Great piece of art ... or not?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: Great piece of art ... or not?

[EastTennesseeDem]

1. Other

That fly sure had some oddly colored guts.

[Rhythm]

7. +1

:rofl: :spray:

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Never cared for it myself, but as long as someone loves it then it's great art for them.

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. True. I liked it at first glance, but then

the tan splotches stood out and looked like they'd been graffiti'd onto it and I didn't like that. But I agree that it could be seen as great art by someone, so I chose the third option.

[ogneopasno]

3. I'd hang it on my wall if I could. I think it looks like a city in a snowstorm and I love it.

[petronius]

9. I thought it looks more like a forest in snowstorm

willows or birches or something twiggy and slender.

I like it too - how about you take it Sunday-Wed and I'll take it Thur-Sat?

[ogneopasno]

12. I live in a snowy birch forest, so I project something I don't usually see. :)

Your arrangement sounds excellent. I shall contact the MoMA forthwith.

[LeftyMom]

4. That looks like a section of granite countertop.

[Orrex]

14. Great art should never be taken for granite

[Starry Messenger]

6. Yes.

It is beautiful to look at and has considerable historical significance.

[NYC_SKP]

8. "Important" piece of art, historically (1950)

The OP artwork: Jackson Pollock, Lavender Mist (1950).

If historically important makes it great, then it's great art.

It's not my cup of tea, it doesn't make me juicy the way a Monet does, but it's not unattractive.

:shrug:

Monet, Claude. The Seine at Lavacourt. (1880)

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Yeah, I'm all about impressionists too. :^) In fact,

any time I want to see the rest of the world that way all I have to do is take off my glasses. LOL

[NYC_SKP]

13. HEY!

Hiya GPV, howya been?

I've been lucky enough to see a few impressionist shows in NYC, DC, SF.

The Monets always leave me swooning, staring in wonder... :hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. How've I been? Ask me again next week when I finish up the

last bits of a very hectic cheer season this year. LOL

Back when I was in college, I was privileged enough to see Monet's water lily series at the museum down in Portland. You wouldn't think Maine would score such a cool exhibit but we did. :D

[NYC_SKP]

45. Rah Rah!!!

Cheer season, I didn't know it was cheer season!

:P

[Lucian]

18. See, now that's a great painting.

It's a lot better than paint splatter.

[flying rabbit]

22. And remember

the impressionists were considered crap by the establishment in their time as well. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

[Lost in CT]

23. Pollack wasn't considered crap he was on the cover of Time magazine or something.

Honestly he was a strange flash in the pan fad that stuck... It's as if we were spending millions on pet rocks.

[flying rabbit]

44. I think it was Life magazine that he was in

and "Jack the dripper" did have a lot of harsh critics. Still Does.

[petronius]

11. I don't have the interest of the expertise to identify "great" art, but I like this

It seems to me that in a lot of fields (food, art, fashion, music) where subjectivity is king, one needs a high degree of experience as well as training in the 'rules' before one can separate the wheat from the chaff. Some of the rules seem arbitrary, but perhaps that's part of what makes it fun for the connoisseurs...

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

47. I think food doesn't take that much training

I think some people are born with a palate that can handle certain flavors such as cilantro or fishiness and some people are not.

Music... I think there are the innovators and there are the people who draw on the innovators...

[jobycom]

15. Of course it's great. A great number of artists think it's great. Hardly matters what an individual

thinks of it. This work and its creator are held by many artists to be important to their field, and that makes it great.

One could argue over the arbitrary criteria that art, or any field, adapts to define itself, and whether those criteria have any connection outside of that field, but it still wouldn't change the fact that society places a high value on art and those who define the rules of art. This is an important work in a field society views as important. What's not great about it?

The real poll question should be "Do you understand why this is considered a great work of art?" and the choices could be "Yes," "No," "Yes, but I still hate it," and "Robb is an artistic dingbat."

[Lucian]

19. Why is it considered great art?

I'm not saying it isn't great, but I'm wondering what makes it great.

[Heidi]

29. Hi, Lucian. There are several things that make this painting "great" or important.

1. In the context of its time, this painting (and other Pollock works in this style) were unquestionably original. No one had done this before. Particularly in the US at that time, making Abstract Expressionist work struck many people as a slap in the face to representational art -- and that Pollock was able to fetch such high prices for work that wasn't universally loved was considered another slap. It takes a lot of courage to face down the hordes who believe the only "real art" is representational art.

2. To really appreciate this piece, you need to see it in person or at have a real understanding of its size. It's a staggering 221 x 300 cm (7 ft 3 in x 9 ft 10 in), and painted in part in oil, which takes a _long_ time to dry. This piece isn't the result of a single afternoon in the studio with gallons of gray, green, lavender and white acrylic paint. A piece of this depth, this many layers, and this scale just doesn't doesn't happen like that.

3. Over the course of his life, Pollock spent a great deal of time in nature, and there is no denying that nature played a large role in even his most abstract work. Many of us like or dislike his work without questioning why we find it repulsive or pleasing, but mathematicians and other scientists are giving us some possible answers.

A fractal pattern, whether in nature or in a Pollock painting, is subconciously pleasing, Taylor suggests.
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

If you'd really like to know more about Pollack's, I highly recommend Jackson Pollock: An American Saga, by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith. It's a compelling read, and very sad, but worth the effort if you're interested.

