Tate Modern London

[pollocksthebollocks]

I went to the Tate Modern today and it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I only went there to see the Pollock paintings, because that is all I thought they had that was a famous piece.

http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/

[daveneale]

I love the Giacometti stuff at the top:)

[Shantih]

I'm quite traditional and far prefer the National Gallery, but the Tate's still got some stuff I like, and I actually quite like some of the installations.

I saw one when I was there last Wednesday that I loved but I can't remember the name for love nor money...

[DavePalumbo]

far prefer the National Gallery

pshhhh, Tate Britain!

[pollocksthebollocks]

I'm quite traditional and far prefer the National Gallery, but the Tate's still got some stuff I like, and I actually quite like some of the installations.

I saw one when I was there last Wednesday that I loved but I can't remember the name for love nor money...
If one prefers traditional art perhaps Tate is not the place to visit.

[DavePalumbo]

Tate Britain!

[Shantih]

If one prefers traditional art perhaps Tate is not the place to visit.

I have to for college, "experimenting" and all. That was me trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Dave - I'm off there next Tuesday, don't worry ;)

[drd]

http://pollocksthebollocks.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/rothko.jpg

I'm about to hurt somebody

[Flake]

Dave - I'm off there next Tuesday, don't worry;)

These two are on permanent display I believe. John is da man, and a great example of why you should worry about awesome pictures rather than archival permanence.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4548/wh1tx9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3254/wh2az1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[k4pka]

The Tate Britain is absolutely fucking brilliant!

I walked in, and saw four Sargents in the first, and same room. I was indeed a very happy chappy.

[pollocksthebollocks]

http://pollocksthebollocks.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/rothko.jpg

I'm about to hurt somebody

What do you mean? Each to their own, have you ever been to the Rothko room?

[drd]

What do you mean? Each to their own, have you ever been to the Rothko room?

No, I don't know why I would want to.


It's a block of red, man. What the hell is so great about it?

There is a fine line regarding the subjectivity of art

[pollocksthebollocks]

No, I don't know why I would want to.


It's a block of red, man. What the hell is so great about it?

There is a fine line regarding the subjectivity of art

Thats so narrow-minded. Never mind, as I said each to their own, I respect your opinion if all you see is a block of red, then thats your judgment. Many don't.

I don't want to hurt your feelings but is a drawing of a hand better to look at?

[MidgardSerpent]

Thats so narrow-minded. Never mind, as I said each to their own, I respect your opinion if all you see is a block of red, then thats your judgment. Many don't.

I don't want to hurt your feelings but is a drawing of a hand better to look at?
I'm curious, what do you see in the image then? Or what might others have seen in it? I never quite understood these kind of works, but I'm not unwilling to understand.

[TheGnoll]

just look up at ANY thread about modern art in here and you'll get the anwsers.Ilaekae already wrote the same thins about 20 times.Or open an art hystory book :)

ciao

[MidgardSerpent]

just look up at ANY thread about modern art in here and you'll get the anwsers.Ilaekae already wrote the same thins about 20 times.Or open an art hystory book :)

ciao
I've been to art history class in the past! But we've never covered that part much, or maybe I was asleep that time. :D
And I was curious at what people might have liked about that particular piece.

[drd]

Thats so narrow-minded. Never mind, as I said each to their own, I respect your opinion if all you see is a block of red, then thats your judgment. Many don't.

I don't want to hurt your feelings but is a drawing of a hand better to look at?

What a stupid question. Yes, it's much better to look at. Unlike a block of colour, the way an artist uses line can be very beautiful, along with the natural beauty of the human body. Light and dark values creating form in space. I can analyze it, what did he do there, how did he get this or that, what kind of skill was needed for this? I can stare at a drawing of a hand for hours.

Red? I see red all the time. There is a bit of ketchup on one of my shirts right now. That's more interesting than this.

Tell me how it's 'narrow-minded'. I'm being realistic.

