Piece of crap sells for fortune

[metta]

Did anyone else see the movie about Jackson Pollock?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pollock/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183659/

I would not call his work crap. Abstracts are not for everyone.

 

[belamy]

Did anyone else see the movie about Jackson Pollock?

(...)

I would not call his work crap. Abstracts are not for everyone.

Art, thinking... are not "for everyone".

 

[belamy]

Feminist revaluation of Pollock looked askance at the machismo of the 'hero in the studio' and tended to see the whole drip and flick performance as the acting out of the phallocentric male fantasy on the symbolically supine canvas.

Other critics, such as Craig Brown, have been astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian and Velazquez.

Reynolds News in a 1959 headline said 'This is not art--it's a joke in bad taste'

What the experts said about it. Well those that had a brain that is.

Praising Titian and Velázquez doesn´t imply that you have a brain, that is, that you are using your brain.

 

[JSB_01]

I agree with Erie-oh and Soilwork on this one.

No, no, no ... this is the kind of drivel that is taught in art class. You are asked 'What is art' and then told precisely what to think. To say that Pollock and the like 'revolutionized the world we live in today' and that 'Jackson Pollock opened our eyes, questioned politics and challanged some of the very basis of our society' is bollocks. It is rhetoric espoused by some and taught to others as gospel. Ask yourself, how did Pollock revolutionise the world ... the world mind you, not how some other artists were led down this blind alley of expressionism. How did he open our eyes. I would suggest that 99% of the world population has never heard of Jackson Pollock, so whose eyes have been opened exactly? Free your mind, don't believe the hype and think for yourself.

I would also suggest that 99% of the world can't name a single piece by Bach, a single novel by John Dos Passos, a single artwork by Durer, or a single building by Louis Kahn. With that being said, stating that 99% of the population hasn't heard of Pollock really doesn't mean anything. Ignorance by a large part of the population is still ignorance.
The problem with modern art, or modern anything for that matter, is that you can't tell what its long term impact is. We don't know how well it will stand the test of time, or what influences it will have even further down the line. I do like Pollock's work, and I'm not going to compare him to Titian, since you can't compare apples to oranges.
That being said, $140 million is WAY too much. That money could have helped so many people if given to charity. But people in general waste a lot of money (just look at those extravagant weddings celebrities are always throwing.) I think art is best kept in museums, where it can be appreciated (or not) by everyone.

 

[belamy]

(...)
The problem with modern art, or modern anything for that matter, is that you can't tell what its long term impact is. We don't know how well it will stand the test of time, or what influences it will have even further down the line. I do like Pollock's work, and I'm not going to compare him to Titian, since you can't compare apples to oranges.
That being said, $140 million is WAY too much. That money could have helped so many people if given to charity. But people in general waste a lot of money (just look at those extravagant weddings celebrities are always throwing.) I think art is best kept in museums, where it can be appreciated (or not) by everyone.

... appreciated by "anyone".
What was pointed in the post on which you were commenting is that mythology about heroic artists fighting alone against the world and ultimately shaping it according to their ideas.

 

[JSB_01]

... appreciated by "anyone".
What was pointed in the post on which you were commenting is that mythology about heroic artists fighting alone against the world and ultimately shaping it according to their ideas.

Well, I may have misunderstood your post, but here goes:
I don't think you can categorize all artists as "heroically trying to shape the world." It may certainly seem that way on the surface, but there are social and personal issues also involved in an artists work. Even when a work is commissioned, the artist must put part of himself (or herself) into the work, which is why I think all art deserves more than a casual dismissal.
In terms of art appreciation, I think it's okay to say "I think it's ugly and a piece of crap." In terms of art history, I think a person should be able to say "I think it's unsuccessful, because.....but I can see how the artist tried to incorparate (whatever) into the piece." That being said, art appreciation takes no previous historical knowledge, while art history obviously does. That is why I try to respect artworks even if they are visually unappealing by putting them in their historical/cultural/societal/personal context. Art is more than pretty colors on a canvas.

 

[belamy]

Well, I may have misunderstood your post, but here goes:
I don't think you can categorize all artists as "heroically trying to shape the world."

No, but that´s the basis of the predominant Western credo on "good art" made since the Renaissance.
And art is far more than art history.

