modern art -
- Thread starter nyess
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
yeah uh question.
why are people so autistic that they think jackson pollock was a genius?
Making a distinction between the work Jackson Pollock and the individual himself, I would say that the man himself was no 'genius', whatever that word means anyways. He was a highly emotional man, punctuated by his rampant alcoholism and his frequent trips to therapy centers, from which he became familiar with Carl Yung's method of psychoanalysis, something that deeply influenced him, in the way the automatism of Surrealism did. He was shy, he had unexpected mood swings, he was introverted, terrified of other people sometimes; All of that, in a sense, was what he tried to express in painting. His personal drama, or was Herbert Reed calls them "these specific iconographic feeling" he experienced were the focal point which he tried to isolate. ITs related a lot to the subconscious/pre-concious, which for the surrealists was simply a source of unexplained symbolic imagery that they were compelled to project, but for Pollock it had a deeper meaning.
The reasons why he left such a legacy tho in the post-war though have to do with situation happenings. Being one of the earliest abstract expressionists certainly helped (his signature drip style was conceived in1947 as an influence from Siqueros), being on the forefront as the main representative of the perception of Action painting forever associated him it, as well as the controversies that the movement brought with it. Consider that American Expressionism was the first true movement modernist artistic movement that was fully developed in the USA, making it also a matter of pride in the post-war environment, where a lot of the European Avante-garde left Europe because of the National Socialists.
Beyond that, I think its also the allure of the process of Abstract Expressionism, and him being a main representative of action painting. American abstraction always had this macho energy to it, a feeling of violence and non-staticity that was lacking in its European counterpart (art informel). The fact that most of them were also macho men (a fact that Heda Sterne learned the hard way when she tried to penetrate their ranks) was certainly evident as well. I don't think I need to explain his now famous process, I take it from granted that Pollock's process and drip-painting style should be familiar with most.
Really, footage of a cigar smoking Pollock slipping in his work boots and 'acting' and performing in around a laid down canvas, treating it like an internal creation, that created the image of the masculine Pollock, the gestural artist who paints because of a natural need to do so, created fame that guys like Clement Greenberg were able to bring attention to. And every emotion, regardless of how terrific it was, was translated faithfully as an artistic sentiment.
In conclusion, all of these factors along with his early death left a legacy over him that many idolized. The man himself was complex, certainly not a 'genius'. Even if he was one of the most important artist of the post-war period, he had also created works that were mediocre, even if interesting. The only thing consistent with his whole run of works is that they are characterized by an intense sentimentality and violent energy. Beyond that, there is little unity through out the 26 years of his work, only the above expressionistic tendency.
After his death in 1956, he almost gained a symbolic form. He was considered the man that gave the USA finally the international respect they had never experienced. And for that, I think he deserves that legacy.
Edit: Sources
Στάγκος Ν. Concepts of Modern Art: From Fauvism to Postmodernism, Athens 2003
Herbert Read, A Concise History of Modern Painting
Last edited:
Photographs are here and show reality better than we can paint.
Wait, who said we have to paint reality in the first place?
Wait, who said we have to paint reality in the first place?
Emperor Julian
kiwifarms.net
It's always been explained to me as trying articulate to emotions, but it's totally unrelatable to the layman so is a complete failure.
surrealism is really cool.
Overall I like it.
Overall I like it.
Culture is more important than personal attachment...STOOPEEEED
Retarded.
An expression of degeneracy in modern art.
An expression of degeneracy in modern art.
Such is life.
If you want good examples of modern day art, I suggest the yearly SOFA expo. I've been there twice and it is lovely to see that art can still be imaginative and sometimes have a sense of humor.
As for Pollock, I kinda like his stuff. There was this feeling of playfulness that I got from seeing his works.
As for Pollock, I kinda like his stuff. There was this feeling of playfulness that I got from seeing his works.
My two sentences-
1) The best Post-Modern Art is a puzzle of meaning, dreams and metaphor.
