Quote:
Originally Posted by tabs
For lack of a better description a good piece of art has an ELECTRIC quality about it..it has vibrancy or life to it...how is that for being analytical..
I really don't want to delve too deeply into the aspects of art at the moment so I have remained largely flippant
For what it is worth Dippys painting looks to be a decent FAUX Pollock. It probably lacks the depth of a real Pollock though?
|
This is the whole deal, what so many didn't understand about Pollock's work. True, anyone could splash paint about and from a distance come up with a reasonable facsimilie. But, what Jackson had that immitators have not been able to come up with is an absolute mastery of control. No lines in an authentic Pollock were put down by chance. Every one had a place and a purpose in his way of seeing and thinking. I have done several works that from 10-feet look very much like the real deal, but when you approach them you see the lines fail to compare with a genuine piece. The piece that is the subject of this thread is much the same. From a distance is looks nice, and it deserves to hang on your wall, but the lines - when viewed close up - miss the mark. No offense intended. We can't accurately copy what Pollock did. But you still did a nice looking piece of art.
There is precious little film footage of Pollock working, some of it on a sheet of glass shot from underneath in an attempt to give the viewer an idea of how he worked. His control and sense of purpose were amazing.
We could only hope to paint with his masterful purpose. But, then, to do so would subject us to the demons that haunted him throughout his life, and that is something we may not want to endure.