# Jackson Pollock **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 28, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230 "2012-04-28T14:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/61 "2012-04-29T17:34:08Z")
Oh, wait, you’re not hijacking your _own_ thread, it’s someone else’s. I’m not sure why I made that mistake. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/62 "2012-04-29T18:20:38Z")
There’s something that _needs_ saying in every Pollock thread, even if it isn’t always done… …the O key is nowhere near the fucking A key. It’s Pollock, not Pollack. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/63 "2012-04-29T18:54:22Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Why do we need art critics? It’s fun to talk about art and it’s fun to listen to people who know a lot about art talk about it. > [@](#): > > Is art good because there is a critical mass of the ‘cognoscenti’ who believe it is so. There is no objective measure of art. It works for you or it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Pollacks name should not be important as such, nor any other artist for that matter, it should stand on its own merits. Why do you get to dictate to me how I engage with art? > [@](#): > > Why does artwork need to be signed? Because the artist is proud of his accomplishment? I like my name to be associated with stuff I’ve worked on that turned out really well. > [@](#): > > What is the real thing? If an object produces the questions we might ask ourselves and the internal reactions then it matters not who is the artist. If someone is really good at making art that speaks to me, I’d like to know his name so I can seek out more of his stuff. I’m more likely to enjoy a Jeff Koons exhibit than a Julian Schnabel exhibit, so it’s nice to have a name to help me decide what to go see. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/64 "2012-04-29T20:06:28Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Thanks for the link. I don’t know his work, but from what I see there, it speaks to me. It’s also a good bit different than Pollock in feel. I’ll have to explore his work a little more. You’re welcome. If you ever travel to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Quebec City, all of the art museums there have important examples of his work. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/65 "2012-04-29T20:18:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > There’s something that _needs_ saying in every Pollock thread, even if it isn’t always done… > > …the O key is nowhere near the fucking A key. It’s Pollock, not Pollack. [😛](http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/pha0378l.jpg) (It’s a link, not just a raspberry.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/66 "2012-04-29T20:28:15Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Seems to be a measure that art must be of little practical use for it to qualify as art. > > Can a building be art? Well yes and we have seen this many times but somehow this does not translate down to other products, except perhaps for some cars. 😕 Why would you think that? Plenty of other consumer products are evaluated and described as art objects. Examples from off the top of my head include clothing, carpets, quilts, bowls and vases, furniture, clocks, books, watches, weapons, and jewelry. Painting is just one particular form of art. If you don’t happen to like it, either because there are no quantitative criteria for assessing its merits or for whatever other reason, fine. But that doesn’t mean that the entire enterprise of creating and appreciating paintings is phony. You’re being more condescending and snobbish here, with your sneering about “tat” and so forth, than any of the pro-painting posters who happen to like Jackson Pollock or other well-known painters. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/67 "2012-04-29T21:24:26Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Yet many consumer products are designed to appeal to the emotions, and this is frequently a significant selling point. The look of a product is important such that a company can cease trading altogether if it gets it wrong - you only need look at how design kept apple afloat. > > There is no reason why something that serves a useful purpose should not be considered art. Nobody said they shouldn’t, though the artistic quality of functional technology reached its peak with the design of the MOSFET, in my opinion. Everything after that is crap. > [@casdave](#): > > Why do we need art critics? Is this to decide what is worthy and what is not. That’s not what art critics do. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/68 "2012-04-29T22:12:37Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > …the O key is nowhere near the fucking A key. It’s Pollock, not Pollack. But…but…it’s the same thing when you’re talking about [the fish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock) :D. