I actively like a lot of abstract art. But yeah, I definitely could have done some of this. Jackson Pollock comes to mind. Give me a CIA payroll and a handle of whiskey and I, too, could randomly splash a series of paints at a canvas and go drop it off at an art museum.
Just look at this, this is trash art. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, Pollock is the most popular whipping boy of the abstract art scene specifically because this is garbage. Life Magazine looked at this and posted an article asking “Is Jackson Pollock the greatest living painter in the United States?”
No, he’s fucking not, just look at that. Art is subjective to the viewer, of course, and art that I like may be art that you don’t like. But come on. There is no subject, whatsoever. There is no meaning. There is no color balance. There is no clever use of space. There is no subliminal message behind the apparent chaos of the artwork.
Compare this with, for example, the works of František Kupka, such as Complexe.
This is still recognizable as abstract art (or more accurately, not recognizable as anything else); but it has a clear direction of composition. I’d hang this on my wall, I wouldn’t see this in a museum and dare think “I could make this”.
A Pollock, though? My dog can make a better Pollock than Pollock did, by dipping her tail in a series of colors.
The only purpose of art is to make people feel some shit and then examine that shit they’re feeling, and feel more shit after. Pollock make people feel some shit. Even you, a hater, feel something because of his work. What’s that if not a mark of a great artist.
I always appreciate when a fellow art lover shits on Jackson Pollock. He’s so overrated it makes me want to carry a small copy of his paintings with me, so whenever I meet someone with low self-esteem, I can whip one of them out and tell them “If Pollock can become a celebrated artist, then you can do that thing you’re afraid of”.
I like Pollack. I feel what he’s doing and I am moved by it. Many people do. Do you think we’re all just a bunch of rubes?
When I see Pollock’s work, I see that he was wrestling with paint itself. It’s an act of control and play. He skirts up to the edge of that dance and feels deeply. I can feel that precision that daring of fighting gravity, of letting paint leap off his brush and land with intent and recklessness. The act of creation is physical. It’s intensity is emotional and visceral.
Comparing him to Kupka misses the point. Don’t get me wrong, his work is amazing, but they have completely different approaches to abstraction, trying to do completely different things. Kupka was exploring color relationships and spiritual geometry. Pollock was mapping human energy and gesture onto canvas.
This isn’t about whether anyone could drip paint - it’s about whether they could make those drips carry the weight of human experience. Maybe your dog can. Maybe I’ll look at it and be compel and feel something, maybe all this shit is made up in my head. Maybe I only feel it because some said “It’s a Pollack” with just enough reverence that my tiny brain just followed. But I think Pollock’s paintings work because they pull me into that that urgency, playful energy he was working with. I feel the motion, the decisions, the whole physical dance he was doing. He was trying to break free from artistic convention entirely, to bypass conscious control and tap into something more primal and immediate. He was excising demons and he was able to put that on a canvas.
Maybe you’ve been fortunate enough to not have to battle your demons. But I haven’t been. And works like this inspire me to continue. When I stand in front of one of his paintings, I feel that reaching - the way he’s grasping for something beyond rational thought. For something that psychically and spiritually liberated. There’s something raw and unfiltered there that bypasses my thinking brain and hits me somewhere deeper. I feel the energy, the emotion, the trace of human movement suspended in time, but also this sense of someone diving headfirst into their own unconscious and coming back with something wild and alive. Something hopeful.
Maybe you see all this and it means nothing to you. Maybe you don’t and don’t care. All that’s fine. But for me, I see it. I feel it. I value it. And I’m not a rube. And I hope you see my humanity.
My answer was, well kinda, yeah. By the end of it my opinion has changed.
I do still think that this is appreciated more as a performance piece than a painting, if that makes sense. You appreciate the action behind what produced this piece, and maybe by extension the piece itself but the meaning lies in the artist’s actions off the canvas. I do still think that yeah this is a pretty trash painting in as much as we define a painting. But you’ve given me a new perspective on it that I had not in fact considered before. I’m no stranger to wrestling demons but I never connected that to Pollock’s pieces before. I’m still not sure that I do, but I can understand and appreciate why you would.
There is also no good art without bad art. Even if I don’t think the result was successful, he was trying something new and novel and that has to happen to evolve our art. I don’t much like Picasso’s cubism either, but I can’t deny that it was a bold step in a new direction that then inspired other artists after him. Maybe this is similar.
I still don’t like Pollock much, I think his art really could have been made by anyone, and the only reason we know his name is because of luck and nebulous connections to CIA psy-ops, and every art magazine ceaselessly jerking him off in their articles when he was popular. But maybe I’m wrong. I do appreciate your new perspective on his work. Maybe the fact that it could have been made by anyone is part of the actual message that’s trying to be communicated in these pieces.
I appreciate you taking time to read, consider it, and making space for a different perspective. It was no easy feat writing a vulnerable defense of his work’s effect on me.