:hi:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

31. I never "got" Pollock until I saw his paintings in person

They're layered, three dimensional pieces, but you don't really get that just looking at a photo. Flattening the piece into two dimensions kind of destroys it.

[Heidi]

33. I absolutely agree.

I won't begrudge people their right to dislike any artist's work, but I also don't think one can offer an informed opinion based on reproductions or photos seen on the internet. :hi:

[tigereye]

43. when you see one in the museum, it is stunning, just stunning.

You can almost fall into it. Brilliant.

[RushIsRot]

16. I have always loved Jackson Pollock's work. What an innovator!

If you think this is easy to do, go try it. It is likely your efforts will not be successful, only odd splotches on a canvas.

[Lucian]

17. I personally don't care for it, but if it's considered art...

then by all means, it's art. :shrug:

I wouldn't buy a print of it to hang in my living room, that's for sure.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. Historical Piece Of Art

If you love it, Great.

If not. Well, I can see that, too.

[MilesColtrane]

21. Some other answer:

Tiny, off-color, liquid crystals (in my case) of a great work of art.

For those who don't get a painting like this, please remember that a work of art is inextricably tied to the time in which it was created.

[MadBadger]

24. Looks like Google Earth

[leeroysphitz]

25. I could do that. I am not capable of making great art. Therefore...

[tekisui]

26. I would like to see your attempt at that.

There is quite a leap from saying 'I could do that' to conceiving it, and doing it, and being successful with it.

[Heidi]

35. Cool! Looking forward to seeing you make a work of equal scale and depth.

Incidentally, what kind of substrate will you be using? How do you plan to prepare it? After that, what materials will you use? And in what order will you use them?

[leeroysphitz]

38. I'll use the cheapest canvas I can find at Michael's, some white gesso

and a couple dozen randomly selected acrylics. No need for oils since I'm just going to smearing it around like a monkey or a child might do.

I was married to an artist for seven years. I know for a fact that successful artists do not sell art. They sell themselves. In other words even the best of it is more than a little bullshit on both the buyer's and the seller's part.

ETA: Scale and depth-LOL.

[Heidi]

39. What do you mean by "successful"?

I think that's a fair question, since you used the term.

[NJmaverick]

27. It does have some aesthetically pleasing qualities to it

I don't know enough about art, to judge it. However I don't think it would look bad in an office building's lobby.

[LanternWaste]

28. If it art is designed in order to invoke an emotional reaction...

If it art is designed in order to invoke a specific emotional reaction, after seeing the reactions on this thread, I am compelled to say yes.

That being said, I know no more about art history/theory than I do good wines, so I'm not really in a position to judge what is or is not great. However, it does invoke an emotional reaction within me, and I find myself staring at it more and more...

:shrug:

[Heidi]

30. Here's a good explanation of why you may like it.

1. This post by Dangerously Amused: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8588873&mesg_id=8589188

2. This article, suggesting that the prevalence of fractals in Pollock's work could be among the reasons it strikes a chord with some: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

[LanternWaste]

34. Wow.... thanks, Heidi!

Wow.... thanks, Heidi! Now I realize I know even less about art than previously... :P

:hi:

[Orsino]

32. It was inevitable.

Leave a canvas hanging around Pollock's studio for long enough, it's gonna look like this.

[Bertha Venation]

36. It looks like one of those pulp greeting cards with imbedded flower seeds

You get it wet, they sprout, you plant it and voila - flowers!

[legin]

37. used to do this sort of thing in LOGO on my C64

Foward 100
Right 90
Foward 50
Left 90
Foward 100

and repeat above 1000 times (the screen wraps around)

On my C64 you could watch the picture slowly build up and then go off artistically.

[DevonRex]

40. What makes it great for me is that I have no idea why I love it, but I do.

If I think about the individual colors, there's no reason to even like it. If I look at the individual lines or blobs, there's no reason to even like it.

But when I just look at it in its entirety, I love it. When I try to figure out what it is, I love it. That's what makes it great.

[DS1]

41. Even though I'll admit I don't get it

You shouldn't have to understand the artist or the genre in order to appreciate some shit thrown on some flat canvas.

And yes, I know something about Pollack, and his methods, and why he did it, and what I'm supposed to see, but I still think it's shit.

[Odin2005]

46. Myabe it's just my Asperger's, but I don't "get" Pollack and other "abstract" artists.

Generally I like landscapes and scenes; things that look realistic but has tones, emotionality, and illusions of motion that a photograph can't give.

[ZombieNixon]

48. I simultaneously like it and don't like it.

I have little to no knowledge of Pollack's methods, materials, or artistic background. My only significant exposure to Pollack to date has been an After Dark screensaver on a computer we had when I was 7.

At first glance it seems random and haphazard. So, why do I keep looking at it? Upon closer inspection, the piece is balances both in the amounts and placements of the different colors. There appears to be a roughly even amount of greens, yellows and reds and of white and black. In that sense, it's pleasing enough not to repulse my eye. I in fact want to look closer to see if I can pick out anything I recognize, even though I know I won't find anything. However, even this JPEG gives a sense of texture of the actual work. I try to compare it to a city map, a forest, or a flyover of untamed land, even though I know it's not intended to be any of those things. I can't place Pollack's work among my "favorite" pieces of artwork (not sure what my favorites are, actually), but, it does make me think, so I don't really have a choice but to call him a compelling artist, even if he's not to my taste.