I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
- Feb 2, 2019
This just isn't true.Say what you like about Jackson Pollock or just say he was a retard randomly throwing paint at a wall, but try to make a Jackson Pollock that would convince anyone.
Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")
The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.
There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).
It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.
This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.
Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.
There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.
Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.I guess my point, if I have one, is just saying "modern art is the suxorz" is the art equivalent of the chick saying "I love all music but country and rap" and not knowing who Hanks Williams, Sr. was or who Kurtis Blow is. It's a Sturgeon's Law thing. Sturgeon said 90% of sci-fi is crap. And the corollary is 90% of everything is crap. The remainder is still worth something.
Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.
And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.
The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.