So would you say a work like this(another painting by Currin) lacks artistic merit?
I like the blue and brown one. It’s pretty cool the way the colors mix together, and the texture of it. The colors make me think of the earth and the sea, the swirling makes me think of a storm. A few of the sharp-angle turns feel kind of random, like they don’t really fit.
Had I not read WordMan’s comment, I would not have guessed that they were, apparently, painted by animals. Definitely more artistic-looking (to my totally untrained eye) than anything my 4-year-old has ever produced.
I assume that humans selected what they perceived as the best of a large number of animal-produced works? That is, that this is not typical of the quality of painting produced? But even so, it’s better than I would have expected.
you must have a leaking tire. The opening op was a WTF to a 44 million dollar rectangle.
The title of this thread and the question that we were asked to answer is “Someone explain the artistic merit of this painting to me please”.
Here’s the question though: What makes Pollock’s works different than if say… some plumber in New Jersey went out and splattered paint on a canvas?
That’s what a lot of people are trying to get at. It’s pretty obvious why Caravaggio’s treatment of light and shadow was and is amazing, but it’s not at all clear to the vast majority of people why paint splattered on a canvas is super-awesome art, and the drop cloth used by a crew of painters for a few weeks is not.
Just wanted to point out that many Canadians of a certain age are probably already familiar with Barnett Newman’s Voice of Fire.
there is a certain amount of truth in art and photography as to how many images were made before a couple were selected as good enough for government work.
I’ve been poking jabs at the painting in question by taking the same arguments given for art and throwing them back on the wall. It’s great art if 2 people with lots of money bid for it. This artist is given credit for starting a movement. And that’s fine. The price of this painting appears to me to be one of collecting historical trivia and not of art appreciation. The owner might as well have bought one of the artist’s shoes that had paint splattered on it.
It’s the $44 million dollars that is driving this thread. If someone truly appreciated this type of art they could commission just about any art student with a ruler and a compass to knock something out for a few hundred bucks.
Yes and the body of it listed the price of $44 million. Don’t pretend this doesn’t have a lot to do with the WTF question.
I fully admitted that I don’t have the background to appreciate modern art without insulting either the artists or the people who enjoy that kind of thing. And this is the kind of condescending reply I get? Thanks.
To me, that doesn’t read as condescending at all. What are you seeing in it that I’m missing?
FYI
Because Pollock’s works have a structure that purely random splatters don’t.
A couple of years ago a woman tried to convince everyone that this random splatter painting was a Jackson Pollock and therefore worth millions. But just a glance makes it obvious that its not his work. It doesn’t have have the structure and cohesion that his real works have. The intersecting white lines in the middle are particularly horrible – too balanced to feel random, too irregular to work as a meaningful juxtaposition. It’s kind of depressing that anyone thought this might be authentic.
I personally don’t like it but it’s leagues above the first one posted. I really like the skill that went into it even if I don’t like the painting itself.
I actually don’t know that Pollock was not a plumber. I have no idea what his background is. If a plumber can do that and affect me that way in his art, that’s fine with me. It’s just as beautiful. Pollock’s work to me has a deep sense of structure and composition. I don’t care if you’re classically trained or some hobo who just picked up a brush or can of paint for the first time. What I see when I look at a Pollock makes sense to me. I’ve experimented with “action painting” myself. It all looks like shit to me when I try it. Pollock’s work doesn’t.
That’s because they haven’t seen a Pollock in real life. Someone earlier posted a link to people trying to reproduce what he did by splattering paint around. It didn’t work, because there’s more to it than that. If you’ve never seen one, and you’ve only heard about his work from a lot of snobbish rednecks you might think there’s no difference between his work and a drop cloth. But if you’d bother to educate yourself, you;d know it was more than that. Now, after learning more, you may still decide that it doesn’t move you and isn’t something you’re interested in. And that’s fine. But if you are seriously going to ask “what is the difference between Pollock and a dropcloth” you make yourself look foolish. You may not like the end result, you may not even consider it art, but they are assuredly not the same thing.
That reply isn’t condescending at all.
OK, I missed the refinement of the original question. But for the sake of argument, if it sold for $2500 would we be having the same argument? Even adjusting for historical relevance it’s hard to justify the greatness of the painting in question. yes it’s snide to say all hail the artist, he invented the rectangle. But common. There are thousands and thousands of artists out there who lack greatness because 2 people with money won’t bid on their art.
For the sake of argument, Pollock is great. Do you ever go out looking at local artists for inspiration?
I’m more of a music appreciation person and I’m truly amazed at what I’ve heard at local establishments. And I’m equally amazed at how much a group like the Rolling Stones get for a concert. Yes,they’ve generated some great tunes but I don’t think they’re AS great outside the studio. YMMV.
Maybe, if there was a link to a local art sale that an OP would stumble across. I bet, however, that a lot of people would walk past that at an art show and turn up their nose at a $2500 price tag, with plenty of “my kid could do that” comments to boot.
the more I look at the 2 paintings I find it hard to believe they come from the same person. To me, one is exponentially better than the other on so many levels.