Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
The thing about Pollock is that he was trying to do a certain thing and he was quite successful at it. Others did similar paintings at that time (Les Automatistes, in Canada) and while their paintings may be lumped into the same category as Pollock's, they are vastly different. You can discern immediately which is which. They have completely opposite effects on a viewer. Dipso's work of art is not much like a Pollock, if you study it for more than a couple seconds.
Not everybody "gets" Pollock, which is fine. I don't care for Picasso, except for his blue period works. Cy Twombly is another that doesn't float my boat. The good thing is this; for every artist that I don't care for, there are 10 that I really like. The amount of art that has been produced throught the ages is staggering. There is literally something for everybody.
JR
|
Les Automatiste's (the movement) influence was surrealism, with which abstract expressionism has absolutely nothing to do (Pollack was an abstract expressionist and, to the best of my knowledge, was never influenced by surrealism). To lump the works together makes no sense at all.
One's subjective preferences regarding what art they like looking at has nothing to do with the historical significance of the art they don't happen to like looking at.
I can't think of one important artist making their place in the history of art by a display of skill painting wildly popular "sofa size" paintings.
But inevitably someone will chime in on the great American artist Norman Rockwell - who was A FREAKING ILLUSTRATOR,
NOT A GREAT ARTIST!!!
