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.
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.