[TheGnoll]

actually, just studying the introduction to art in from 1900 onward will explain something.Modern art is basically founded on the idea that the emtio and the "idea" (no pun intended) behind a piece of art can support and have a higher value that the technical quality aspect.Its not about "how much skill the artist used" or "how much time n effert did he ut in it", but about the actual radical thinking process behid it.Actually the whole "graphic design" thing woudn't exist if people like kandinsky hadn't "played with color like no one else did before.
Again, no one is questioning the value of art skills, and i'm no modern art patriot, and i'm no real artsy-pansty idiot.
Its about respect and about knowing what your talking about before criticizing ;)

personally i appreciate some modern art "concepts", and dislike others, and i am myself much more concerned at he moment with the technical aspect or a piece before the idea (you need the rights "tools" to start), but i respect all kind of art :)

hope i didn't talk bullshit, prob some more expert people will clear this up better :)

ciao

[stephen]

i consider myself pretty open minded when it comes to art and shit, and i saw the rothko room on my short stay in london. i walked in, looked at the walls, got creeped out by the people just sitting on the couches stareing at the walls and quickly backed out...

freaks.

[drd]

actually, just studying the introduction to art in from 1900 onward will explain something.Modern art is basically founded on the idea that the emtio and the "idea" (no pun intended) behind a piece of art can support and have a higher value that the technical quality aspect.Its not about "how much skill the artist used" or "how much time n effert did he ut in it", but about the actual radical thinking process behid it.Actually the whole "graphic design" thing woudn't exist if people like kandinsky hadn't "played with color like no one else did before.
Again, no one is questioning the value of art skills, and i'm no modern art patriot, and i'm no real artsy-pansty idiot.
Its about respect and about knowing what your talking about before criticizing ;)

personally i appreciate some modern art "concepts", and dislike others, and i am myself much more concerned at he moment with the technical aspect or a piece before the idea (you need the rights "tools" to start), but i respect all kind of art :)

hope i didn't talk bullshit, prob some more expert people will clear this up better :)

ciao

I kind of fail to see the idea behind a slab of pure red though

IMO, if your art has a message to send, you shouldn't need a plaque beside it to explain what that message is.

[Kman.]

IMO, if your art has a message to send, you shouldn't need a plaque beside it to explain what that message is.

That would depend on if you're a fine artist or an illustrator :)

[drd]

That would depend on if you're a fine artist or an illustrator :)

How so?

[HunterKiller_]

Oh no, looks like we've got ourselves another...

WAR OF THE ARTS

[drd]

Oh no, looks like we've got ourselves another...

WAR OF THE ARTS

I LOVE WAR

[pollocksthebollocks]

I LOVE WAR

How can you say anything about abstract art when you do stuff like this?

http://conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46074&stc=1&d=1162862052

[Shpow.Iain]

PTB, you disregarded that DRD has a a different opinion between a piece in which the saturation, hue and values change, as opposed to a solid block of red

[pollocksthebollocks]

I'm curious, what do you see in the image then? Or what might others have seen in it? I never quite understood these kind of works, but I'm not unwilling to understand.

When I went to the Tate Modern, I went mainly to see the Pollock collection. When I was younger I never understood art like that, I didn't understand Pollock or Rothko or Klee any of those abstracts. But I started painting because of them. I didn't go to any art schools or get told how to paint and what to do, and I didn't get educated in art. I am so glad I didn't, or I would probably end up like the guy who is saying a Rothko painting is just a slab of red. Now, when I see a Van Gogh or a Turner, I don't get turned on by them, I appreciate them as art masterpieces and I respect them as a form of art which people enjoy, but a sunflower or a painting of Oxford doesn't set my mind going. A 'slab of red' however, does. I look at it and I think what was he thinking? what was going on in his mind when he painted it? Did he have a concept? Or was he just painting to make himself known? I paint abstract, I have an idea behind the painting, a lot is spontaneous but I like that. When you paint a landscape, you have to think about what colours you are going to use, which angles you are going to paint etc. etc. and if you like that it's worth it. I prefer not too. When I look at a Rothko what do I see? A slab of red, but the best slab of red you have ever seen on canvas, because it makes you think, its daring, its bold and it certainly got this lot going.