I actively like a lot of abstract art. But yeah, I definitely could have done some of this. Jackson Pollock comes to mind. Give me a CIA payroll and a handle of whiskey and I, too, could randomly splash a series of paints at a canvas and go drop it off at an art museum.
Just look at this, this is trash art. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, Pollock is the most popular whipping boy of the abstract art scene specifically because this is garbage. Life Magazine looked at this and posted an article asking “Is Jackson Pollock the greatest living painter in the United States?”
No, he’s fucking not, just look at that. Art is subjective to the viewer, of course, and art that I like may be art that you don’t like. But come on. There is no subject, whatsoever. There is no meaning. There is no color balance. There is no clever use of space. There is no subliminal message behind the apparent chaos of the artwork.
Compare this with, for example, the works of František Kupka, such as Complexe.
This is still recognizable as abstract art (or more accurately, not recognizable as anything else); but it has a clear direction of composition. I’d hang this on my wall, I wouldn’t see this in a museum and dare think “I could make this”.
A Pollock, though? My dog can make a better Pollock than Pollock did, by dipping her tail in a series of colors.
The only purpose of art is to make people feel some shit and then examine that shit they’re feeling, and feel more shit after. Pollock make people feel some shit. Even you, a hater, feel something because of his work. What’s that if not a mark of a great artist.
I prefer the Pollock
I always appreciate when a fellow art lover shits on Jackson Pollock. He’s so overrated it makes me want to carry a small copy of his paintings with me, so whenever I meet someone with low self-esteem, I can whip one of them out and tell them “If Pollock can become a celebrated artist, then you can do that thing you’re afraid of”.
deleted by creator
I like Pollack. I feel what he’s doing and I am moved by it. Many people do. Do you think we’re all just a bunch of rubes?
When I see Pollock’s work, I see that he was wrestling with paint itself. It’s an act of control and play. He skirts up to the edge of that dance and feels deeply. I can feel that precision that daring of fighting gravity, of letting paint leap off his brush and land with intent and recklessness. The act of creation is physical. It’s intensity is emotional and visceral.
Comparing him to Kupka misses the point. Don’t get me wrong, his work is amazing, but they have completely different approaches to abstraction, trying to do completely different things. Kupka was exploring color relationships and spiritual geometry. Pollock was mapping human energy and gesture onto canvas.
This isn’t about whether anyone could drip paint - it’s about whether they could make those drips carry the weight of human experience. Maybe your dog can. Maybe I’ll look at it and be compel and feel something, maybe all this shit is made up in my head. Maybe I only feel it because some said “It’s a Pollack” with just enough reverence that my tiny brain just followed. But I think Pollock’s paintings work because they pull me into that that urgency, playful energy he was working with. I feel the motion, the decisions, the whole physical dance he was doing. He was trying to break free from artistic convention entirely, to bypass conscious control and tap into something more primal and immediate. He was excising demons and he was able to put that on a canvas.
Maybe you’ve been fortunate enough to not have to battle your demons. But I haven’t been. And works like this inspire me to continue. When I stand in front of one of his paintings, I feel that reaching - the way he’s grasping for something beyond rational thought. For something that psychically and spiritually liberated. There’s something raw and unfiltered there that bypasses my thinking brain and hits me somewhere deeper. I feel the energy, the emotion, the trace of human movement suspended in time, but also this sense of someone diving headfirst into their own unconscious and coming back with something wild and alive. Something hopeful.
Maybe you see all this and it means nothing to you. Maybe you don’t and don’t care. All that’s fine. But for me, I see it. I feel it. I value it. And I’m not a rube. And I hope you see my humanity.
Thanks for this. At the beginning of the comment,
My answer was, well kinda, yeah. By the end of it my opinion has changed.
I do still think that this is appreciated more as a performance piece than a painting, if that makes sense. You appreciate the action behind what produced this piece, and maybe by extension the piece itself but the meaning lies in the artist’s actions off the canvas. I do still think that yeah this is a pretty trash painting in as much as we define a painting. But you’ve given me a new perspective on it that I had not in fact considered before. I’m no stranger to wrestling demons but I never connected that to Pollock’s pieces before. I’m still not sure that I do, but I can understand and appreciate why you would.
There is also no good art without bad art. Even if I don’t think the result was successful, he was trying something new and novel and that has to happen to evolve our art. I don’t much like Picasso’s cubism either, but I can’t deny that it was a bold step in a new direction that then inspired other artists after him. Maybe this is similar.
I still don’t like Pollock much, I think his art really could have been made by anyone, and the only reason we know his name is because of luck and nebulous connections to CIA psy-ops, and every art magazine ceaselessly jerking him off in their articles when he was popular. But maybe I’m wrong. I do appreciate your new perspective on his work. Maybe the fact that it could have been made by anyone is part of the actual message that’s trying to be communicated in these pieces.
I appreciate you taking time to read, consider it, and making space for a different perspective. It was no easy feat writing a vulnerable defense of his work’s effect on me.
This was a beautiful conversation. Thank you both.
I think performance art is how I’ve seen it explained a lot before.
Complexes is giving me a damned headache, so that certainly new.