I painted a picture

[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.

These guys some of you don't like but who are great artists none the less didn't just pop this stuff out of a polaroid (not at least till Warhol - another great and getting greater) - they spent lifetimes developing and studying very deeply the process and ideas of art.
That some here feel they can dismiss those efforts acknowledged by, most importantly other artists (you really don't qualify from what I see Snipe - sorry, but you're still ok) and serious minded people only reflects your lack of interest and curiosity and prejudice.
All of which great art exposes.

Serrano ? a flash in the pan- probably, but only time will tell.
Rockwell ? I like his stuff and agree illustration is both not generally art but that it can be art - some ads are amazing.
It is not all about US and what we LIKE.

Some folk don't like Shakespeare/Picasso but my guess people will be awestruck and still discussing them after we are all loooong gone.

Who knows, maybe Dipso will catch fire, quit his day job and live/work long enough to .... well no chance of that but still, nice try.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by DARISC

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.

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

[Shaun @ Tru6]

JR, where did you learn about art? Did you study in college and continue on as a lifelong endeavor?

come April, I'm going to try my hand again at the style of that painting you liked.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

If these great artists produce such great art, how come every once ina while some priceless piece of heretofore unknown art is discovered lining the drawer of a beat up old sideboard or whatever? Pollock was a fraud and even he knew it. At least the elephant was a genuine elephant.

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

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

JR, where did you learn about art? Did you study in college and continue on as a lifelong endeavor?

come April, I'm going to try my hand again at the style of that painting you liked.

I have been drawing since I was 2. I had some formal education in the arts in high school and college. I drew or painted something every day, back in those days. I have since spent a great deal of time studying the works of artists that I like, through books and by seeking out examples of their work that is exhibited one place or another. I never travel anywhere without spending time in museums and galleries. Over the years I have collected quite a bit of art, more than I can display.

JR

[DARISC]

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)

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!"

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!"

[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.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by dd74

You'd think this mugshot of Gary Coleman would be something Diane Arbus would have done...if she were alive. I guess Joel-Peter Witkin will have to do...

joel peter witkin will wait till gary coleman is dead.


all those guys online who think they've seen it al, and can no longer be shocked should look up witkin.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

He was both an illustrator and an artist.

And he was indeed great on both accounts.

As you have stated above (see blue font).

illustrators have taken the lead.


fine art is the domain of poseurs douches and frauds.








an excellent book is "rape of the masters: by kimball.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Ah yes, a kinder-gardener would be impressed.

Maybe not. The facility to appreciate art is learned. We all start from zero. Some progress further than others. Do you think you'll have a different viewpoint, in 10 or 20 years time?

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Now that's art.... Art is subjective...

Yes, on both counts. Probably the only time we'll ever agree. You should frame this quote.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

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

True, but then the average person is not well rounded. Look at what passes for television today and tell me I really need to aspire to be like them...

JR

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by javadog

Maybe not. The facility to appreciate art is learned. We all start from zero. Some progress further than others. Do you think you'll have a different viewpoint, in 10 or 20 years time?

You mean propagandized.

A child would look at that as scribble because, honestly...it is.

Pump nonsense in the same kid's head for 20 years calling scribbles art, sure, he could "learn" to "appreciate" anything.

Originally Posted by javadog

Yes, on both counts. Probably the only time we'll ever agree. You should frame this quote.

Do we disagree a lot? Hmmm. I'd honestly never noticed...

Or were you referring to this subject?

Originally Posted by javadog

True, but then the average person is not well rounded. Look at what passes for television today and tell me I really need to aspire to be like them...

JR

"Jersey Shore" is more artistically sound than Pollack as far as i'm concerned.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by javadog

True, but then the average person is not well rounded. Look at what passes for television today and tell me I really need to aspire to be like them...

JR

the average person doesn't know the word kindergarten. nuff said. Folks should focus on mastering the basics of the English language before moving on to Art.

[m21sniper]

Ooooh, a thinly veiled insult. How clever. What a perpetual jackass you are Shaun.

What's next, a tutorial on the proper spelling of Library, or Wednesday?

Anyone that tries to belittle someone on the internet over poor grammar or spelling is, in fact, a douche.

So are T-shirt printers artists too? Is that your reasoning for posting in this thread???

[javadog]

Well, Pollock is spelled P O L L O C K, not Pollack.

Just sayin'

JR

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Lol!

[m21sniper]

Oooh, you guys cut deep with your spelling corrections! Hahaha, when someone attacks you for your spelling it is a sure sign he's got nothin' else. (i realize java is just playing.)


OOOOOH OOOOOOH HE MIS-SPELLED NOTHING!!!!

[varmint]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You mean propagandized.

A child would look at that as scribble because, honestly...it is.

Pump nonsense in the same kid's head for 20 years calling scribbles art, sure, he could "learn" to "appreciate" anything.


Do we disagree a lot? Hmmm. I'd honestly never noticed...

Or were you referring to this subject?


"Jersey Shore" is more artistically sound than Pollack as far as i'm concerned.

they are taught from infancy that the ability to appreciate abstract art is a sign of intelligence. and they will desperately pretend to understand. mocking anyone who doesn't buy into the myth is one way they maintain the house of cards.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by varmint

they are taught from infancy that the ability to appreciate abstract art is a sign of intelligence. and they will desperately pretend to understand. mocking anyone who doesn't buy into the myth is one way they maintain the house of cards.

Very succinctly put.

[dd74]

I always thought Pollock's work represented a certain ADHD, coupled with anger and alcoholism. Maybe Lee Krasner knew. I don't know; he appeared to be pretty hard to live with.

[JCF]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Ah yes, a kinder-gardener would be impressed.


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


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

Probably not in the same category as "dragon with a bad attitude" from the wasted time in a museum thread we'll admit, but you are not right about art being subjective - LIKING a certain TYPE of art is subjective - ART has an objective quality as well.