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/69 "2012-04-29T23:09:06Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > That’s interesting, but hardly definitive. Does that make Pollock an artist or a visual savant? To what degree did he envisage his works before he started on them? Is the fractal complexity a result of an artistic vision or simply application of a process? I’m not asking these questions in a loaded manner, I doubt there is a definitive answer, to them or to their importance. > > I don’t think “the emperor has no clothes” is a argument worth pursuing. Clearly, many people sincerely respond to his works. I personally find some merit in his other works, but the drip paintings do absolutely nothing for me. They don’t match my sense of aesthetics, for whatever reason. I doubt that appreciation of a Pollock could be learned, it seems like a fundamental issue of taste. My main point was against the plainly false idea that “anyone can paint a Pollock.” People think that the simplicity of the technique means that there is no artistic vision or composition involved. They believe that Pollock was just randomly throwing paint on canvas, instead of actively creating the effects he wanted (even if he may not have been aware of their nature). You may like or not like the drip paintings. (Personally, I love them.) That’s just a matter of personal taste. But as you say, the position that they are not art is not tenable. I don’t find either Rothko or Mondrian particularly appealing myself, but I can at least understand why others might like them. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/70 "2012-04-29T23:48:40Z")
> [@D18](#): > > You’re welcome. If you ever travel to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Quebec City, all of the art museums there have important examples of his work. I am actually going to be in both Montreal and Toronto in June, so if you have specific recommendations on museums, let me know (Toronto will probably just be a pit stop, but Montreal will be a couple of days.) As to **casdave** don’t we have this same modern art discussion every couple of months? What’s to get? Do you like a Beethoven sonata or a Mozart symphony or a Bach cantata? What purpose do those serve and how do you judge those? Those are completely abstract non-representational pieces and serve no purpose other than being and inspiring an emotional response from others. Non-representational art (hell, all visual art for that matter) is just music for the eyes. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/71 "2012-04-30T01:41:35Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I am actually going to be in both Montreal and Toronto in June, so if you have specific recommendations on museums, let me know (Toronto will probably just be a pit stop, but Montreal will be a couple of days.) Happy to! The Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal has [this one](http://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/oeuvres/oeuvre_39.html) and [this one](http://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/oeuvres/oeuvre_109.html). I can’t find specific images, but the [Contemporary Art Museum of Montreal](http://www.macm.org/en/collection/the-collection/) has several. In Toronto, the [Art Gallery of Ontario](http://www.ago.net/) has got a couple in its permanent collection, but they don’t have a very good search of images on their site (unless I’m missing something). Enjoy your trip! ---
**Author:** ![omni-not](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8dc957/32.png) [@omni-not](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/omni-not)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/72 "2012-04-30T02:10:02Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > What is it with the so-so-so superior attitude of art advocates? > > The poster who states ‘its YOUR loss’ - no it isn’t, not at all and is an exemplar of the breed.I could just as readily say ‘Its YOUR waste of time’ and be equally truthful. > > What makes your appreciation of your particular taste so superior to another persons appreciation of theirs? > > I like to collect certain consumer goods because I think they are art. I also repair them, calibrate them and restore them. Perhaps it is because they are sold to consumers that the beauty and skill of the designers is rarely appreciated as art. > > We live in a designed world, useful art is important in products every bit as much as useless ones hung on gallery walls.There seems to be a view that as long as it is completely and utterly useless and preferably exclusively expensive, it can be appreciated as art in a highbrow manner that is qualitatively very different to a well designed and original idea in a product. > > I should not need to go to a gallery to see art.The rubbish frequently touted as art is irrelevant since I cannot use it. The bigger the waste of money, the more ‘emotional’ and valuable the art seems to be, yet practical art, through the medium of products benefits us all and is far more relevant. Better still, our lives are improved with well designed products, and to do this at a price that even the lowest can afford is far more of a challenge than much of the tat that passes for art these days. > > Of course, when we come to products designed in a teamwork process then we rarely have the individual to glorify