2) Just because it's confusing or shocks the senses, or your sensibility, doesn't make it good art.
Let's look at a good Pollock. Or at least, one that I like.
When I dig a little deeper into Pollock, I'm struck by what a master he is, of composition and balance.
Anyway, that's enough for now... I'll get around to how I approach Post Modern Art in a day or two, but that's enough typing for today 
I just had to give Pollock his props.
1) The best Post-Modern Art is a puzzle of meaning, dreams and metaphor.
2) Just because it's confusing or shocks the senses, or your sensibility, doesn't make it good art.
First off, want to co-sign on Ark's excellent write up of JP. One thing I wanted to add is, THEY'RE HUGE! It's a little bit unfair to judge them by pictures in a book, or on the internet. I've never seen one in person, BTW. I've just heard it's different, seeing it in person.
So, this is a joke that gets made a lot, and I won't dispute that there is some essential truth to it- there's all sorts of art out there that looks like food coloring + vomit. So I'm not calling you out or anything, I've said similar stuff plenty of times. But I'm hoping we can agree it's low-hanging fruit?This is Modern Art created in Chris Chan's bathroom:
Let's look at a good Pollock. Or at least, one that I like.
I went into GIMP, and I isolated each color, starting with white.
I'm starting off with his negative space (white), because I think it's a complete piece within itself- look at the places he chose not to paint. On it's own, it's not a masterpiece or anything. But it's extremely solid visually, if conceptually unexciting.
Next up, the colors- No need to go too in depth here, I just want to point out that the placing and framing of each color is similarly sound work, compositionally; each color spread throughout the piece in a balanced manner, while leaving thoughtful swaths of negative space between the splatters. Nothing worth masturbating to, but it's pleasant enough to look at, in a way that a 4 year old's finger-painting isn't. Or legos dropped in a toilet...
Also want to point out how each color is balanced against one another. Let's say we had 100 "color points" and we had to hand them out to the Kingdoms of Red, Orange, Green, Blue and White. I'm pretty sure we'd end up with some pretty round, pleasing numbers.
Personally, I'd award 40pts to Negative/White, 20 points to Red, 15 to Orange and Blue, and 10 to Green. These are good, solid numbers- 40 white vs. 60 colors. 35 warm colors vs 25 cold colors (I feel green is "cold" in this piece) vs 40 white points.
Round, balanced numbers like that are difficult to achieve, I can assure you. And it's not that an 8 year old couldn't produce a similarly composed/balanced piece, but they couldn't do it consistently. And this is where I feel Pollock is an absolute master. Total genius at composition and balance.
As for the rest of it? Meh. AFAIK he just did his splattery, abstract stuff and never really branched out. And a lot of his stuff is kind of a grayed-out/brownout mess which I've never found particularly appealing.
PS- Fuck I forgot to do yellow... Oh well, I think you guys get the idea.
I'm starting off with his negative space (white), because I think it's a complete piece within itself- look at the places he chose not to paint. On it's own, it's not a masterpiece or anything. But it's extremely solid visually, if conceptually unexciting.
Next up, the colors- No need to go too in depth here, I just want to point out that the placing and framing of each color is similarly sound work, compositionally; each color spread throughout the piece in a balanced manner, while leaving thoughtful swaths of negative space between the splatters. Nothing worth masturbating to, but it's pleasant enough to look at, in a way that a 4 year old's finger-painting isn't. Or legos dropped in a toilet...
Also want to point out how each color is balanced against one another. Let's say we had 100 "color points" and we had to hand them out to the Kingdoms of Red, Orange, Green, Blue and White. I'm pretty sure we'd end up with some pretty round, pleasing numbers.
Personally, I'd award 40pts to Negative/White, 20 points to Red, 15 to Orange and Blue, and 10 to Green. These are good, solid numbers- 40 white vs. 60 colors. 35 warm colors vs 25 cold colors (I feel green is "cold" in this piece) vs 40 white points.