http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g042_still-1947-J.jpg

[TheGnoll]

[QUOTE=pollocksthebollocks;1478216] I didn't go to any art schools or get told how to paint and what to do, and I didn't get educated in art. I am so glad I didn't, or I would probably end up like the guy who is saying a Rothko painting is just a slab of red.

thats bullshit.Studying something can't make you more ignorant on the subject, if you study well :)

drd, no body is questioning the fact that painting basically is a slab of pure red.But that last sentence about the plaque explains you position, and i won't say you're wrong.I kind of think that if the idea is so big it won't fit in the canvas, it does need explaining.
I wonder what you guys think aboutthe "works" of Piero Manzoni.

ciao

[pollocksthebollocks]

[QUOTE=pollocksthebollocks;1478216] I didn't go to any art schools or get told how to paint and what to do, and I didn't get educated in art. I am so glad I didn't, or I would probably end up like the guy who is saying a Rothko painting is just a slab of red.

thats bullshit.Studying something can't make you more ignorant on the subject, if you study well :)

drd, no body is questioning the fact that painting basically is a slab of pure red.But that last sentence about the plaque explains you position, and i won't say you're wrong.I kind of think that if the idea is so big it won't fit in the canvas, it does need explaining.
I wonder what you guys think aboutthe "works" of Piero Manzoni.

ciao

Of course thats a generalization, but many people do become influenced after studying art, because they are told how to paint, you can often tell a painter who has been taught by what they paint and how they do it.

[daveneale]

hehe, this debate rages on....IMO enjoy reading allll you want into red, but you can use that argument for the 2012 logo , or any other slap down of colour that exists: "what the fudge popsicles was the dude thinking when he was designing it?, was the actual artist in charge off sick and the intern just thrown the job of logo design?, was there a huge debate in the office over the aesthetic, or lack there of, value of the design?, bla, bla bla". There’s a story behind everything, and I totally understand that a whole bunch of people get they’re kicks from thinking that they have a higher understanding of art if they muse and ponder over the physiological reasons behind a piece. I'd venture to say though that if Da Vinci was living in the same time as Rothko, and they had been displayed in the same room, Mr Da Vinci may have had a thing or two to say about some dude pooping out some squares, after he spent thousands of hours actually studying, putting in the hard graft, and concentrating on art rather than self masturbatory explanations and controversy. Anyway, as I say, each to they’re own, you like red, more power to you, but it pisses me off that most the galleries out there cater for the pseudo intellectuals out there who all pat backs and hold mediocrity and shock value above what most people want to see...engaging art, by talented artists.

[Dave Kendall]

Last year I spent a whole day in both Tates. I hadn't been to Tate Modern and wasn't expecting to enjoy it as much as Britain. I was very wrong. I'm not going to wax lyrical but I was responding to more pieces at the modern from my gut than the traditional Britain. I loved the Waterhouse paintings, boy did he work big? But I was pretty much hypnotised by the Bacon's and some of the sculptures at the Modern. They worked on a completely different level. Bacon's use of red had an almost demonic presence in one painting. The works of Francis Bacon were instrumental in creating the feel of the silent hill creatures. It's not just about accurately drawn anatomy and being able to render texture.

As artists you should not be discounting any source of inspiration. Keep an open mind.

[Elwell]

pollocksthebollocks and drd: two sides of the same ignorant coin

[pollocksthebollocks]

pollocksthebollocks and drd: two sides of the same ignorant coin
No because I accept both arts, and I love Mucha

[drd]

pollocksthebollocks and drd: two sides of the same ignorant coin

I will not deny it.

I know I was foolish 2 years ago and 2 years from now I'll know I'm just as foolish.

But that's life. My opinions will change on many things, but I don't think I'll ever be able to appreciate what Mr. Bollocks does.

