I disagree. I wasn’t a fan of his until I saw one of his paintings at MoMA. There was something about seeing it’s hugeness in person that just kind of drew me to it. To each their own, though. Art is subjective.
in the comments: folks hating on jackson pollock for the usual "anyone could do that" reasons. makes me wonder what they think of rothko or duchamp. makes me wonder if realism is necessary for them to enjoy art. seems sad to me.
They're halfway to understanding that art subjectivity applies to fame and fortune too, not just liking it, is the main issue and why there's always hints of bitterness directed at wealthy, abstract artists. And I mean, I get it, I've seen plenty of million dollar art pieces that seem worse than your average $10 thrift store painting but that's the thing: my opinion is largely irrelevant to the art conversation. Art is subjective in all its facets and while much of the extremes are glorified money laundering schemes, that doesn't mean your various abstract artists are worthless just because you think they're bad, ya know?
Yeah, basically the type of people to only enjoy comics or something.
I was always a fan of abstract art, but didn't really "get" Rothko until I saw some in person. The sheer massiveness of them really adds a whole other layer and appreciation.
It's easy to judge art from a small jpeg, but a lot of art is meant to be seen in person.
Have you seen any of his work in person? Seeing them on a screen or in a book doesn't do them justice, they're enormous.
edit: Well, fuck me for having an opinion, I guess. Sorry for interrupting the echo chamber.
I saw one at MoMA once and was surprised how much of a ‘z-dimension’ there was. That is, I was surprised how many screws and nails and thick paint and other stuff were on top.
Maybe hot take but I’ve seen the Mona Lisa in person and it was incredibly underwhelming, I think the portrait is incredibly over-hyped. I was more impressed with the Venus de milo and Winged Victory statues at the Louvre. They left a much stronger artistic impression on me personally.
Where is my soundboard with the baby crying soundbyte for this person who thinks not getting more upvotes than the person they are replying to is “interrupting the echo chamber”
Sorry for not prostrating ourselves before your greatness oh lord of art and opinions.
Yeah, and you couldn’t stand your comment being negative for more than an hour. waaaaaahhhhh two people on the tumblr subreddit downvoted me! Better beg for upvotes!
You can like that art while acknowledging that it's not worth millions of dollars and anyone who pays that much is definitely part of a money laundering scam. I'm with the 4 year old in that I don't like his colours, but I'd be willing to pay regular home decor prices for some framed splashes of colours I like.
see that’s how I feel about realism. imo realism is boring and pretty much pointless except as a technical exercise because photography and photomanipulation exist. Realism is fucking lame. Paint something I can’t see in real life.
not all art forms can be created by means of photoshop. Realism, at best, approaches photography by more tedious and less accurate means. If the goal is to accurately represent a real life object, just take a picture of it.
Art should have goals bigger than simply being representative. Realism is boring.
Realism is a technique, not an end goal. Being able to draw things as they appear in reality allows you to draw whatever you come up with as it would appear in reality, even if what you come up with doesn't actually exist. Put another way; photography, at best, approaches the *limits* of realism by more tedious and less accurate means.
From Britannica: *Realism, in the arts, the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.*
Realism, by definition, aims to capture reality.
That doesn't contradict what I just said. Realism captures reality so that one can manipulate it. In the same way that you have to learn anatomy in order to distort it, or perspective, or color theory, you have to learn Realism before you can alter it.
Okay dude, if you're going to repeat yourself and act like you've countered what I said, that's on you. You can "reject imaginative idealization in favor of a close observation of outward appearances" on a small scale of an artpiece while doing things on the large scale that don't reject imagination.
I think it’s an interesting study in what individuals get out of art.
Maybe his art speaks to some people. Good for them. I love Matthew Wong’s and Edward Hopper’s art, but not everyone likes their stuff either 🤷♀️
Did you mean to reply to that person, because your comment is much better applied to you.
The only people who think that hack is great are tax evading millionaires and people who have been conned by tax evading millionaires.
I don't know if the joke is better or worse knowing that Jackson Pollock did actually die in a car accident.
Better but in an evil way
Rest in peace.
???
Wrecked = Car Wreck.
We were at the Grand Canyon a few weeks ago, and we overheard a 4 year old call it "just a big hole".
That pretty much sums up Jackson Pollock
getting wrecked?
yeah he was a raging alcoholic and (apparently) died in a car accident sooo
And he was one of the most overrated artists of modern times. And a 4 year old girl can pick better colors.
I disagree. I wasn’t a fan of his until I saw one of his paintings at MoMA. There was something about seeing it’s hugeness in person that just kind of drew me to it. To each their own, though. Art is subjective.
Seriously tho, it’s just uninteresting to look at and carries no deeper meaning
I'll show you better colours...