Round, balanced numbers like that are difficult to achieve, I can assure you. And it's not that an 8 year old couldn't produce a similarly composed/balanced piece, but they couldn't do it consistently. And this is where I feel Pollock is an absolute master. Total genius at composition and balance.
As for the rest of it? Meh. AFAIK he just did his splattery, abstract stuff and never really branched out. And a lot of his stuff is kind of a grayed-out/brownout mess which I've never found particularly appealing.
PS- Fuck I forgot to do yellow... Oh well, I think you guys get the idea.
I just had to give Pollock his props.
I forgot to address this, right off the bat- I'm pretty sure Nyess means Post-Modern Art, not Modern Art. And I'm sorry to double post, but I'm going to add in enough new art w/ spoilers that I feel okay about it.
This is Modern Art.
It's a step away from realism, while still remaining largely rooted in the physical world. Generally speaking you're painting real-world things, like dancers or landscapes. When they do branch out towards the whimsical, or less realistic, it tends towards longtime favorite subjects like figures from Greek myth, or scenes from the Bible.
It's also more established folks like Van Gogh, Picasso, Munch, Norman Rockwell and Salvador Dali. I won't bother linking those folks, you probably know that shit already. Anyway, that's the Modern School, and it's mid/late 1800's up to the 1920's ish, though it never really went away, just stopped being cutting edge.
Modernism is heavy on style, while Classical art was primarily focused on achieving photo-realism (before people even had photography).
Post Modern Art, where we are today, is two steps removed from the physical world and classical art like Michaelangelo and Rembrandt, or a photograph of bird flying. It acknowledges (or it's supposed to) all the art that's happened up until this point and asks, "How do we break all the rules?"
Anyway, point is, it's Post Modernism that's the real WTF shit, and that's what your question is about. Jackson Pollock is straight-up Post Modernism, baby. Wanted to clear that up. @Arkomeda hey, did I make any glaring mistakes?
This is Modern Art.
Jean Metzinger
Maxfield Parrish-
Edgar Degas
Maxfield Parrish-
Edgar Degas
Ivan Billibin
Aubrey Beardsley
Gustav Klimt
Aubrey Beardsley
Gustav Klimt
Modernism is heavy on style, while Classical art was primarily focused on achieving photo-realism (before people even had photography).
Post Modern Art, where we are today, is two steps removed from the physical world and classical art like Michaelangelo and Rembrandt, or a photograph of bird flying. It acknowledges (or it's supposed to) all the art that's happened up until this point and asks, "How do we break all the rules?"
Dali w/ Bunuel - Again like the motherfucking pimp he is, Dali embraces innovation and branches out into a new medium, producing a piece that's a pillar of PM, and still remains shocking and WTF?! today. Try to watch the first 2m, there's a very famous bit.
Yoko Ono's Infamous "Screaming Show" This is the kind of WTF shit I feel OP is talking about. I don't present this as "good art." In fact, I'll agree it's pretty shitty, although it might be coming from a distinct tradition of Japanese theater. I don't know.
Marcel Duchamps - Fountain...
...which wikipedia has classified as Modern, but fuck that shit. This is straight-up PMA, in my book. I suppose he's a bridge guy, like Dali and...
...Kandinsky, who's also a bridge guy.
Yoko Ono's Infamous "Screaming Show" This is the kind of WTF shit I feel OP is talking about. I don't present this as "good art." In fact, I'll agree it's pretty shitty, although it might be coming from a distinct tradition of Japanese theater. I don't know.
Marcel Duchamps - Fountain...
...which wikipedia has classified as Modern, but fuck that shit. This is straight-up PMA, in my book. I suppose he's a bridge guy, like Dali and...
...Kandinsky, who's also a bridge guy.
One of my favorite pieces of modern art
I also like post-modern art and abstract art, but it really depends.
I also like post-modern art and abstract art, but it really depends.
Similar threads
2.B.A. Master—Poké-Art Master!
Smaller art-related dramas and artcows not prominent enough for their own thread