[TheGnoll]

I don't think I'll ever be able to appreciate what Mr. Bollocks does.

well, that partly explains why pollocksthebollocks said you were begn narrowminded.
and so thy circle of modern vs traditional threads lives on.

ciao

[drd]

well, that partly explains why pollocksthebollocks said you were begn narrowminded.
and so thy circle of modern vs traditional threads lives on.

ciao

I'm not entirely sure that counts if I have reasons for not appreciating it

[pollocksthebollocks]

From another point of view we could say that your work sucks. I as an abstract artist may look at it and think what are trying to prove by drawing a hand or a leaf which so many have done before and have been told to do before by their art teacher. Especially the same hand over and over again :donk: but I do not mock this work, even though boring. You speak like an old art critique even though you are so young, you should wait until you have seen some life before you judge life DRD.

Your hands are good and your leaves too, but don't say anything. However, abstract does, cause everyone is different and everyone expresses something. BTW this is my favorite painting http://www.ballandclaw.com/vermeer/xce.jpg because it is not just a portrait but it is a portrait which expresses something. Good luck

[John]

No, I don't know why I would want to.


It's a block of red, man. What the hell is so great about it?

There is a fine line regarding the subjectivity of art

I've been there last week. The rothko room is impressive.

unlike a block of colour, the way an artist uses line can be very beautiful, along with the natural beauty of the human body.

The "red block" hangs in a section of the Tate that deals with material, texture and gesture. When you look at the red block, you may not notice anything, but I notice a lot of subtle variations in the tone of red, the way it has been applied, and the way it influences me while I stand before it. It is a lesson in observing and appreciating art. So you say there is beauty in a line but not in an area of tone? Maybe think about that again.
Besides, these paintings have to be seen in person, a tiny, blurred reproduction on the internet won't do them justice, and even then you have to be open minded enough and observe in a way that will let you appreciate them. If you lack any of that, then don't bother.

[MidgardSerpent]

actually, just studying the introduction to art in from 1900 onward will explain something.Modern art is basically founded on the idea that the emtio and the "idea" (no pun intended) behind a piece of art can support and have a higher value that the technical quality aspect.Its not about "how much skill the artist used" or "how much time n effert did he ut in it", but about the actual radical thinking process behid it.

Actually the whole "graphic design" thing woudn't exist if people like kandinsky hadn't "played with color like no one else did before. Again, no one is questioning the value of art skills, and i'm no modern art patriot, and i'm no real artsy-pansty idiot.

Its about respect and about knowing what your talking about before criticizing :)
I was being open-minded and respectful, my post towards pollocksthebollocks was a query, not an attack or an insult. And to be honest, both times you replied to me you came off as rather patronising. My 'artistic consciousness' is probably a bit further developed than you're now giving me credit for. Fine art painting is where my own particular interests lie, I'm just not as well-versed in all aspects of it yet. I'm also familiar with conceptual art's idea of concept > skill.

I don't believe that realism or the figurative arts are the be-all, end-all of art and neither is pure technical craftmanship. I think honest expression is what can transcend art to something special, but it generally needs certain skills to take proper form and also to support and enhance the idea/expression. So I'm more of 'a great concept + great skill= great art' kind of guy, which I think is a fair point of view.




Now, when I see a Van Gogh or a Turner, I don't get turned on by them, I appreciate them as art masterpieces and I respect them as a form of art which people enjoy, but a sunflower or a painting of Oxford doesn't set my mind going. A 'slab of red' however, does. I look at it and I think what was he thinking? what was going on in his mind when he painted it? Did he have a concept? Or was he just painting to make himself known?
Those are all valid questions, but the thing is, you can apply those exact questions to most works of art, like for example, a still life or a self-portrait.


When you paint a landscape, you have to think about what colours you are going to use, which angles you are going to paint etc. etc. and if you like that it's worth it. I prefer not too. When I look at a Rothko what do I see? A slab of red, but the best slab of red you
have ever seen on canvas, because it makes you think, its daring, its bold and it certainly got this lot going.
Thanks for trying to explain your pov. I'm still completely in the dark though, I just don't see what the work is trying to communicate, so I personally can't speak for it's boldness or excitement. Maybe one needs to stand in front of the actual piece instead of looking at a small pic of it.


