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!
no, I'm saying the language used to describe esoteric topics is not literal
if you can't understand how art evolves its own language of expression, then you won't understand what is being presented
In other words, words fail you, so you fail to persuade me of your ridiculous position, that there is artistic merit to Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings. Gotcha. You're so much smarter than me that my Earth language of English is inadequate to describe your Brobdingnagian musings on representative art, of course.
(post is archived)