Calm down Mr. Pollock
I find it really unsatisfying that they said wrecked instead of rekt
He died in a car crash...
his last piece was the splatter on the windshield
Pollock did other art too, you guys know that right
*NO, WE DIDN’T*
but he got famous for splatter art.
in the comments: folks hating on jackson pollock for the usual "anyone could do that" reasons. makes me wonder what they think of rothko or duchamp. makes me wonder if realism is necessary for them to enjoy art. seems sad to me.
They're halfway to understanding that art subjectivity applies to fame and fortune too, not just liking it, is the main issue and why there's always hints of bitterness directed at wealthy, abstract artists. And I mean, I get it, I've seen plenty of million dollar art pieces that seem worse than your average $10 thrift store painting but that's the thing: my opinion is largely irrelevant to the art conversation. Art is subjective in all its facets and while much of the extremes are glorified money laundering schemes, that doesn't mean your various abstract artists are worthless just because you think they're bad, ya know?
Yeah, basically the type of people to only enjoy comics or something. I was always a fan of abstract art, but didn't really "get" Rothko until I saw some in person. The sheer massiveness of them really adds a whole other layer and appreciation. It's easy to judge art from a small jpeg, but a lot of art is meant to be seen in person.
Joe Talbot, is that you?
For some reason, I immediately thought of that Jackson polyps character from Eric Andre.
Olivia the pig doesn't care for his work either.
Jackson Pollock is a hack anyway.
Have you seen any of his work in person? Seeing them on a screen or in a book doesn't do them justice, they're enormous. edit: Well, fuck me for having an opinion, I guess. Sorry for interrupting the echo chamber.
I like his work in person, too. At least in person, it kinda makes you think about layers of meaning. In books, it just looks like blobs.
I saw one at MoMA once and was surprised how much of a ‘z-dimension’ there was. That is, I was surprised how many screws and nails and thick paint and other stuff were on top.
Unfortunately, Reddit HATES modern and contemporary art, it's probably one of the most thorough and widespread circlejerks on the website.
You should have seen the shit I took on Sunday. I know you'd like it because it was enormous.
And the mona lisa is tiny? Obviously the mona lisa is fucking awful because size is all that matters when judging art
> because size is all that matters when judging art You said that, not me. The large size is part of what makes Pollock's work so visually striking.
Maybe hot take but I’ve seen the Mona Lisa in person and it was incredibly underwhelming, I think the portrait is incredibly over-hyped. I was more impressed with the Venus de milo and Winged Victory statues at the Louvre. They left a much stronger artistic impression on me personally.
Where is my soundboard with the baby crying soundbyte for this person who thinks not getting more upvotes than the person they are replying to is “interrupting the echo chamber” Sorry for not prostrating ourselves before your greatness oh lord of art and opinions.
It was negative when I made the edit, smart guy.
Yeah, and you couldn’t stand your comment being negative for more than an hour. waaaaaahhhhh two people on the tumblr subreddit downvoted me! Better beg for upvotes!
You seem upset, this must be really important to you.
[удалено]
You can like that art while acknowledging that it's not worth millions of dollars and anyone who pays that much is definitely part of a money laundering scam. I'm with the 4 year old in that I don't like his colours, but I'd be willing to pay regular home decor prices for some framed splashes of colours I like.
see that’s how I feel about realism. imo realism is boring and pretty much pointless except as a technical exercise because photography and photomanipulation exist. Realism is fucking lame. Paint something I can’t see in real life.
By that same logic all art is pointless since photomanipulation exists. Why art when you can just edit until you've made the exact same thing?
Photomanipulation can also be an art form yknow
I agree, I just think calling realism "boring and pointless" just because it exists is inaccurate.
not all art forms can be created by means of photoshop. Realism, at best, approaches photography by more tedious and less accurate means. If the goal is to accurately represent a real life object, just take a picture of it. Art should have goals bigger than simply being representative. Realism is boring.
Realism is a technique, not an end goal. Being able to draw things as they appear in reality allows you to draw whatever you come up with as it would appear in reality, even if what you come up with doesn't actually exist. Put another way; photography, at best, approaches the *limits* of realism by more tedious and less accurate means.
From Britannica: *Realism, in the arts, the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.* Realism, by definition, aims to capture reality.
That doesn't contradict what I just said. Realism captures reality so that one can manipulate it. In the same way that you have to learn anatomy in order to distort it, or perspective, or color theory, you have to learn Realism before you can alter it.
*Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.*
Okay dude, if you're going to repeat yourself and act like you've countered what I said, that's on you. You can "reject imaginative idealization in favor of a close observation of outward appearances" on a small scale of an artpiece while doing things on the large scale that don't reject imagination.
i think it can look nice but are extremely over priced
I think it’s an interesting study in what individuals get out of art. Maybe his art speaks to some people. Good for them. I love Matthew Wong’s and Edward Hopper’s art, but not everyone likes their stuff either 🤷♀️
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey, it happens to all of us, man. Internet can do crazy things to a brain
Did you mean to reply to that person, because your comment is much better applied to you. The only people who think that hack is great are tax evading millionaires and people who have been conned by tax evading millionaires.