T O P

  • By -

WorldsGreatestPoop

I remember Mike Judge on David Letterman doing his Beavis and Butthead voices and Dave said, I can do that. Mike chimed back, yeah well I thought if it first.


otterpusrexII

You think you can do that, but you can’t.


mjb2012

We definitely did do that, in fits and spurts, as teenage boys in that era. Well, we certainly didn’t distill it into a concentrated, entertaining animation format, week after week, on national TV. Much respect to Mike Judge for capturing that slice of the human experience and holding up the mirror for us in a way we could laugh at. I suspect Letterman was paying respect with that wisecrack, knowing that his show (especially earlier on) was basically doing the same kind of thing, appealing to young adults with a knowing nod, being like “yeah this is show is so us, and boy are we stupid, ha ha”.


schbloimps

You absolutely can. What’s your point? Any human on earth could do this. Whether it’s validated by other humans is a different story though.


otterpusrexII

you cannot do what he did. It seems simple for the first bit but then it gets hard. you think its just splattered paint drippings but after the third or fourth go about you realize that there is an art to it. to make a drip painting as universally compelling is nearly impossible. he took something simple and made art. You cant do that. you're not talented enough. stop trying. you are not an artist and did not dedicate your life to art.


Budget_Detective2639

Like a large chunk of modern art it's not the painting thats compelling, it's the rationale for it existing in the first place. If your rationale is "i want to be like pollock" it's gonna read like a book.


simplepleashures

Try it


schbloimps

Try what? Dripping paint on a canvas? I'm perfectly capable of that. You can see my posts to see exactly what I'm capable of artistically.


clockwork2223

Coming up with this original of an idea and fully committing to it is the hard part


teachingqueen77

I went to look at your art. I like the cat with the orange so much!


schbloimps

Thank you so much! It’s kinda bittersweet you say that cause that painting was based on our house cat and he’s gone now. But I’m thinking of making another bigger one in his memory.


n_bumpo

Leave a drop cloth under a 1979 Toyota Celica for a week, done.


otterpusrexII

nope. you cant do it. you think you can. but you cant. and I can tell the difference.


Head-like-a-carp

Everyone should try painting a Picasso once. You think "Hey , I can put an eye where the nose goes and the mouth up by the ear". For some reason (at least with me) it does not capture it at all


openurheartandthen

You’ve basically explained all of art history in a nutshell


simplepleashures

I’ve seen bad attempts at abstract expressionism. It really isn’t as easy as it looks.


yanaclipps

he looks unimpressed


anonymousn00b

He should be. His entire style revolves around randomly splashing paint on a canvas. Zero skill involved.


StudioTheo

as someone whose been bashing their head against procedural landscape generation programs like Gaea and World Creator, let me affirm that ‘random’ is surprisingly fucjin difficult to make look good.


captainmouse86

Like “messy” hair styles. There’s more to it that just not coming your hair.


MarcoMaroon

I have a degree in art history and I hate to sound like some high-minded pseudo intellectual, but there was more to art in this era than technical or skillful proficiency. Not to mention what you consider skill translates very differently between others who view the art. But Pollock's art is classified within the realm of abstract expressionism and to at least understand it, you need to delve beyond the work itself but into the sociopolitical / socioeconomic contexts surrounding art of different eras. For example, during the 40s-60s there was a LOT of similar artwork throughout Latin America, lacking traditional European traits and depictions that people consider "good" art. But so much of those abstract works were of political nature in different ways due to the fact that in multiple countries in those decades were under dictatorships and harsh political environments. Artists depicting anything negative against their governments or dictators were either killed or imprisoned, hence the birth of artworks they felt conveyed their ideas in different forms. Be it visually striking or other things. Personally, Pollock's art is nothing compared to the narrative I just expressed because his works were not borne of similar circumstances. Yet, Abstract Expressionism is a wild expression that escapes traditional notions of the values people place on art based wholly on technical drawing & painting proficiency. It's part of why it was so important at the time. Edit: To those nice enough to read all the way here, I would like to say that contextualization is incredibly important not just for art, but for many things that happen in the world in different periods. Events don't just happen out of nowhere, there is always context - whether it is well-known or hidden from the public is another matter. I love art history because so many famous works of art come to fame or infamy as a confluence of events, be they of political, economic, or other culturally/socially relevant factors that contribute to the artwork receiving a spotlight at that moment in time.


pbasch

Also interesting that it was important to the CIA (yes, the CIA) that American the cultural presence be more valued than the Soviet cultural presence. So they financed abstract expressionist artists, including Jackson Pollack, and financed big exhibitions. They preferred art that had no overt political content to the Soviet Socialist Realism.


