Jackson Pollock Is a Horrible Artist

[Fifty]

since its his birthday or something every stupid place on the stupinet is talking about Jackson Pollock

CAN SOMEONE WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT ART EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HIS CRAPPY CRAP IS CONSIDERED SO GOOD?

Is it just the usual lame stupid "avant garde" crap that is the entire core reason why nobody gives a crap about painting anymore?

Why is it the case that if you do something crappy first you become a milionaire and tons of artsyfartsy idiots love you, but if you do something crappy second you are derivative and not avant-garde and you dont understand the true meaning of the piece blah blah blah

THANKS

OOH ITS SO DARING AND EXPRESSIVE SOMEONE PELASE PAY ME $100 MILLION DOLLARS

 

[Godwynn]

Genius.

 

[Mowque]

You have to do it first...that's the key

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Look what he did to Google.

 

[truckingpete]

yah thats where i saw the jackson pollock thing on google. I study this artist. He seemed different, but if he's making money for that, hey more power to him

 

[JtheJackal]

yah thats where i saw the jackson pollock thing on google. I study this artist. He seemed different, but if he's making money for that, hey more power to him

Jackson Pollock is dead, he died in 1956

 

[eastsidebagel]

Fifty, you are absolutely right on everything you just said. Pollock is an untalented nobody who just have been to happen the first who drew this kind of silly, meaningless crap.

 

[negZero]

Now I wish I remembered my art teacher's rant on people like Pollock cause he hit the nail on the head with it

 

[amadeus]

Agreed. Stinkeroo.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I wondered why Google looked like that.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Mr. Pollock is an artists who gets paid for fooling around and contributing close to nothing to the World of Arts for which the common intellectual elitist whore admires him...
'nuff said.

 

[JtheJackal]

Whats really frustrating is people who dismiss the work because all they think it is random splotches of paint. Don't ask me to explain it because I don't see it, but people who do think Pollock is a great artist have adequately explained it to me enough that I believe Pollock deserves his place in art history.

I wish I could repeat their reasoning here, but it was a while ago.

 

[Left]

Define art.
PS:
I'd rather have a Jackson Pollack than a Thomas Kinkaid.
PPS
if you would rather have a Thomas Kinkaid you are a boring person. very boring.

 

[Perfection]

Okay, I have to say it again.

I like Jackson Pollock's drip paintings.

There's something engrossing about staring at a Pollock painting, it's vibrant, it's chaotic it's lively. It's also something noone considered doing.

Bringing to the world an interesting new visual form (which I'd say Jackson Pollock's paintings are) may not be something worthy of tremendous accolades or millions of dollars but not worthy of scorn.

I conclusion, you're just jealous you didn't come up with it First, Fiddy.

 

[Trajan12]

Pollock's paintings are interesting because there are no real focal points. And without focal points, you're left wandering through the intricacies of the pattern.

It might look like nothing, but it's really meticulous enough to get lost in. I can focus on that for longer than even some more traditional paintings.

Plus, I'd consider the Jason Pollocks of the world essential. if it wasn't for people constantly pushing the bounds of what is considered aesthetically pleasing, we wouldn't have a lot of the mediums we have today. Some succeed at doing this, others fall into obscurity. But there need to be enough people trying.

 

[potatokiosk]

I like Pollock's paintings. I get a feeling from looking at one that I don't get from someone who tries to imitate it but can't do it properly because they think it's just a bunch of paint splattered around.

 

[Fifty]

The only stupid reason why his crappy junk is complicated is because he took a long ass time to make them... people who imitate him for mockery purposes (like me) spend like 30 seconds making their imitation... If anybody had the slightest inclination to spend a long time pissing paint all over the place they could duplicate one of his paintings.

Of course, the "big name" effect will make people tend to still judge to Pollock better, but the REAL question is whether they would pick the Pollock as better in a blind judging, not knowing who's was what. I BET THEY COULDN'T.

I aint got a problem with people being like "hey its kinda neat and complicated" but the idea that its high art is NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Leonel]

You see the verbatim of the pullassary present in this piece is existentially subsequent as that the viewers brusselsprout is rigamorized by the asqueliance of the rumpunch.

 

[Soil]

I've only first seen his works because of google changing their logo for that day... it reminded me of a very old painters overalls.

Here's a 1 minute job I made to express what I thought:

 

[emzie]

The very fact that people are still debating what he created 50 years ago is more a testament than any classically-trained soulless painted who recreates landscapes.

It's not a matter of what he did, but the process of how he got there. If a random guy dripped paint into a canvas, danced around it with flinging and splattering and kicking, people would only notice to say "uh... nutter" Pollock built up to what people debate. His earlier work, though not what I'd call traditionalist-inspired, captured the feel of the sandpaintings he'd seen as a kid. There was something primal to it. Something that can't be grasped by just looking at One: Number 31, 1950 and not taking into account what preceded it.

All that said, his work really isn't my thing.