[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by javadog

That wasn't my point. Their influences, or that of Pollock's (Thomas Hart Benton, Picasso, etc.) are irrelevant. I was trying to say that a person could make a painting using Pollock's methods and materials and not achieve the same effect. Just because it is a drip painting, doesn't mean it is like a Pollock. The difference stems from the effect Pollock was trying to achieve, which a casual study by an imitator won't reveal. His work may appear to be random but that doesn't mean that he didn't direct each "stroke" for a particular purpose.

Here is a selection of works by Pollock, by Les Automatistes and by others unknown. The casual student of art may have a tendency to lump these all together into one basket. A more serious appraisal would not.

JR

Ah yes, a kinder-gardener would be impressed.

Originally Posted by javadog

In his day, Pollock wasn't as appreciated by the collectors, or the great unwashed, as he is today. That's nothing new. Many (most?) great artists had this problem. As a result, Pollock would often trade a work of art to settle a grocery bill, or other menial debt from ordinary living. Decades later, maybe it is found in an attic by a son, or a grandson. It happens.

Pollock did question his worth, many times. That was part of his problem and may have lead directly to his death. Decades later, the world has a different opinion. You'll have to look real hard to find an artist that commands more money from a single work, on the open market. Whether you agree or not is pretty irrelevant to the rest of the world. One person doesn't make a market.

JR

You didn't just call that "Great art" did you?

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Originally Posted by porsche4life

Dipso's obviously created art.... The purpose of art is to express ones emotion and incite emotion in others.... It has obviously incited emotion in you lot....


Bravo Dip, Bravo

Agreed. Artistically Dipso's is at least as appealing as any of this other scribbled crap passing for art in this thread

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

DARSICK, you are the Queen of Wasted Bandwidth.

LOL. If he keeps rambling long enough someone will eventually agree with him i guess.

Originally Posted by dd74

+1. Graphic designers can also be artists...

ergo Escher's day job.

Now that's art.

Originally Posted by DARISC

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!"

So then stop posting.

Art is subjective. For the overwhelming majority of people, Pollack is no more art than a child's scribbles.