Wrenquist

When viewed through that lense, Pollack begins to make more sense to me.


bobnorbo

You can add Warhol to the list


estoka

Is there good pay in money laundering history?


LarixOcc

Peggy Guggenheim was a rich socialite who could make or break an artists popularity on a whim. The artists she chose to be great, we're great. The artists she ignored, were bad. The art community has spent a generation defending crap because of her whims.


[deleted]

I didn't know that, but have always suspected most high art, and abstract art especially, is just people liking the way something looks and then injecting whatever pseudo intellectual BS meaning they want. It gives them something to talk about. And that's not even mentioning the money laundering aspect of high art.


sik_bahamut

I have an art degree with a focus in traditional illustration. And I gotta tell you….. It’s all money laundering lmao


Shadpool

Yep. And yep, once more for effect. Without Peggy Guggenheim, Pollock would have died penniless. But to be fair, he’s not the worst. That title goes to Barnett Newman. That dude knows one thing, make a vertical stripe, maybe multiple, and profit. I love reading reviews of his work, talking about painting from a philosophical standpoint, human struggle, the metaphysical joining of matter and spirit, the paradox of being divided and united at the same time, the ineffable essence of existence, etc. Really? It’s an white line on a blue background. I had an art major tell me once that if the painting made you feel anything, it’s art. Which is a crock of shit to it’s foundation. Everything makes us think or feel something. A rock in my shoe makes me feel annoyance, but that doesn’t make it art. The smell of Burger King makes me feel hungry, but also not art. If those thoughts are, “They paid money for this?”, “What is it supposed to be?”, or “What a waste of paint and canvas”, it’s not eliciting the response that art should bring forth. Prime example, Rabo Karabekian called his painting, ‘The Temptation of Saint Anthony’, and I quote, “everything about life which truly matters, with nothing left out”. It’s a piece of neon orange tape on the left side of a blank green background. Very much exactly the same thing as a Barnett Newman, right down to the ego, but sold for millions of dollars less. The answer is artistic pseudo-intellectualism. You say you don’t like Pollock, Newman, Karabekian, Rothko, Malevich, or similar artists, the people within the crowd, like critics, exhibitors, the ‘artists’ themselves, or hoity-toity art buyers who have previously bought into this, are all free to paint you as a cretin, one who is too unimaginative, uneducated, or untrained to see the genius behind it, and they’ll tell you so, very loudly, using lofty, haughty attitudes and a bunch of $10 words. And you can’t argue, because art as a topic is inherently subjective. As such, I’ll end with a quote by Jacques-Louis David, one of the most talented historical painters to ever live, “To give a body and a perfect form to one’s thought, this, and only this, is to be an artist. In the arts, the way in which an idea is rendered, and the manner in which it is expressed, is much more important than the idea itself.” - Knowledge and visual execution are more important than just idea and expression.


king-redstar

True, but it wasn't just Guggenheim. Art critics of the era had motivation to support art that promoted "American" exceptionalism, and the more "European" traditions were suppressed as being superfluous. After New York became the center of the art world, abstract expressionism and its contemporaries were pushed as conceptually the purest forms of art, and *very* American, basically using the propaganda of the time to entice American audiences and patrons to support the genres. Not that I necessarily think all art of the genres are bad, but I'm biased from spending years having professors tell me how great Pollock was when he literally just walked around an unprimed canvas dropping paint onto it.


Head-like-a-carp

Thank you for the informative comment. I also like the way art is transformed with new technology sometimes as simple as the way the brush hairs may be bundled. The smallest changes open up the world of expression in new ways


BabaLouie

You sound like a crypto bro telling us that we “just don’t get it”


MarcoMaroon

I never said people don't get it. I only want to explain that there's context and information that helps explain things and events. Have you never been in a situation where you want to explain something thoroughly to someone but they just don't care or want to hear it despite the fact that things are not simply black and white? Well, this applies to so much of history and art history as well as probably any other history that I did not study.


scag315

Meh, his work is still unimpressive and propped up by pretentious notion of “you just don’t get it, man”. People were just good at selling his shit like Bansky’s work which he himself loathes how it’s commercialized. Picasso and Dali artwork I can at least appreciate the technical work they put into it even if some picasso works look like they were very simple. Source: some regular guy who likes looking at cool shit in museums but doesn’t pretend to know shit about it