I personally prefer more figurative arts with subjects like humanism, hope and angst. The material world and human element are more relatable to me. I've grown to realize that a lot of figurative paintings have abstract elements to them also, and I do see how the power of color and form can be far more appealing than just something that aims to be 'realistic'. And I also want my own work to move more towards a 'rawness' and focus on color and form while still retaining their figurative aspect. Sort of as a reaction towards photorealism and realism for realism's sake. I've gotten very weary about seeing people just paint over from photo's.



Here's a painting from Rembrandt that I really like:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5637/oxvt0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)







From another point of view we could say that your work sucks. I as an abstract artist may look at it and think what are trying to prove by drawing a hand or a leaf which so many have done before and have been told to do before by their art teacher. Especially the same hand over and over again but I do not mock this work, even though boring. You speak like an old art critique even though you are so young, you should wait until you have seen some life before you judge life DRD.

Your hands are good and your leaves too, but don't say anything. However, abstract does, cause everyone is different and everyone expresses something.
I don't understand how can you say that? A hand or a leaf can absolutely be authentic and expressive. I'm not sure drawing something has to prove anything, maybe it was just intended as practice. A hand or a leaf can be part of a whole that creates an expression that is uniquely yours.

[Hyskoa]

They also force us at school to visit exhibits with colored squares ontop of other colored squares. And big cubes with glass in them.

They want to push it as art, but it's just a desperate attempt at getting attention.

And it always will be.

It stopped being art when personal opinion started to affect the need for craftsmanship.

So according to me, there are 2 periods. Pre-impressionism and post-impressionism. The first one contains art, the other one contains kitsch.

And as long as they value a shitty opinion more than they will value the need for a good art education, it will remain, or even worse, crap.

Once I see pieces whom both possess a valid meaning, opinion or added value AS WELL as superb craftsmanship, I'll define it as art again.

Given enough people to follow this idea of hard work over emotional bla bla, we will once again, have an era of art.

[Flake]

So according to me, there are 2 periods. Pre-impressionism and post-impressionism. The first one contains art, the other one contains kitsch.


Let me get this straight, are you suggesting that everything that comes after the first wave of impressionism is not art?

I hope I'm misreading your post because otherwise you just said that the likes of Sargent, Waterhouse, Boldini, Zorn, Klimt, Wyeth, Hopper, Bacon, Freud and Mucha are not "proper art" and that would be a very odd thing to suggest..

[Hyskoa]

I'm speaking in terms of movements. Not specific artists.

And to answer your specific list:
Sargent, yes
Waterhouse, yes
Boldini, yes
Zorn, yes
Klimt, no
Wyeth, yes
Hopper, no
Bacon, no
Freud, no
Mucha, yes.

[TheGnoll]

midgardserpent, my last sentence in your wuote was not for you, don't worry.Personally i'm not here to insult other people or other people's art :)

"So I'm more of 'a great concept + great skill= great art' kind of guy, which I think is a fair point of view"

hehe don't worry man, i am for that too.I'm no "modern artist" myself, nor i am really a "fan" of it myself, i was just saying what i knew about it, wich probably isn't enought.
So i'm sorry i was misunderstood, and i'm sorry if you took offence ;)

melancholie, i second what flake said.You might be surpires, but even the works of people like raffaello and CAnova, from the reinassance where actually scupted in a "studio", not by the artist himself.Art history took centuries to develop the thought that the idea can be as important as craftsmanship, and i'm quite glad it did, otherwise art would have been incredibly boring.Everything done with the idea of wanting to represent something you can't directly see with eyes is not "art" then?

but then again, there are already TONS of threads on the subject in here, this is getting repetitive.

[Hyskoa]

Not saying that ideas are a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when the craftmanship is worse than the idea or if they lack it in the first place.

