I painted a picture

[imcarthur]

It doesn't matter whether it is art or amateur. It works well in that space. I like the way the 3 pieces flow.

Ian

[stealthn]

What do you call it? "Peter North's Bedsheets"

[JCF]

Originally Posted by dd74

Ad Reinhardt did similar work. There are versions of Reinhardt's black paintings at MOMA in NY, and another at the Peggy Guggenheim in Venice, Italy. I've seen both in both locations, and in each, the blackness is painted in cubed layers. You have to look at the work from an angle with an angle of light shining on the piece to see the intricacy. The black paint is actually very meticulously applied to the canvas.

It's one of those things where you need to be there.

This one was done just a fewww years before Reinhardts's stuff, which is just one of the many, many, reasons it qualifies as great art.

Brice Marden also did a bunch of monochrome surface shine stuff - but again, without the depth of insight, magic and balls of that little black painting.
Robert Ryman did the same type of stuff in white - hell, all the minimalists were essentially riffing off that black square - but mostly without its power as once it was done it was done.

As for Dipso - way to go.
I wouldn't call it great art, or original, but I agree with the post that says the effort should be applauded.
Too many people (including those running museums) collect and put stuff on the walls that have less sincerity even if done with more skill and effort.
At least you tried to get behind what it is.

My walls have a lot of kids ART - they are it - until something happens when they get a bit older and it becomes all self conscious and strained and goes all to hell.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by dd74

Dipso, in this photo the work looks like a small entryway into something frenetic and uncontrolled.

Im thinking, "Looking into Tabs ear"

[VINMAN]

Sounds like it's time for a Pelican "art challenge". Hmmm...

[dipso]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

Sounds like it's time for a Pelican "art challenge". Hmmm...

Post a picture of the one that was "banished to the garage".

[Looking_for_911]

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.

[m21sniper]

I say this as an artist, and with all due respect.

What an utter load of crap.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I say this as an artist...

Ahhh the internet - any ignorant fool can claim to be anything that strikes their fancy. Too funny.

[Looking_for_911]

As the old song said,
"You say Tomato; I say Tomahto"

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Looking_for_911

This is the whole deal...

Actually, that's only part of the deal.

You discuss Pollack's aesthetics and his control of the craft involved in producing his paintings (which I have no quibble with), but what makes Pollack a historically important painter is not "how" he crafted his visual statements, but rather "why" he made those statements, i.e., what his influences were, how he responded to those influences and, what really makes an artist historically important/significant, to what extent his work influenced other artists of his time.

Pollack was an influential American painter and a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement; therein lies his claim to fame.

As I'm sure you know, there are many important painters that can be easily copied (many of Picasso's paintings come to mind). But those paintings are important in their historical context, not because they are necessarily beautiful or difficult to copy.

[dipso]

I've copyrighted the Dipso masterpiece known as "Looking into Tabs ear". Gotta cut down on forgeries, ya know.

[Looking_for_911]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Actually, that's only part of the deal.

You discuss Pollack's aesthetics and his control of the craft involved in producing his paintings (which I have no quibble with), but what makes Pollack a historically important painter is not "how" he crafted his visual statements, but rather "why" he made those statements, i.e., what his influences were, how he responded to those influences and, what really makes an artist historically important/significant, to what extent his work influenced other artists of his time.

Pollack was an influential American painter and a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement; therein lies his claim to fame.

As I'm sure you know, there are many important painters that can be easily copied (many of Picasso's paintings come to mind). But those paintings are important in their historical context, not because they are necessarily beautiful or difficult to copy.

How true,
This is the reason many people don't "get" Jackson Pollock - or many other artists - they don't consider the motivation, influences, etc.
But then again, maybe it is not ours to "get" as we most likely never have the same life experiences and not be shaped by the influences as others.
None of us.
For those that care, the biography written by Steven Naifeh and Gregory Smith - sheds much light onto the background of the man who would become the artist.
By the way, next Saturday will be his 98th birthday.

[john70t]

Everything an artist acomplishes seems to surrounded by 100 people which seem to know the work and/or the artist best.
Thus, the "value" of a piece of "art" becomes subjective to the interpretations of all these experts(sometimes a union of sorts) which surround, interpret, and give it exposure.
This can be for the good or the bad.
-A new concept or an incredibly sophisticated methodology can be highlighted, or...
-Everyone is duped, especially the suckers which just bought it.

A few years ago there was a random painting by an elephant which the trainers decided (as a farce) to enter into an art contest.
It won 1st place.

So, is the elephant on a higher plane of conciousness than the other contestants/critics...? You decide.

[Looking_for_911]

[QUOTE=john70t;5144665]Everything an artist acomplishes seems to surrounded by 100 people which seem to know the work and/or the artist best.
Thus, the "value" of a piece of "art" becomes subjective to the interpretations of all these experts(sometimes a union of sorts) which surround, interpret, and give it exposure.
This can be for the good or the bad.
-A new concept or an incredibly sophisticated methodology can be highlighted, or...
-Everyone is duped, especially the suckers which just bought it.

A few years ago there was a random painting by an elephant which the trainers decided (as a farce) to enter into an art contest.
It won 1st place.

So, is the elephant on a higher plane of conciousness than the other contestants/critics...? You decide.[/QUOTE]



In many cases, yes, and the elephant is certainly more fun to be around than a lot of people I know of!

[john70t]

:d

[john70t]

(interesting.... I tried to change the lower case d into a capital D about 4 times to make a grin, but it didn't change. Something new with the forum format?)

[JCF]

People who don't "like" the work of great artists like Picasso or Pollock remind me a little of the fellow who, skydiving, pulls the rip cord(s) and doesn't see anything happen.
He might not appreciate gravity, but that won't soften the landing.

Yeah, it is true that artists like Rembrandt and Vermeer might go out of fashion for a spell - but fashion is a whole 'nother elephant.

[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

[DARISC]

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!!!