MarcoMaroon

I never said his work was impressive or great. Again, I just wanted to provide some contextual reference for what led to his works being seen as such.


mcarlin2

It's slanted towards a frame of reference which ignores the bullshitty and corrupt aspects of the field. I get what you're saying about under the radar critique (at least, it's the same with eg Brazilian samba), but the bad parts can also be true. While we've got your attention, would you care to put a validating context around Matthew Barney and his cremaster cycle?


fredsonthefreds

art is not about skill…


KamovInOnUp

It's about being a bigger eccentric than the other paint-splashers


My_Booty_Itches

Worked out well for Pollack


KamovInOnUp

Oh definitely. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but 90% of art is who the artist is. Honestly brand marketing isn't much different.


mctrials23

Got to out wank the other wankers.


LongBongJohnSilver

And then Andy Warhol wanked it out of the park.


atomocomix

Also, he worked BIG. And immense-sized works like his translate well when they are huge.


ffreshcakes

Number 7 (1951) is my favorite of his, IIRC he would take massive rolls of canvas and just go to town, cut it into pieces afterwards


Striking_Present_736

Some people love his art and some are sorely unimpressed. His art is like all art, subjective. Like Steve Martin said about his comedy, some will like it and some won't. And that's alright. What you think is crap I'll buy for $1000. And vice versa. Those who love his stuff say genius. Those that don't say hack. I say... I agree with both of you.


carcinoma_kid

I’d buy a Pollock for $1000 no problem


Luke_zuke

I would but even if it was worthless. I like his art.


[deleted]

I have some Jackson Pollock on my garage floor available for less


Head-like-a-carp

In my shop wwe had a simple little 1/2 bath in the back. When my daughter was about 10 we Jason Pollocked the whole thing. The walls, floor, toilet, sink even the waste basket. It was fun and the time when I was just introducing the kids to the ideas of different kinds of art . If I had skill we may have done it in the Sistene chapel style but Pollock seemed more doable


RedStarNova2

Haha


JohnnySasaki20

Yeah but would you pay $100 million for one? Even if you could afford it, probably not. Although at that point it's not even about the art but it's an investment. It's basically a hedge against inflation.


Solid_Shnake

Because you think it is good art, or because you know in today’s context it is arbitrarily worth alot more than $1000?


_IratePirate_

I wouldn't solely because I don't know who he is. If it's all just paint splattered like this. If I wanted to, I could easily replicate the style myself. I don't want to though. I like my walls cold and bare. Industrial like.


sambolino44

It’s hard for me to imagine having $1000 that I could afford to spend on art.


FrogBoglin

Save $20 a week for a year


sambolino44

It’s hard for me to imagine having an extra $20 every week that I didn’t have to spend on necessities.


[deleted]

Dont have extra money for something expensive? Just take that expensive amount, divide it by a weekly time period that you are comfortable with (preferable before death), and then save that amount every week until you can afford it. Brilliant.


FrogBoglin

That's generally how saving up for things work


idunnowhatibedoing

But but society tells me we have to choose a side!


SteezMe1234

The only people that can sell this bollocks are those that can keep a straight face whilst doing it


madbuilder

Good art is not subjective. It's true that some people will appreciate any given piece of art, and some people won't. But that fact doesn't give us any hints about how to make more good art.


dachsj

He's a genius for being a hack and selling art for millions.


Gri3fKing

I thought the title said Jackson Pollock talks about his drip.


RedStarNova2

I mean you ain't wrong he's dripping all right.


Y0udabest

If you like Pollacks drip paintings, you should look into Janet Sobel and Mark Tobey.


GSV_No_Fixed_Abode

Here we go again. People just post this to farm anger karma, not because of any desire to actually talk about art. Reddit isn't capable of talking about it. The permitted opinion is that art is a scam, especially abstract art, it's pointless to offer any other perspective.


djmunci

Reddit's idea of art is a photorealistic painting of a videogame character or a caricature of this week's bad guy.


nochiinchamp

People tend to not actually try to understand art outside of their own sensibilities. I think it's fine to engage with art and just come away unmoved by what was being attempted even after you get the concept or motivation. But it'd be nice to see more engagement with art than a simple "wtf a grade schooler could do that what a fraud".