and laud- there is no tortured artist backstory to mythologise the mysterious process of creativity, yet cars, aircraft, computers, mobile phones, even your cutlery has to have an aesthetic appeal, and some are genuinely special, and all enclosing a designed and purposeful whole. > > Think of the concept of a computer program and the user interface - it isn’t just a bunch of clicks and text boxes - the process of developing human interfaces is an art that is not appreciated. > > Somehow we have built up an idea that design is ‘not really art’. > > The problem is partly familiarity most us, never consider the balance and compromises that must be taken to produce consumer goods, right from the packaging to the instruction manual. It has all to be made and designed and is art in every sense of the word. > > If you want art, just look around your home, your built environment, the fob for your car keys - real art is all around you, maybe you only have enough emotion to spend on impractical stuff displayed in aseptic galleries - YOUR problem, my art surrounds me and also works for me. Couldn’t agree more. VERY well put. You couldn’t GIVE away the same multi-million dollar painting, were it not for the Jackson provenance. It would suddenly lose all of its ‘magic’ and become very ordinary, wouldn’t even deserve a second look and would probably get a ‘Fail’ from the so-called art connoisseurs. THAT is what irks me to no end. Different strokes indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/73 "2012-04-30T02:14:58Z")
> [@omni-not](#): > > You couldn’t GIVE away the same multi-million dollar painting, were it not for the Jackson provenance. It would suddenly lose all of its ‘magic’ and become very ordinary, wouldn’t even deserve a second look and would probably get a ‘Fail’ from the so-called art connoisseurs. Seriously, how do you know this? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/74 "2012-04-30T02:30:00Z")
> [@omni-not](#): > > You couldn’t GIVE away the same multi-million dollar painting, were it not for the Jackson provenance. It would suddenly lose all of its ‘magic’ and become very ordinary, wouldn’t even deserve a second look and would probably get a ‘Fail’ from the so-called art connoisseurs. THAT is what irks me to no end. I think you’re completely wrong about that. Completely and utterly so. But how can we possibly prove or disprove it? I don’t look at art as an investment, and I sure as shit am not going to shell out millions of dollars for a Pollock. But I’d pay up to maybe a thousand or two thousand dollars for something that I find beautiful, regardless of provenance. I like beautiful things, and Pollock happens to make art that I find indescribably beautiful. And that Jean Paul Riopelle guy that got linked to earlier. I have no idea who he is, never heard of him before this thread. But when I saw samples of his work–wow. Just awesome stuff. Can’t wait to see it in person. Point being, put anyone’s name on that work and I’ll find it just as engaging. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/75 "2012-04-30T02:32:26Z")
If no one would ever buy a Pollock painting if Pollock weren’t famous, how the hell did he ever sell his first painting? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/76 "2012-04-30T02:33:07Z")
> [@omni-not](#): > > You couldn’t GIVE away the same multi-million dollar painting, were it not for the Jackson provenance. It would suddenly lose all of its ‘magic’ and become very ordinary, wouldn’t even deserve a second look and would probably get a ‘Fail’ from the so-called art connoisseurs. Cite or it’s bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/77 "2012-04-30T02:33:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If no one would ever buy a Pollock painting if Pollock weren’t famous, how the hell did he ever sell his first painting? It’s all a clever plot. ---
**Author:** ![omni-not](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8dc957/32.png) [@omni-not](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/omni-not)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/78 "2012-04-30T03:01:27Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Cite or it’s bullshit. I’ll cite myself then. It’s an OPINION. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/79 "2012-04-30T03:17:13Z")
> [@omni-not](#): > > I’ll cite myself then. > > It’s an OPINION. It’s a claim about what other people like, think, or would do. You may be entitled to assert your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to assert everybody else’s. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/80 "2012-04-30T04:17:14Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > It’s a claim about what other people like, think, or would do. > > You may be entitled to assert your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to assert everybody else’s. Yeah. All of these “arguments” they’re making just boil down to “you don’t _really_ like what you like”. Which is such a childish thing to say that it’s hard to even respond to. Because, yeah, people actually _do_ know what they like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230.md?page=5)