Any piece of writing, any work of art, any spoken word depends on the conventions of communication in a given era, that is, they depend on "their context", but I wonder if it would not be rather misleading to believe that history is a necessary code which provides the most relevant information which is wanted to understand what is conveyed by those writings, works and speech.

 

[JSB_01]

No, but that´s the basis of the predominant Western credo on "good art" made since the Renaissance.

I do agree that's the general credo for people who are uninformed (uninformed mind you, NOT stupid - I once held that credo, too!) Unfortunately many people don't look far enough into other aspects of "good" art.

 

[Croynan]

The $140 million price would be the highest ever for a painting, topping the $135 million cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder paid in June for a Gustav Klimt painting titled "Adele Bloch-Bauer I."


http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-et-klimt4apr04,0,3309280.story?coll=cl-art

If you want to compare Pollack's so called art, I sugest you go to the above link and click on the Painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and you will see what #135,000,000 bought - and THAT IS A PIECE OF ART. As are the other four paintings that were part of the exhibition seen here in Los Angeles.

The beauty and warmth and creativity of the Klmit painting over shadows what lies on the canvas of Pollocks work by miles, years and experience.

Mr. Geffen, although a leader in homosexual society, is also know quite well for showing off now and then, and may be it was just time again for him to feed his egocentric ego again.

 

[belamy]

Using art as an ancestral symbol attempts to create a history, not record it, he believes.

I´ll keep that.

The French, even the French of the early XXIth century, are more Ancient Greek in their adoration of rationality than Modern Greek, and any Iraqi citizen is just as sumerian or akkadian as any US citizen.
And anyone can be more French, Greek, Iraqi, Sumerian or "American" in any age in any nook of the Earth than the supposedly "true" ones.

 

[levenshulme31]

For people who know little about art or art history, yes... i suppose that looks like a jumbled mess.

For those who understand who Jackson Pollack was one of the people who advanced art and broke broundaries and was a role model for artists for generatons, well, that painting is more than just $20 of materials (and it's considerably more than $20, by the way, but I digress).

Artists like Picasso and Pollack and Mark Rothko were the ones who forced us to stop trying to just create paintings of real things and start to paint in abstract.

And really.. I get so sick of this "Why can't they donate all their money to help starving children?" Women spend about $3 billion dollars a year on lipstick... why not complain to them?

I didn't express an opinion of the painting, just the value it has been given. To be honest, I think Pollock's work is wonderful - but I can equally see why so many dismiss it as nonsense. I don't claim to 'understand' it, I just find it aesthetically pleasing. btw, at 1948 prices, I suspect $20 would have bought a considerable amount of canvas and oil paint.

This sale has little to do with art appreciation but high finance and investment. High end memorabilia. I strongly suspect that Mr Martinez has paid his $140 mill not because he REALLY likes Pollock but because he REALLY likes money and thinks he might get $200 mill for it in a year or so. It just happens that Pollock is flavour of the month in the art world. (It was Van Gogh 10 years ago and Picasso before that).

As for my 'giving it to the poor' notion, I think that's valid. Your lipstick analogy is flawed. Women may well spend $3 billion a year on lippy, which is rather extravagant, but that is on lots of lipsticks which get used. If one woman spent $140 million on one lipstick and put it on a plinth in her hallway, then I would consider that an obscene waste of money, even if it had been hand made by Coco Chanel out of her own earwax. I would not lose any sleep if the sales of Ferraris, Diamonds, Penthouses and yachts stopped until such time as there were no people existing on 50 cents a day, and everyone was housed, clothed, fed, watered and educated.

 

[belamy]

As for my 'giving it to the poor' notion, I think that's valid. Your lipstick analogy is flawed. Women may well spend $3 billion a year on lippy, which is rather extravagant, but that is on lots of lipsticks which get used. If one woman spent $140 million on one lipstick and put it on a plinth in her hallway, then I would consider that an obscene waste of money, even if it had been hand made by Coco Chanel out of her own earwax. I would not lose any sleep if the sales of Ferraris, Diamonds, Penthouses and yachts stopped until such time as there were no people existing on 50 cents a day, and everyone was housed, clothed, fed, watered and educated.

