I am so gay, I started collecting rare Art...
 

LOL

Who painted it?

What drugs were involved?

What drawing techniques?

What artists were the main inspiration for this eternal piece of art?

I'll never tell.

lolllllll

looks good

hah, I'll start the bid at 50 bucks lol

is that garfield in the middle?

a whole new technique in drawing :thumbsup

pen & ink and continuous line are not new!

maybe scribbling on paper with black pen while high on crack is, but hey, i'm sure thats been done before too...

That must have been expensive

Yeah it's been done.. .

crack is so passe :2 cents:

I hope you got an appropriate frame.

some one said $50 .. but if he back out I'll go $10

It reminds me off the cover art for Green Day's Dookie album back in the mid 90s. Similar compositional elements.

On the topic of Art--many people think that just because something looks like it was scrawled by a 3 year old or splattered by a drunk chimp that it somehow cannot be taken seriously. Those were some of the criticism hurled at artists like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. However, those critics fail to see that, after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, perceptions of the human experience has "liberated" itself from the shackles of representation. The real "nature" of Nature is not just what you see but also perspectives filtered through time/location (cubism), psychology (surrealism), process (Abstract Expressionism), mass manufactured/ready made culture (Pop Art), etc

And we're better for it. Modern Art merely reflects the evolution of societies' ability to perceive reality from mere 2D and 3D constraints and "realism" to different perspectives. Also, it's a function of the huge amount of money and politics involved in the business of collecting and the discipline of art criticism.

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...

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.

I understand people's views on abstraction and why they themselves may consider it an art, but to me painting is a skill, a gift if you will. Something to be respected. If you want to look at painting as philosophy, great, but to me it is not in the same realm as the classical styles. Thought provoking as it may be, it is still nothing more than kindergarten paint dabbling to me. If the goal of impressionism is to instill a feeling inside the viewer, they have been successful. i have never felt more rage than wwhile looking at a Pollock painting and thinking "Some fucker would pay millions for this garbage". The point at which art became more about the idea and less about the product itself is where I really lost my interest in it as a whole. I really do enjoy certain levels of abstract imagery. Cubism & Fauvism as art movements were great. I can respect the Cubists and Dadaists for their contributions, their influence on classical surrealists was massive. You can be abstract in your art without compromising your skill. But Abstract Impressionism is just, well, an unskilled man's art. A thinker perhaps, an artist no. At least in my eyes...

:1orglaugh