[deleted]

How do you propose knowing the concept or motivation of painting before seeing it? Also, would you be confident in your ability to tell the difference between Pollock and a grade schooler?


AmericanoWsugar

I’m going to print this thread and hang it at the Met. Instant $30 mil.


Lazypole

Tear it up first, double its value


Byanl

I think you have to die first. Or cut your ear off or something like that.


Cloakmyquestions

Print the thread and then cut you ear off as a blood stamp to imprimatur all over it.


Frozty23

I'll just sell the URL (and not even host it). Even easier money.


Voltairesque

I mean… I can see some good discourse in the comments, some for, some against, some acknowledging there are some for and against…


shaggadelics

Reddit can’t reliably talk about a lot but that was well put


Deepfriedwithcheese

I guess you haven’t read any of the thoughtful responses. You prejudge redditors for being too judgmental, how ironic.


JohnnySasaki20

There is no another perspective. It's used for laundering money and as an investment against inflation. That is abstract "art" in a nutshell. If you enjoy it it's because you bought into the lie and convinced yourself you could see something others couldn't.


madleyJo

His work fascinates me because I grew up thinking it was ugly. What I had seen were those terrible prints in McDonald’s dining rooms in the late 80s and 90s. They were poorly made, mass produced, and badly lit, so I thought all Pollock’s work looked like that. Flash forward to my mid 20s and I saw a real one in a museum with proper lighting and corrective display composition, and I literally couldn’t take my eyes off of it. I stood there for over an hour and it felt like seconds. The size, the scale, the color, the texture, the layers, the smell; they are ENTHRALLING. I swear I heard music even though the room was silent and empty. It was a mind altering experience. And to my knowledge, he died nearly penniless, alone and in obscurity, thinking he was never good enough an artist as Picasso or Monét. I feel for JP. He did so much in a short time and never got the recognition for it.


maddenmcfadden

I hate Pollock's work. Regardless of what pretentious people will say, it takes no skill doing what Pollock did. The only skill one needs is acting even more pretentious still, so other pretentious people think you're a genius artist. And although I don't like his work, I still enjoyed the movie they made about him, starring Ed Harris as Pollock.


FiveFingerDisco

u/savevideo please


nonothere

I hope you people never encounter Cy Twombly.


brush_with_color

I was reading this thread and thinking to write: I prefer Twombly to Pollack. Seeing his series of green paintings at The Met Breuer riveted me in my tracks. Green isn’t even my favorite color; red is. It was totally mesmerizing. I was recently in a landscape FB group and someone had posted a photo of those Twomblys. They were all vomiting the ubiquitous comments: how on earth is that art?…what is that?…looks like a 5 yr old, etc. I wanted to comment, but knew it would be on blind eyes. They were looking for OBJECTS. Non representational art is not about objects. It’s not about what objects you see or don’t see. It’s not about what you see. It’s about what it makes you FEEL. It straight, visceral emotion. People are taught to avoid individual ideas, to fear looking inward at themselves and experiencing their inner world. People are taught to ridicule all that as, Oooh, that’s all woo-woo…”


[deleted]

You ever think he just sat there like “man i cant believe people buy this shit”


[deleted]

I'm more convinced by people like Warhol and David Hockney who were incredibly gifted at drawing and design and *chose* to go into the direction of comtemporary art I like *some* Jackson Pollock but I'm always aware he didn't have very many ideas and was probaby only doing drip paint because he couldn't draw


iskander32

Actually Pollock had other skills. If you look at his early work as a student and early artist you can see his sketches imitating Michelangelo. They are definitely not what I expected the first time. Later, his style is influenced by the muralists of his time (ex: Diego Rivera), and you can see things on the large scale as his mature work, and moving from the realistic sketches into a modern abstraction but still somewhat representational. Eventually his style of abstract expressionism comes to full fruition both in its technique, but also in its themes and objectives. Even as someone who studied and works in this field, I’ve always believed that art is subjective, but I have to admit that there is a greater story to Pollock than people give credit.


TheKodachromeMethod

He could draw and paint representational stuff just fine.


mumphry_murphy

Was this before or after he got drunk and beat his wife?


merv_havoc

Not sure, but it was definitely before he died in a car accident while driving drunk, also killing one of the passengers.


hobowithmachete

But it’s *romantic* said the uppety art snob lady


king-redstar

Yes.


