it must be my failure to understand the underlying meaning of multicolored splatters of paint flung from an apparent distance of 2-1/2 feet
maybe it is
impressionism ignored detail and concerned itself with how light works cubism was simultaneous perspectives then it was just representing the geometry of an image surrealism was the unconscious mind Pollock was unconfined energy
these are just progressions of ideas, what is a new way of representing something about the human experience. There isn't a point where you can stop and say everything after this point is crap, because on some level most people are capable of understanding what the idea is. Although as you imply, the physicality of the execution and the concept being expressed are becoming widely separated. You have meaningless paint drips, and you have a sense of chaos and whirling. You are not just being asked to give an opinion on the quality of the paint drips
It's sort of the difference between a thank you note and a Haiku. Still just words but you experience them in a different way, partly because you are not reading a Haiku in a literal sense, and it has a rhythms and structure that's only apparent after you've read it
Impressionism and Cubism actually have some expressive concepts behind them. Go ahead and tell me exactly what your fart-major brain tells you Pollock was trying to achieve other than "sell $20 worth of art materials for five figures after spending fifteen minutes bashing them together randomly."
I'll be waiting for your explanation of Pollock's genius.
Jackson "The jew" Pollock
see, that's really all you are basing this on...
you've slid right around that each time
he's in my last comment? that's all I know of him, that his idea of abstract painting can be directly traced down from previous artistic movements, and it gets ever more disconnected from a literal representation
I've never seen one in RL, so it's somewhat pointless trying to comment from an internet picture, like I didn't really appreciate Dali much until I visited the museum in Florida
this is a bit like any esoteric subject, like why is one wine better than another, can you describe that? it has a slightly disconnected language where you are expressing a concept of what you are tasting, like what does a 'vigorous, nervous, structured wine' taste like? Yet those abstract terms make sense within that field. If this was a literal experience you'd be able to tell me exactly what a strawberry tastes like, but you can't.
Is a pollock worth a few million? maybe to someone who sees something intangible in it, it's a bit too much like hard work for me
It's not like "why one wine is better than another," you're literally telling me that the difference between wine and shit is subjective, you silly person!
(post is archived)