Yeah, yeah, that´s right. Little "wastes" in lipstick, just like spending $25 in a video of a young hunk jerking-off BUt Soil meant that all those resources of all those women could be invested in something more profitable than trying to make silk purses out of sows´ears

 

[JSB_01]

The beauty and warmth and creativity of the Klmit painting over shadows what lies on the canvas of Pollocks work by miles, years and experience.

Beauty and warmth have nothing to do with experience. Look at Goya's Black Paintings; they are the exact opposite of beauty and warmth, yet they too are considered masterpieces.
And as I'm sure everyone agrees, creativity is subjective, whether one likes it or not.
Also, if you base "experience" solely on surface appearance, then you can claim nearly all movements in modern art are worthless, including: Dadaism, Fauvism, German Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Deconstructivism, De Stijl, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Conceptual Art, and Pop Art among others.
When it comes down to it, delicate, graceful, pretty rococo art has less to say than overly simplified, stark, chaotic, ugly modern art.

I'm not trying to attack you Croynan, just trying to make a point!

 

[belamy]

Beauty and warmth have nothing to do with experience. Look at Goya's Black Paintings; they are the exact opposite of beauty and warmth, yet they too are considered masterpieces.
And as I'm sure everyone agrees, creativity is subjective, whether one likes it or not.
Also, if you base "experience" solely on surface appearance, then you can claim nearly all movements in modern art are worthless, including: Dadaism, Fauvism, German Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Deconstructivism, De Stijl, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Conceptual Art, and Pop Art among others.
When it comes down to it, delicate, graceful, pretty rococo art has less to say than overly simplified, stark, chaotic, ugly modern art.

I'm not trying to attack you Croynan, just trying to make a point!

What a superficial, shallow point
Not trying to attack you, just considering elaborating on my point

 

[JSB_01]

What a superficial, shallow point
Not trying to attack you, just considering elaborating on my point

"if you base "experience" solely on surface appearance"

This is dealing with level of experience versus surface appearance.
As in: visual beauty has nothing to do with years of experience.

"When it comes down to it, delicate, graceful, pretty rococo art has less to say than overly simplified, stark, chaotic, ugly modern art."

This is dealing with surface appearance versus underlying meaning.
As in: just because something is pretty or ornate, it doesn't mean it has more to say (or took more effort/talent to complete) than something that is ugly or simple.

Hope that clarifies things...if not, looks like you got me on that one!

 

[belamy]

"if you base "experience" solely on surface appearance"

This is dealing with level of experience versus surface appearance.
As in: visual beauty has nothing to do with years of experience.

"When it comes down to it, delicate, graceful, pretty rococo art has less to say than overly simplified, stark, chaotic, ugly modern art."

This is dealing with surface appearance versus underlying meaning.
As in: just because something is pretty or ornate, it doesn't mean it has more to say (or took more effort/talent to complete) than something that is ugly or simple.

Hope that clarifies things...if not, looks like you got me on that one!

I think I already had understood "your point", which I find both superficial and sophistic.

 

[JSB_01]

I think I already had understood "your point", which I find both superficial and sophistic.

Thanks for the comment!
But I don't understand the superficial part. I thought me saying don't judge based on surface appearance was anything but superficial!
Sorry if I keep misinterpreting what you say!

 

[belamy]

Thanks for the comment!
But I don't understand the superficial part. I thought me saying don't judge based on surface appearance was anything but superficial!
Sorry if I keep misinterpreting what you say!

The common straightforward association of "frivolous", "empty" to rococo and of "deep" and "meaningful" to vanguard art is superficial, and rather pretentious (that not so much you, as those from whom you had those views make their way into your head).

"Classical" European art, like all classical arts has a meaning, a relevance depending on a system with a complexity that goes far beyond mere academical rules and techniques, just like the semantics of non-figurative art are not conveyed at all by anything that you may red or hear say by the so-called authorities on modern art. And that meaning is not so much a "story" to be told as a logical diagram to be discerned.

On the other hand, both "classicist" and "vanguard" art have a common susbtrate of "meaningfulness" that neither old academicism nor the sophistic discourse of the current authorities on art are available to transmit.

 

[belamy]

When I backed away slowly with my eyes unfocused, I saw a sailboat and some seagulls.

That was your avatar.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Well at least it's something of Pollock's...and wasn't LITERALLY (someone's) "crap".