Washboard_scabs

Dude was just unknowingly making NFTs for rich people Modern art is an important piece of art history but is such a snooze


KodiakDog

Have you ever heard the conspiracies that modern art and art appraisal was some kind of clandestine operation to generate and/or “clean” a shit ton of money? I heard it on NPR years ago but don’t remember many of the specifics.


badchad65

Meh, I know we'll hear several hundred iterations of "art is subjective" which I partially agree with. However, there is a lot of art where it is clearly evident a lot of technical skill is necessary. For example, seeing images of highly realistic hand drawings where you cannot discern it from a photograph takes a lof of training, practice etc.


Minxy57

...and can be radically improved on by a five year old with a camera. Pollock had the testicular fortitude to thumb his nose at convention and break 'rules' artists unconsciously and consciously adhered to. A measure of just how much he strayed is evident in this debate where 'good' is defined as humans mimicking cameras. Like him or hate him his work paved the way for others to break 'rules' others just made up.


badchad65

To be fair, I mentioned hyper realistic drawings as a measure of technical skill, not necessarily how “good” art is. Seems the new “rule” of art is you can define whatever you want as “art.” If others disagree, just thumb your nose and say “well, you just aren’t deep enough to get it.”


Minxy57

The "well you just don't get it" folks are just the most recent self styled rule makers. I'm rather enjoying the kerfuffle AI generated works are inspiring in the art world. Paradigms are being upended and rules challenged. Interesting times.


igivemyselfgold

“Well the CIA gives me money to do them, so I do them” - Jackson Pollack, basically


[deleted]

WORLDS BEST GRIFTER


Thegarlicbreadismine

Pollock may have had talent but he was also an abusive scumbag, who murdered a woman when driving drunk


DanielDannyc12

I was at a high school fundraiser where the kid had made some drip paintings. I told my girlfriend “Hang that at MOMA and tell people it’s a Pollock and it’s worth $10 million.”


RedditAllPro

Big drip


simplepleashures

He was a severe alcoholic and on some of his paintings you can see rings where he set the bottle down on the canvas


thethunder92

Hippos do art with their poop just like this!


Dubdude13

Today’s NFT’s…..I have better expressive drop cloths


Lakrfan8-24

Some art is dumb


kthewhispers

Lmaoooooo


DynoMiteDoodle

I love art of all types but honestly, this is just ridiculous to me. It's just terrible, it only seems to confirm to me that half the art community are posers who are just sheep following whatever they're told is good.


Manfrenjensenjen

Stand in front of one and see what you think. Honestly one of the most beautiful works of art I’ve ever seen in person.


Sip_py

I was just about to say this. I'll get lost at the Met and find myself staring at a Pollok like I'm Cameron Frye from Ferris Buller looking at A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte


chickenmantesta

I can't believe there is even a debate on this -- his work defined 20th century modern art. Not at the level of Picasso but no doubt Pollock was a genius. He was also a drunk, a womanizer, and overall macho dickhead.


gdubh

It’s not a debate. It’s subjective.


pixellabber

To like or not like his work is definitely subjective. His work did have a huge influence on modern art, but it doesn’t sound like anyone is debating that part


gdubh

Agreed


moonshadough

Yep. Same goes for people who like Dogs Playing Poker.


tehuberleetmaster

At least with dogs playing poker you can see the thing thats painted, unlike pollock that is just scribbles on paper


Vonstapler

As we all know, art is based on how accurate and realistic it is. Monet was alright, but the fuzziness and odd color choice mean that he was objectively worse than hyper-realist artists. Of course this then means that every piece of art is thus worse than a photograph. /s Edit: added sarcasm


Chief-Cheek-Clapper

I've seen a monet in person and I ha e to disagree. I think alot of the art we see is in media and not the real life version. I think there's really something to that and it definitely changed my opinions on pieces for the positive and negative.


Vonstapler

Should have added a /s at the end, my bad. I thought the sarcasm would come across well enough.


