I think Jackson Pollock sucks as a painter!!!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

I saw his sketchbooks on display in a museum when I was in art school in NYC and they were mediocre at best, And, surprise surprise - he makes a name for himself doing splatter paintings. WOW!

Picasso was a classically trained, extraordinary master draftsman and painter- he learned the rules before he broke them - hence his prominence in 20th century art. Pollock will remain a footnote painter - the splatter guy.

Flame On!!!!
:evilgrin:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. He was a flash, a darling, a celebrity... he could have been a

real talent, but he was too busy destroying himself with his ego and booze.
Right time, right place.
Luck of the draw, friend. That's the way it is with stardom. You know that.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

3. Yeah, but stardom in the painting world seems even more hollow and

shallow than in Hollywood. Did Carravagio care about stardom?

I'm saying that he wasn't a real talent at all. I'm sorry, I've always felt this way.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. Yes, the art world in general is, by definition, more hollow and, if

not shallow, then ephemeral, than the rest of culture. It is so based on perceptions and persona's, and there is no quantitative test for quality as there is in other things.

I am not sure what I am grasping at.... I think most everyone can see Barrymore or Flynn or Cagney or Bogart or Redford in a role and agree that it was well-done. Was your belief suspended when you watched? Did the actor take on the characteristics of the person they portrayed? Did they keep your attention?

Shit like that.

But, outside of a few particular artists (and then only their best-known works at that) there is no universal rule for "good art." And some of the things we think of as "good art" now were not considered good when they were new.

None of this is a defense of Pollock. Not at all. I find him a tragic figure, trapped in a world full of users and poseurs, forced to make choices no one wants to have to make.

You find him talentless. That's fine. And certainly your right to do so. This underlines the problem with which I grasp at above.

[KittyWampus]

18. Talent Is Cheap. It's Discipline That Comes At A Cost.

there are millions of people with talent. But few with the necessary discipline.

[rumguy]

2. I thought he sucked too

Until I stood directly in front of a few of his bigger paintings...

But yeah, will he be remembered as a great painter like Picasso, Van Gogh, Cezanne? I dont know, but I have some doubts.

[stepnw1f]

4. I'm an Artist, And I Like the Stuff He's Done

Picasso was a Master, but public perceptions will ultimately dictate the final verdict. I see your point, I just don't think all artists should be judged on their art backgrounds nor their traditional abilities. What you see is what you get. What your mind interprets is what either stimulates your mind or causes you to reject it. There is no way of determining for what makes some art legit and others illegitimate. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

6. Do you think that, because I'm an artist that I'm hard on him?

I'm sincere and not using sarcasm or being defensive.

Is it my standards as an artist (in your opinion as a fellow artist) are high and since I'm not coming from the place of an artistic layperson I'd have more ability to appreciate it without my art training baggage if I walked in off the streets to see his work?

Just wondering

[stepnw1f]

8. Nope

Just an indication of an insight. And as I already said, it's all in the eye of the beholder. You can say he was not a master in a traditional sense, true, but negatively judging his art by comparing his traditional skills with Picasso's does not back your claim fully. I as an artist who studied traditionaly feel his work is really good. You don't. It's really about the way we both see and react.

[wtmusic]

5. Like comparing Phillip Glass to Stravinsky

not even in the same league

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

7. Abstract Expressionism...Franz Kline.

Franz Kline was painting in the manner of Pollock.

But for some reason Franz Klines work really reaches out, grabs me, and draws me in, the way Pollock doesn't.

[mitchum]

9. Philistine!

:)

[immune2irony]

10. You think so? I dont

What's amazing about Pollock is that Guggenheim actually saw potential in his early paintings. If you think his "splatter" paintings are not anything special, you should see his early stuff. Think drunken kindergartner let loose on a canvas. But Peggy Guggenheim saw something in it, and became his patron. Those paintings you find shitty seem to have discipline control and intention, especially compared to Pollock's early stuff.

[Bridget Burke]

11. His "Number 1, 1948" was in Houston recently.

As part of "The Heroic Century" show--200 pieces from MOMA at the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. Quite a show--starry nights, fuzzy lilies, wet watches--all the biggies.

Pollock's work was fuzzy and unimpressive, painted on unprimed canvas that has yellowed. To me, he seems more like a performance artist--it was the way he did what he did that brought him fame.

www.mfah.org/main.asp?target=exhibition&par1=1&par2=3&par3=125

[buddhamama]

12. i'm not a fan of Pollack's work

or Pollack the man either.

i wouldn't say it sucks...
his art doesn't capture my attention or make me feel anything.

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. I find his work exciting

Though I have to say, I find MY splatter paintings more interesting. :-)

I can look at Pollacks for a long time, but I can never get over - for me - the lackluster colors he chose. They seem oppressively unvibrant, reminding me of a boring, levittownish 1950s/1960s faux-wood-veneer-panelling aesthetic. Very drab colors.

I'm not big on pastels and drab colors. I like vibrancy.

But that's a personal issue, not a legitimate complaint against Pollack, who I think was a very good artist with a serious and intentional vision.

But I defend your right not to like him!

[Nlighten1]

14. I agree completely...

I never understood why the fuss about his splatter paintings. My 4 year old daughter can make those.

[Carl Brennan]

15. I didn't understand Pollock's work when I was younger.

I now appreciate it more.

[KittyWampus]

17. I Did A Thesis On Pollock. While I Appreciate His Method

to a large extent his fame was the product of the art world critics.

His style developed as a means of covering up his imagery.

Early on, Lee and others in their circle worked on automatic drawing/painting. Pollock began scribbling over imagery and kept going.

His drip painting was an artistic expression of his out-of-focus life style and mindset at the time.

He did have "classical training". Hart Bentson.