I can see where you're coming from since looking at "Lucifer", for example, really forces people to confront their perception/conception of what art is about. Most of these conceptions are rooted in image representation, classical forms, Renaissance-based realism, etc. However, Pollock's art is not the finished painting itself--it is the PROCESS of the painting. The term for this is "action art". This is what marks a massive departure from representational art and art being focused on the product itself. It also heralds the rise of 'experiential art' as seen through many art installments.
Whatever anger and confusion Pollock's art elicits, one thing is indisputable--the rise of Abstract Expressionism (of which "action art" is one subset) in the USA moved the center of the art world from Paris to New York. From continental Cubism, Fauvism, Futurism, and Deconstructivism to a uniquely American sensibility. It also marks the rise of a distinctly American take on art criticism as evidenced in Clement Greenberg's work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat
Jackson Pollock = Pure Trash
Jackson Pollock can single handedly be blamed for killing my love of art. After school there was a big push to get me into artschool. My art teachers were obsessed with it, many other people wanted it of me. I guess i could have probably been an alright painter, I dunno.
All I told my art teacher was "As long as Jackson Pollock is considered an asset by the art community, I will never paint again."
Seriously, thats what i told the bitch, and she just shook her head... Stupid cunt...
|