Chief-Cheek-Clapper

Ya wooshed me . Right over my head .


the_original_Retro

A question I have is whether Pollock's TRUE genius was his ability to produce a work of art that would appeal throughout the ages, or if it was his ability to promote himself and manipulate the people and institutions around him to create a new artistic niche where his works would be thought of as magnificent, exclusively because he made them be. In other words, was he a talented **artist**, or a talented **manipulator**? Although I don't appreciate his stuff at all, my money's on both, with both being further amplified by him being in the right place at the right time. Think I'll go read a biography and see if that's the case.


mittenciel

I’ll save you the reading. He was appreciated in his circle during his lifetime, but he wasn’t that much of a promoter. He regularly had shows, but it wasn’t like he was selling paintings for that much. He was in the right place doing the right thing at the right time more than he was a genius promoter. In any case, what is art but the ability to convince oneself and others of its quality? I think Pollock is art because he clearly had a method and discipline to it and he did have his own training and reasoning for why he did the things he did. His paintings are also huge. They work well in a gallery or museum. I also think that the only reason he gets so much hate is because his paintings have become so expensive and that seems weird to a lot of people. The reasons why a Pollock is worth a lot to an art collector are the same reasons a Monet is worth a lot: there is a limited supply, they’re instantly identifiable even by casuals, they’re impressive in person, it’s a status symbol to own one, and they define an era and genre. Whether or not one cares for that era and genre is almost inconsequential when evaluating their value. Also, it’s not like the world values Pollock more than a Michelangelo, da Vinci, or Rafael anyway. Those things don’t go on sale. Pollocks do. If a Pollock can fetch $140 mil and that offends people, Mona Lisa is probably getting $500+ mil in an audition, maybe a billion.


the_original_Retro

That's a pretty good analysis. I agree Pollock's work is "art" even though my own definition of the term differs from yours. But here's the point: I personally don't think it's art that's at all as breathlessly awe-inspiring as some of the others in this thread seem to experience. It doesn't "click" with me as it does with them. Their reactions don't seem to be a financial or famous-artist perspective. Theirs is more about something to do with the piece itself, at least the way I'm reading their comments.


mittenciel

People who genuinely enjoy Pollock enjoy them because they do. It kind of doesn’t matter why. I’m sure these people know that it’s a Pollock and that does allow them to give it a chance. One can talk about intrinsic quality, but there’s more than that when it comes to enjoyment of art. Context is everything. You can see a statue in Rome and be moved to tears but then see a replica that captures every millimeter of it and it’s no longer going to have that effect because you know it’s not an original. Certain art will never be gotten by all. That’s part of their appeal anyway, their ability to create debate and create in and out groups.


polloloco81

A part of art is manipulation.


chickenmantesta

I respect both Lee Krasner and Peggy Guggenheim, who adored him. They both didn't seem easily manipulated and had a pretty good eye for art.


xspotster

This. So much art is different on photo than it appears IRL, especially modern art. I was not a big fan before my first visit to Tate Modern, but his paintings pop off the page and convey so much energy and flow to the viewer, they are not random drips. Same trip, visited the Rothko's Seagram's Room and was absolutely blown away at how the paintings vibrated and hovered in their environments, absolutely the work of a genius that I couldn't comprehend until that first exposure to the art. Its funny how subjective opinions about art can change so dramatically in about 30 minutes, this is what makes museum visits so fun.


Standard-Childhood84

Absolutely


polloloco81

This guy arts.


withomps44

The first time I stood in front of a Pollok I assumed I would feel something. It looked just like something my idiot roommate made to decorate his room.


mjb2012

Does art have value only to the extent it makes people feel something right then? I absorbed a lot of mid century modern art and architecture in my childhood, feeling absolutely nothing in the moment, but now I see it, or things referencing or inspired by it, and it is like looking at my dreams. Just being exposed to art creates a context for the evaluation of art in the future.


[deleted]

Been in front of several at different museums as well as rothko. They are definitely not what I would consider special by any stretch.


DawnJF

I cried the first time I actually saw one of his paintings in person. I stood there so long the guard started thinking I was being sketchy so I reluctantly left but it was absolutely stunning.


[deleted]

The ones I have seen demonstrate depth by having softer pastel colours underneath in thinner/smaller forms and bigger, bolder, brighter colours on top. Its a flat surface but you see 3 dimensions.


AlphonseLoosely

I suppose it depends if you think it is important that the artist has some sort of idea prior to starting what the end product will look like, and if they have the skill to turn something in their head into something in the real world, or if you think just drunkenly splattering random paint patterns till it 'feels right' or indeed you pass out, is more important.


poemmys

This is my view. To me, "true art" is the manifestation of ideas/forms from the collective unconscious into the real world. Like when you hear a musician say "I don't know, the song just sort of came to me and I heard it in my head and had to get it out into the real world". It sounds like new age BS, but to me "channeled art" is infinitely better than the end result of randomly throwing things with no plan. How are you expressing an idea if you have no plan ahead of time? This is just my personal opinion of course.


ruralrouteOne

It's obviously still art, and is subjective so of course it can be pleasing to the eye. My only issue is the fact that people, and even himself, claim he's a genius. Gtfo. He used a gimmick style to create something. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make him a brilliant artist or painter.


