I don't know, I feel like Basquiat hits me more like punk rock than Pollock, Pollock really feels like the visual equivalent of noise music. I feel like his process comes closer to some of the Danger Music guys, in terms of the physicality of the process and the reactions it elicits on people that aren't familiar to it. Which is weird because I get and like lots of those artists but I just don't get Pollock, I even like some of his non-drip works but I don't get it.
I saw 2 Pollocks drip paintings live. They're like layered spider webs. You can tell that he walked around the paintings and thought about what went where. You can see how deliberate he was. You can see the energy, artistry, and time he put into those paintings! Still not my cup of coffee, but I learned a LOT!
I've had the same experience as others with a real life Pollock - I was mesmerized. I've seen several and certainly some touch me more than others, but they are very physical.
One point I think would have been useful for the "con" side is the confirmed fact that the CIA put a lot of funding into abstract/postmodern art during the Cold War period, including Pollock's work, because they wanted to have creative works to be pointed to as proof of capitalism's ideological and cultural superiority over the Soviet Union. it's not Pollock's fault and he likely didn't have any idea that's where the money was really coming from, but it seems likely that had there not been a great deal of govt money put into secretly pushing his paintings, he would never have been considered so great. Then again what I just said kind of goes for any art, if the art market defines what's "great", then what becomes considered "great art" is exclusively up to the taste of the super-rich patrons in every case. A piece of art can only be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if one of the few people with that kind of money to spend is willing to spend it on that piece; ordinary people don't have the means to give a piece high market value whether they want to or not. in that sense, is getting your bump from CIA funding really any different from getting it from any other super-wealthy patron? In any case, under capitalism it's going to be the ruling class that decides what art will be considered "the best." Notably as part of the Cold War ideological struggle, the CIA tended to fund art without apparent values/"meaning"/sense of narrative and I feel like the drip paintings fit that bill nicely in their kind of one-note, isolated blind emotion. That doesn't make the paintings bad in themselves! But I think it makes sense why the US govt found them worth pushing as "great art" in service of the postmodern "there are no grand narratives that explain history" cultural wave--which was intended to wipe out the Marxist, historical materialist view of history that argues that truth is a concrete and discoverable thing after all. The Soviet Union had its own political problems of course, but there was a lot of damn good art. Pollock's drip paintings make a striking impression, but there's a lot of Soviet art, including abstract art, that I'd take over Pollock in a heartbeat. He's not bad, but I think it's hard to argue that he's not over-hyped. "He probably got tired while painting" isn't a good enough argument for why the painting is amazing. It doesn't seem to me like there's anything to the technique that doesn't allow for taking breaks!
One of my first steps to learning how to paint was the tried but true, "Learn from the Masters". I knew I was too 'tight'. I saw some of Pollok's motion paintings via Norman Rockwell and decided to try it. Step 1) Cover everything with plastic tarps. 2) Make a 'canvas' with a bunch of newspaper. It's a learning exercise, not a 'keeper'. 3) thin out some cheap acrylics so they drip and flow. 4) start flinging paint artistically allowing the layers to dry so you get an actual 'Pollock'. It was an interesting visually pleasing mess. After I did a few of these, it loosened me up which was my main goal. I also learned about the flow of paint, when to stop and let the paint dry so I don't end up with mud, layering paint for texture and visual effects and a WHOLE lot about color! When I disassembled my 'canvases', I found I had several sections that were pleasing enough to repurpose as collage fodder!
I have a really hard time liking abstract art. I think some can be good and some can be bad. I think his process may have been the bigger message of his art as opposed to the pieces. I don’t know, I’m conflicted😂😂
Abstract art is totally hit or miss! Some people love the outcomes, and other people can't stand it. Either way, it's totally fine :) Thanks for watching! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
In our "Crit Clash" videos, we assign a point of view to each artist for the purposes of this debate. Our intent with these debates is to provide a broader look at how artists and artworks are perceived. The arguments that you hear our staff artists present within this video are not necessarily what their true opinions are on the artist/artworks in real life. In many cases our staff artists may well be presenting arguments that are the opposite of their true opinion. After the live stream ends, we meet in the #crit-clash-reveals channel in the Art Prof Discord server (invite link: discord.gg/g5XQRpT) so that our staff can reveal what their true opinions are, so please join us there! Watch our Crit Clash video on Salvador Dali’s Persistence of Memory: ua-cam.com/video/EaTCIq2FK78/v-deo.html
Cool discussion. I mean, there’s no such thing as objectively “good art”. One person might be drawn to visually recognizable pieces such as a Monet or any renaissance artist, whilst others are drawn to the unrecognizable interpretive pieces by Pollock. I think it’s anti-intellectual to describe art as good or bad. Just because a piece doesn’t convey something visually recognizable, doesn’t mean it’s not art or that it’s objectively bad. I think a lot of people dislike abstract art because it doesn’t tell us what to see. Instead, we have to observe and deconstruct it in order to ascribe our own interpretations to it. It’s our job as observers to find meaning, not the abstract artist. And, for a lot of people, they don’t like having to interpret things for themselves. They prefer to be told what to interpret.
This is a great point! I think everyone has different tastes, and they're allowed to enjoy what they enjoy simply because they like it. Sadly, the art world isn't that simple! Thanks for watching :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
The problem is that he is making a statement that is very simple. But if you don't have access to this very simple statement really aimed squarely at artists who know art history, you can't see anything. There is literally nothing to deconstruct. It is paint on a canvas. I like it, but the only meaning it has is a contextual one.
