[There are some NSFW images at the bottom of the post]
"Every good painter paints what he is." - Jackson Pollock
It does not behoove an artist to say a good artist paints what he is and then proceed to paint the splatter of eviscerated remains floating on the cold, inky, blackness of a bottomless, patch of ocean. At night. Randomly.
Jackson Pollock, was an influential American painter and a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. He was well known for his unique style of drip painting
Oh. Oh. Is that what you call it? I used to know this guy in school, Claire, and during the summer he worked on the maintenance crew of the college, painting and repainting classrooms. He would paint his work boots with the colour of paint he was using at that time. In time his boots had a multi-layered, industrial pastel rainbow appearance. That was art compared to Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionist drip style.
"It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well." - Jackson Pollock
Pure harmony when it works? A mess when he loses contact? Well, I fail to see the difference.
|I think I can almost see something in this one. Coffee stains.|
|Komodo dragon with a buffalo body?|
"I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own" - Jackson Pollock
No fear destroying the image? Well done, then. If destroying the image is what an artist sets out to accomplish, and he accomplishes it, is that art?
Art as a subject is too existential for me. I need for things to make sense and art doesn't follow rules. In fact the rule is that there are no rules. If I have to stand and look at a piece of art and try and find meaning in it, it has failed by my standards. If I have to think about anything to 'get' it, it's failed.
Standing on a huge canvas dripping paint all over it requires no talent. Just because it's big doesn't make it art and just because someone tells me it's art, doesn't meant I have to accept it. If I can recreate what this artist does, it's not art. Not to me, but then that's the "art is subjective" BS we're fed. If he thinks it's art, it's art. Art as a subject is a huge, flaky, pompous pain in the ass to me.
Which sounds a lot like Jackson Pollock himself. He used to paint with a stick while dropping cigarette ashes all over his canvases but I don't really care about that. A movie based on the man's life was released in 2000.
Over at this sight, Arthur Ball also dislikes Jackson Pollock and thinks he's an asshole as well. He created the above inanimate trebuchet Jackson Pollack painting creator. He says:
I made this to mock Jackson. It is a trebuchet. When you push the arm and brush down into the troth below filled with paint, then release it, the arm will fling paint forward to create splatters. People say sometimes that their child could create a Jackson Pollock. Well, I say an inanimate object can create a Jackson pollock painting.
And then there's art that's just ugly. I like art to be attractive. It doesn't have to be photorealistic or anything. It can follow many styles and mediums but it has to be attractive in some way. This is not attractive:
This is called "Gravity" by Michael Haussman. It's a video installation and here is a write up if you want to check it out. It is described:
Each of the five subjects is filmed in slow motion, floating upward then descending down to the earth, where they bottom out in gravity's clutch. Yet each person is magically stationary. They do not move an inch. All that moves is their skin, cellulite, muscles, bones, and expression, creating a disturbing yet beautiful shift in body mass and emotion. Even the background stays perplexingly still. The total effect is that of a moving painting.
OK whatever. If it was a scientific study of the visual effect of gravity on bodies, large and small, I would say it was interesting and filmed in an artsy way, but as art? Just art? I don't get it. "disturbing yet beautiful"? "A moving painting"? It annoyed the hell out of me. Maybe it's my inferior video card but the movement was nearly undetectable and who needs to see breasts bouncing up and down elongating to their* apex and nader because their owner is bouncing naked on a trampoline? Is this supposed to be Baroque video art a la Rubens? Yeah, no..
GRAVITY was chosen by LA Weekly as one of “10 Great Artworks at Art Platform Los Angeles Art Fair 2012”. Go figure.
*the Lad walked in here to say something to me, saw the "Gravity" video's capture of the redheaded woman, forgot what he was going to say, walked into the hallway and started banging his head on the wall saying: "No. No. No. No" in mock anguish. I rest my case.