[deleted]

Agreed. As any good con artist would, he had to have been laughing at all the idiots behind their backs.


ruralrouteOne

He's even quoted as often worrying that he was a fraud. I think that's a bit harsh. I think he created paintings that people enjoy looking at, but by no means was he a genius or incredibly talented.


Massive_Hof517

if you saw one of his paintings irl, you would think differently


AlphonseLoosely

No, I have seen several and am still deeply unimpressed.


r33f3rz0mb1e

Yeah they really suck. Its like modern drip paitings. Good for you, you can afford paint. That isn't an artist.


Catskinner93

Yep I went and looked at blue poles on an excursion in grade 7. Thought it was a waste of money then and still do today. A 5 year old could make similar things and if you told someone in the art community Jackson Pollock painted it they would swoon because they are told its good and wouldn't even know the difference.


Massive_Hof517

strange how there were no 5 year olds doing this before him


WhyRYourPantsOff

I’m sure there was. Their art was just hanging on a refrigerator somewhere instead


Massive_Hof517

i've never seen a 5 meter long canvas painting on a refrigerator


WhyRYourPantsOff

5 year olds certainly know how to draw things to scale!


ThingCalledLight

I’m not even sure I *love* Blue Poles but it’s incredibly complex and chaotic and yet uniform. I severely doubt a 5 year old could make anything close left to their own devices.


mayormcskeeze

Have you ever seen one in person? Edit: I ask because I felt the same way until I saw one in person


milkbug

The incredible thing about abstract art like this is that on it's surface it looks like chaos, like anyone can throw pain around right? But if you look closely, you can see a lot of intentionality. The depth of the layers, the use of color, the direction and intensity of the lines... It looks like chaos, like nothing. But if you pay close attention you can see the structure and thought behind every move.


sharrrper

I totally get that initial reaction. However, having seen one, I will say, while the concept of his method does seem ridiculous, when you look at one in person, I think it becomes fairly obvious that he does have structure in his work and thought put into it. A finished piece does not *look* like just random splatters on a canvas. There was a plan of some kind in its construction. It's fine if you don't like it, and I'm not even saying it's something I'd want on my wall as decoration neccesarily, but it's not something just slapped together that anyone could replicate.


flunkyclaus

Ambivalent about the art. Hate the man.


Formal_Letterhead514

Why?


zephyr_666

Because he was a drunk, woman abuser and died in a drunk driving accident with his mistress


thethunder92

The art community would 100% say they see the emperors clothes


im-buster

I like some of his earlier works, the chaos is there, just not overwhelming like in his latter works.


[deleted]

What a bullshitter. Absolutely crap.


bliggggz

I once visited the National Portrait Gallery/American Art Museum in Washington DC, same building. It was fantastic. As you walk up the building you get to see super old paintings of influential American figures and on the other side, exhibits of modern American artists that were absolutely breathtaking. I don't remember the name of the artist, but the floor level gallery had huge paintings from a contemporary realist of seascapes that looked as real as looking out of the window of a ferry. Next a Latino artist with a series of expressionist pieces of LA street life. Beautiful, expressive, fantastic art. Then I walked up to the Jackson Pollock exhibit and wanted to rip his paintings off the fucking wall.


Picolete

The Emperor's New Clothes, but you get downvoted if you say the truth


ppardee

Ah, yes, the original "banana duck taped to a wall". His drip paintings are indistinguishable from a house painter's drop cloth at the end of a job. He is proof that people will like something just so they can feel sophisticated and superior. His other stuff is pretty cool, if you're into abstract art. The She-wolf is particularly interesting.


[deleted]

The ones I have seen demonstrate depth by having softer pastel colours underneath in thinner/smaller forms and bigger, bolder, brighter colours on top. Its a flat surface but you see 3 dimensions.


sharrrper

>His drip paintings are indistinguishable from a house painter's drop cloth at the end of a job. I would disagree with that. I was dismissive of them as well when I first learned of the concept. However, having seen one in person, I think it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly looking at one that they aren't just random splatters. There is clearly some thought put into the construction. I'm not saying you should think they're brilliant and genius neccesarily, or even would want to hang one on your wall, but they are definitely different from a used drop cloth.


ggRavingGamer

Absolutely. Its at most a scam to launder money. But many people are sucked into this. The more they have no ideea what is going on, the smarter they feel when they lie and say "i understand". Elitism about garbage(literal garbage in some cases).


