Jackson Pollock (RE: ART: What Art Is)

From: zeb haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun May 28 2000 - 14:40:58 MDT

>From: "altamira" <altamira@ecpi.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: RE: ART: What Art Is
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:27:01 -0500
>I've always been annoyed by Jackson Pollock's paintings, not so much by his
>work as by the high respect paid to it by university art teachers. I can't
>say what went on in the man's mind when he was creating one of his
>paintings, but the results resemble a house-painter's well-used drop cloth.

Have you ever admired the pattern of rust spots on a junked car, or a
certain sunset or cloud formation, or layout of wood knots on a table? For
me, abstract expressionism has the same kind of appeal. It *would* have the
exact same appeal even if it were just a house-painter's well-used drop
cloth. Leonardo Da Vinci remarked that he admired the patterns of urine
stains and spittle on some wall near where he lived.
I agree with you about the respect paid to Pollock by art experts. Pollock
was not a genius by virtue of his paintings. Chimps and elephants have been
trained to paint similar pictures (the Buffalo zoo sells elephant paintings
to raise money). The standard criticism that "a five year old could paint
that" is true, but I don't think it matters as far as value of the work's
visual and decorative appeal. The only thing I can think of that made
Pollock different from a five year old doing the same picture is that he
made it so that his works were perceived as high art. That was probably due
more to his critics and collectors then to him.

Zeb Haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
My personal webpage:
A movie I'm directing:
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:49 MDT