Yay so glad you found a sponsorship!!!!! I’ve been using them for art classes
So are we! Thank you :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
For me Jackson pollocks artwork reminds me of punk rock if it was a painter
Oh that's a great way to put it!! - Mia, Art Prof Staff
I don't know, I feel like Basquiat hits me more like punk rock than Pollock, Pollock really feels like the visual equivalent of noise music. I feel like his process comes closer to some of the Danger Music guys, in terms of the physicality of the process and the reactions it elicits on people that aren't familiar to it. Which is weird because I get and like lots of those artists but I just don't get Pollock, I even like some of his non-drip works but I don't get it.
I saw 2 Pollocks drip paintings live. They're like layered spider webs. You can tell that he walked around the paintings and thought about what went where. You can see how deliberate he was. You can see the energy, artistry, and time he put into those paintings! Still not my cup of coffee, but I learned a LOT!
I've had the same experience as others with a real life Pollock - I was mesmerized. I've seen several and certainly some touch me more than others, but they are very physical.
That's a great way to describe his paintings! They are very physical. - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
One point I think would have been useful for the "con" side is the confirmed fact that the CIA put a lot of funding into abstract/postmodern art during the Cold War period, including Pollock's work, because they wanted to have creative works to be pointed to as proof of capitalism's ideological and cultural superiority over the Soviet Union. it's not Pollock's fault and he likely didn't have any idea that's where the money was really coming from, but it seems likely that had there not been a great deal of govt money put into secretly pushing his paintings, he would never have been considered so great.
Then again what I just said kind of goes for any art, if the art market defines what's "great", then what becomes considered "great art" is exclusively up to the taste of the super-rich patrons in every case. A piece of art can only be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if one of the few people with that kind of money to spend is willing to spend it on that piece; ordinary people don't have the means to give a piece high market value whether they want to or not. in that sense, is getting your bump from CIA funding really any different from getting it from any other super-wealthy patron? In any case, under capitalism it's going to be the ruling class that decides what art will be considered "the best."
Notably as part of the Cold War ideological struggle, the CIA tended to fund art without apparent values/"meaning"/sense of narrative and I feel like the drip paintings fit that bill nicely in their kind of one-note, isolated blind emotion. That doesn't make the paintings bad in themselves! But I think it makes sense why the US govt found them worth pushing as "great art" in service of the postmodern "there are no grand narratives that explain history" cultural wave--which was intended to wipe out the Marxist, historical materialist view of history that argues that truth is a concrete and discoverable thing after all.
The Soviet Union had its own political problems of course, but there was a lot of damn good art. Pollock's drip paintings make a striking impression, but there's a lot of Soviet art, including abstract art, that I'd take over Pollock in a heartbeat. He's not bad, but I think it's hard to argue that he's not over-hyped. "He probably got tired while painting" isn't a good enough argument for why the painting is amazing. It doesn't seem to me like there's anything to the technique that doesn't allow for taking breaks!
One of my first steps to learning how to paint was the tried but true, "Learn from the Masters". I knew I was too 'tight'. I saw some of Pollok's motion paintings via Norman Rockwell and decided to try it. Step 1) Cover everything with plastic tarps. 2) Make a 'canvas' with a bunch of newspaper. It's a learning exercise, not a 'keeper'. 3) thin out some cheap acrylics so they drip and flow. 4) start flinging paint artistically allowing the layers to dry so you get an actual 'Pollock'. It was an interesting visually pleasing mess. After I did a few of these, it loosened me up which was my main goal. I also learned about the flow of paint, when to stop and let the paint dry so I don't end up with mud, layering paint for texture and visual effects and a WHOLE lot about color! When I disassembled my 'canvases', I found I had several sections that were pleasing enough to repurpose as collage fodder!
This sounds so fun to mess around with! I bet experimenting like Pollock really feels like an exercise in control - Mia, Art Prof Staff
I have a really hard time liking abstract art. I think some can be good and some can be bad. I think his process may have been the bigger message of his art as opposed to the pieces. I don’t know, I’m conflicted😂😂
Abstract art is totally hit or miss! Some people love the outcomes, and other people can't stand it. Either way, it's totally fine :) Thanks for watching! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
In our "Crit Clash" videos, we assign a point of view to each artist for the purposes of this debate. Our intent with these debates is to provide a broader look at how artists and artworks are perceived. The arguments that you hear our staff artists present within this video are not necessarily what their true opinions are on the artist/artworks in real life. In many cases our staff artists may well be presenting arguments that are the opposite of their true opinion. After the live stream ends, we meet in the #crit-clash-reveals channel in the Art Prof Discord server (invite link: discord.gg/g5XQRpT) so that our staff can reveal what their true opinions are, so please join us there! Watch our Crit Clash video on Salvador Dali’s Persistence of Memory: ua-cam.com/video/EaTCIq2FK78/v-deo.html
Cool discussion. I mean, there’s no such thing as objectively “good art”. One person might be drawn to visually recognizable pieces such as a Monet or any renaissance artist, whilst others are drawn to the unrecognizable interpretive pieces by Pollock.
I think it’s anti-intellectual to describe art as good or bad. Just because a piece doesn’t convey something visually recognizable, doesn’t mean it’s not art or that it’s objectively bad.
I think a lot of people dislike abstract art because it doesn’t tell us what to see. Instead, we have to observe and deconstruct it in order to ascribe our own interpretations to it. It’s our job as observers to find meaning, not the abstract artist. And, for a lot of people, they don’t like having to interpret things for themselves. They prefer to be told what to interpret.
This is a great point! I think everyone has different tastes, and they're allowed to enjoy what they enjoy simply because they like it. Sadly, the art world isn't that simple! Thanks for watching :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff
The problem is that he is making a statement that is very simple. But if you don't have access to this very simple statement really aimed squarely at artists who know art history, you can't see anything. There is literally nothing to deconstruct. It is paint on a canvas. I like it, but the only meaning it has is a contextual one.
The movie is very good
Thanks! We're glad you liked it :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff