Quote:
Originally Posted by JCF
That is not entirely correct - Pollock and most of the other Abstract expressionists , went through a serious surrealist phase before they broke off into the works they are famous for.
|
That's correct: I misspoke. But that you say "broke off" is pertinent - surrealism is representational, abstract expressionism is nonobjective (well, there's de Kooning's women; nothing is cut and dried)
Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
That wasn't my point...
|
Their influences are irrelevant in the context of this thread, yes, but not to historians. And I understand and for the most part agree with the rest of what you say. My comments are directed at those who look at art while having in their head the question "Could I, my 3 yr. old or a chimp have done that?" and then passing judgement by proclaiming "Oh hell yes! Whatta load of crap!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
One person doesn't make a market.JR
|
That's true. However, art historians don't base the importance of an artist's work on sales, whether made before or after the artist's death.
This is a silly thread driven mainly by comments and proclamations from those who "Don't know what art is, but I knows what I likes! An' that there is a piece o' crap!"