[MidgardSerpent]

midgardserpent, my last sentence in your wuote was not for you, don't worry.Personally i'm not here to insult other people or other people's art :)

It was more than just the last sentence, but apparently it was a misinterpretation on my part. No hard feelings. :)

[Elwell]

BTW this is my favorite painting
OK, I take it back, you've redeemed yourself!;)
I'd really suggest taking a second look at Turner, though.

[kev ferrara]

I'm speaking in terms of movements. Not specific artists.

And to answer your specific list:
Sargent, yes
Waterhouse, yes
Boldini, yes
Zorn, yes
Klimt, no
Wyeth, yes
Hopper, no
Bacon, no
Freud, no
Mucha, yes.

ohhhhh.... :frustrated: the pain! the pain!

[drd]

From another point of view we could say that your work sucks. I as an abstract artist may look at it and think what are trying to prove by drawing a hand or a leaf which so many have done before and have been told to do before by their art teacher. Especially the same hand over and over again :donk: but I do not mock this work, even though boring. You speak like an old art critique even though you are so young, you should wait until you have seen some life before you judge life DRD.

Your hands are good and your leaves too, but don't say anything. However, abstract does, cause everyone is different and everyone expresses something. BTW this is my favorite painting http://www.ballandclaw.com/vermeer/xce.jpg because it is not just a portrait but it is a portrait which expresses something. Good luck

Who said I was trying to express anything by drawing a leaf or a hand? How about it's pure observational practice? Something I try to do everyday to get better at it.

Yeah, it's a pretty good painting. What does it matter if you like it or not, though?


I'll do a BTW too though, because you did

BTW
I don't hate all abstract art. Some of it is very thought-out, efficiently expresses an idea and uses powerful colours and movement to make me stare at for a long time. But simply swaths of 2-3 plain colours? No.

"You speak like an old art critique even though you are so young, you should wait until you have seen some life before you judge life DRD."

I don't see how I'm speaking in a young way or in an old way. How about we forget about meaningless things like that and go upon purely our opinions. Don't make me disregard your opinions because you may be senile ;)

[Kman.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksama View Post
That would depend on if you're a fine artist or an illustrator
How so?

An illustrators work has to speak for itself, a fine artist's doesnt.

[drd]

An illustrators work has to speak for itself, a fine artist's doesnt.


I guess I'm not getting something here

For illustrators, yes, they shouldn't need a plaque to explain them.

For fine artists, when they paint a portrait or a vase of flowers, do they have a message? You can't usually tell (at least I can't) I'm saying if they have one, it shouldn't need a plaque next to it to explain it. I don't think I've seen messages behind works of fine art, unless they depict a story; Once again being that it needs no plaque (Then again, a painting can only depict one scene, so if the reader was interested as to the whole story, I guess a plaque would be sufficient)

hm

[sweetoblivion314]

oo god not another argument using Rothko as an example >.<
I'm gonna be the guy who says you have to see it to understand. When you take a photo of something it loses all of the interaction of color and things the image has. This is one benefit of paintings over photos. I was sceptical about Rothko until i saw one of his pieces in the SFMoMA. You felt like you could dive into it and float away into infinity and i was really tempted to jump in literally, but in a photo it looks like a blue block. And by the Way Rothko called himself a landscape painter and said he wasn't an abstract painter.

Melancholie - study more art history. Half of the art in the 20th century was about idea over execution. To show that the idea was more important they purposefully had poor or very simple craftsmanship.

PtB - Dude Vermeer is amazing! I was at the Met over the summer and was bummed out cause they where redoing the 19th century section and most of the dutch painting where taken down to prepare for the Rembrandt exhibit when i walked into the room with 3 Vermeer's on the wall. I got shivers down my spine. Amazing, I cant wait to see more pieces in person by him, especially that one.

[Elwell]

An illustrators work has to speak for itself, a fine artist's doesnt.
Actually, an illustrator's work almost never has to speak for itself, because it's usually working in support of some sort of text.

[drd]

Actually, an illustrator's work almost never has to speak for itself, because it's usually working in support of some sort of text.

