The first time I ever saw a painting by Jackson Pollock I was in 6th grade and I thought, "How in the world is a mess like that considered great art!?" Jackson Pollock is one of the best know of the Abstract artists, and his work is easy to identify as his. His personal style is to lay the canvas on the floor and walk around it dripping and splashing paint onto it.
He wished to show random action which would express the unconscious mind instead of a preconceived subject. On page 86 of our book it states Pollock believed that his canvases are "apt metaphors for an age that defined physical reality in terms of process, uncertainty, and chance." He also liked to think of his canvases as having lives of their own which were controlled by himself.
I do not believe that Pollock's works are at all beautiful. To me, he is a lot like Pablo Picasso. While I do not find the works of either one particularly pleasing to the eye they are both very famous artists. Picasso is famous for his Cubist work and Pollock is known for his Abstract work. Each man was able to effectively create and express a totally new concept of art. I think that I would be able to do a decent job of replicating the "drip method", but what makes Pollock so great is that he was able to actually create action painting before it had ever been imagined. All in all, I think that both Picasso and Pollock are considered great because they both invented new ways of expressing themselves.
I completely agree with your point of view on both Pollock's work and Picasso's. I don't enjoy looking at either of their works, and i don't think it takes a lot of skill to do them. Just like you said, almost anyone with a paintbrush could do something like one of these paintings. But these men did think of doing it first and I guess if you have a new idea, no matter if it's pleasing to the eye or not or simple to create or not, you'll probably be commended for it.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about Pollock. I don’t consider myself an artistically talented person at all, but I think I could easily make paintings like the ones that Pollock made. I guess the artistic part about his work is his ideas behind his paintings and the fact that he was the first person to do anything like that. I’m not sure I agree with you about Picasso’s works. I don’t think that his works are very pleasing to look at, but I think what he did took a lot of artistic talent, and I don’t think that just anyone could do what he did. Ultimately, I think both Picasso and Pollock are famous because they both started new movements that were completely different from what other artists of their times were doing.
ReplyDeleteI also blogged about Jackson Pollock and said pretty much the same thing. Anyone could replicate his artwork but since he was the first he is considered "great." The caption in our textbook for the "Lavendar Mist" painting said that this composition "anticipated some of the photographs of outer space taken in the mid 1990s by the Hubble space telescope." I think that is a complete joke. I honestly think Pollock was just splattering paint, not thinking about what outer space would look like.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Pollock's art. There are no forms to his paintings, it just splattered on a canvas. I think the beauty of art is found in the meaning portrayed, and I can't even begin to find meaning in this. Picasso at least gave a little bit of a form to look at and wonder about.
ReplyDelete