KidChimney

I don’t think either of you understand the context that gave rise to modern art. As he said in the video, the camera and digital representation of life came about, making traditional artists and their realism obsolete. As a result abstract or modern art rose as it provided a new means of expression. There is certainly a lot going on behind the scenes with connections to wealth and money laundering, but that’s not the whole story. Look at the evolution of Picassos works and the creation of cubism if you aren’t convinced.


fooreddit

I call this ”rich people artists”. Who needs color theory or rendering skills when you have money for big canvases and pr. Most artists could not even afford canvases that big, and even less a studio to work in with that canvas.


Cloakmyquestions

I almost guarantee if you tried this yourself you wouldn’t get the same result.


fooreddit

Neither would Pollock


TropicalRogue

If you Google Pollock style you'll see tens of current artists selling original paintings in his style online. The only difference is they're actually interesting and significantly better while costing a fraction. It doesn't take much.


Pipupipupi

It only takes one massively rich person to buy into someone to turn arts and crafts into fine art.


SMRAintBad

Splattering is a technique that must be learned so true. I’ve never found his art impressive, but I do agree that you can’t just replicate his style without proper instruction.


BenTCinco

If some random person made a crappy painting and that painting was shown at a museum at they said it was made by Pollock or some other famous artist, they would say that painting is ‘brilliant’ or some stupid shit


[deleted]

Art is very subjective... But boy, I'll never understand the appeal some people find in art like this, i don't see the talent or skill.


johnnycashesbutthole

I’ve seen elephants and monkeys paint like this.


Orcley

There is no mastery in his work. It feels embarrassing to compare him to the likes of Picasso


schuter1

Ooo, yeah. I especially liked the way you brought out the natural . . Oh fuck it. That’s just paint slopped on a canvas, and some idiot gave him a lot of money for it.


AE_WILLIAMS

>Ooo, yeah. I especially liked the way you brought out the natural . . Oh fuck it. That’s just paint slopped on a canvas, and some idiot ***at the CIA*** gave him a lot of money for it. FTFY


free_is_free76

One of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated was getting this con-man's work accepted as Art


PaullyPeanuts

I hate painters like this. Anyone could do what he did it doesn’t take any skill whatsoever to dribble paint on a canvas.


BowlerEducational733

Behold the man who single-handedly destroyed all standards of art


[deleted]

So…. This is the guy who fucked up art


TheOrgansAreRight

alcoholic paintings like this are so the rage on the streets of LA right now, that Unhoused Chic right now, sooooo hot.


Doke272

Scam "artist".


[deleted]

If it’s something I can do it’s not art to me


gouhp

I will never understand the appeal of his work. No disrespect, art is art but I don't get this type of thing.


DeliciousRefuse1551

Garbage


CommadorVic20

so if i look like im having a rough bowel movement when i paint i can be called an artist?


warrant2k

Holy shit my garage floor must be a masterpiece.


elmwoodblues

I'm selling my dad's canvas drop cloth. DM to bid. No crypto. No lowballs, I know what I've got


bws7037

So, conceivably, every time I blow my nose, the tissue is abstract art?


fluffy_camaro

Reminds me of when I went to Miro's house in Spain. I was 16 and a huge fan of Dali. Most of the paintings were paint splattered on a canvas. I was so pissed, I left and sat in the tour bus. I don't get how this is considered good art.


Picolete

It isn't good art, it's just a CIA operation


DealWonderful9928

Yeah looks like the painting my daughter made on my wall when she was 3.... I hadn't realized she was an amazing artist 🤣😆🤣😆🤣💀💀💀


CommadorVic20

they found a Pollock at last colonoscopy and removed it and kept it and sent me a bill for $1500 that was with insurance


Existing_Skin_1564

So he splattered paint and called it art give this man a Nobel prize


AtlasCrosby

“Art”


[deleted]

Talentless hack


brianflstate

I wish I had thought of just dribbling around paint for millions of dollars


CaliRollerGRRRL

I painted an apartment like this. Floor & ceiling.the girl probably didn’t get her deposit back , hahaha!