannot even see a table without a theory accompanies him”.

On the other hand however Gkrinmpergk was from the few theorists that were interested more for the work of art and least for the ideas. At common consent it had incomparable “eye” and many from his particular observations they remain models of critical thought and sensitivity.

As his death in 1994 remained the most ambiguous and misconceived theorist of art (the himself often complained that “where writes “thus is” the other reads “thus would be supposed is””).

Today the influence of advocate of modernism can appear that run down progressively, his theories however constituted decisive factor for the development of modern art. And, above all, it continues being fascinating when reads him no one.

Also, did you just refer to art as a person?

I think like Food...food for the mind...


also...i saw that you are from U.S...i suggest to read the book of Frances Stonor Saunders, "Who Paid The Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War", London, Granta Books, 2001

you find some things about Pollock there...

I love 'em. Brilliant and innovative artist. The chaos of the individual and society at large are well encapsulated in those splashes of paint.

CRAP

I could jizz a similar thing if you gave me a prostate/sperm colouring injection every day for a month.

It's garbage.

Reminds me of some black painting in a gallery...just black....and toffs were standing there, little finger between lips, ruminating and philosophizing and getting all angsty over nothing for hours....

Oh the artistic orgasm of pot-smoking irrelevancy!

Never heard of him.

But pic 2 is just great, it looks like a really mess-up battle. If you closely you'll archers and infantry (and some weird cavalry and 1 million spears & arrows.

That some random splashes of paint can qualify as art, is an insult to any real, talented painters.

Just look at his technique for crying out loud! There's absolutely no thought behind it.



And to any aspiring abstract artists on this site... You suck! Get some real talent, or preferably another line of profession.

Who's Jason Bullocks?

Dont particularily like him, its just looks like he had a sezure while painting.
But I actually really enjoy that second painting.

But pallentides is right, he knows who the real artist is.