I had thought that the text was usually considered part of the work

Or at least that's what I had come to believe

[pollocksthebollocks]

What do you think of this one?

http://www.jackson-pollock.com/blue-poles.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)

[Hyskoa]

What do you think of this one?

http://www.jackson-pollock.com/blue-poles.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)

Not crittable, take some life drawing classes and show us the results of those instead.

[pollocksthebollocks]

Not crittable, take some life drawing classes and show us the results of those instead.

Its a Pollock! :} What's "crittable"? I don't like life drawing, been there, and didn't enjoy, but I can show you a repro I did, although I don't like doing figurative, but it was a wedding present, fo a special friend. :}

http://www.jamespresley.co.uk/images/obrazy/22_d.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)

[Hyskoa]

Its a Pollock! :} What's "crittable"? I don't like life drawing, been there, and didn't enjoy, but I can show you a repro I did, although I don't like doing figurative, but it was a wedding present, fo a special friend. :}

http://www.jamespresley.co.uk/images/obrazy/22_d.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)



*watches painting*

What kind of "special" ?

[drd]

What do you think of this one?

http://www.jackson-pollock.com/blue-poles.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)

After thinking about it, I find myself subconsciously annoyed that there isn't anything recognizable in it (Other than splatter, of course)
I'm going to be honest though. It holds my eye because of colour and value, that much is true. However, I don't find anything in it I can respect or revere, which is the other 50% of what I get out of fine art. The awe of how much work and effort they had to spend to get this or that result. How realistic it is, yet stylized at the same time, etc

Here, it's just paint.

[drd]

Its a Pollock! :} What's "crittable"? I don't like life drawing, been there, and didn't enjoy, but I can show you a repro I did, although I don't like doing figurative, but it was a wedding present, fo a special friend. :}

http://www.jamespresley.co.uk/images/obrazy/22_d.jpg (http://pollocksthebollocks.wordpress.com/)

I wouldn't call that figurative, really

It's more abstract still than anything

If you're going to call it figurative, then it's terrible.
If it's abstract, then...
Well, you're the abstract-ist here.

[Elwell]

Here, it's just paint.
EXACTLY!

You might as well make a judgment about the Eiffel Tower or the Grand Canyon from a 400px jpeg.

[drd]

EXACTLY!

You might as well make a judgment about the Eiffel Tower or the Grand Canyon from a 400px jpeg.

I'm not sure I see exactly what this is implying

Well, I'll have to make a judgment about the Eiffel Tower from a 400px jpeg because I've never been to France. However, I know how hard it is to build/design something that massive, I'm sure the mathematics are also overwhelming and I have great respect for Mr. Eiffel. I don't see how throwing paint around is anywhere near as difficult as constructing something of that size.

[stephen]

well you obviously didnt quite get what he's trying to point out there.. he's not compareing the eiffel tower to a pollock painting, or the grand canyon, he's saying you can't fully appreciate either of those OR a pollock painting by simply viewing it in a photo, reading about it in a book, online, or someone telling you about it.

while youre kinda like, watching a tv program where theyre making food, and you say oooo ahhh wow look at all the ingredients that went into that, it looks incredible, its so complicated a recipe, it must be incredible. without even smelling it or tasting it. and then you see a another program of some guy grilling a burger in his backyard. and you say well that's not very impressive looking and he only smashed up some meat. it couldnt be very good.

when in fact a juicy homemade burger is fanfuckingtastic.


basically you need to GET BACK TO REALITY AND EXPEREIENCE LIFE.

awesome conclusion? rothko is still boring.

[Elwell]

awesome conclusion? rothko is still boring.
I agree 100%.
I love Pollock, though.

[drd]

well you obviously didn't quite get what he's trying to point out there.. he's not comparing the Eiffel tower to a Pollock painting, or the grand canyon, he's saying you can't fully appreciate either of those OR a Pollock painting by simply viewing it in a photo, reading about it in a book, online, or someone telling you about it.

while you're kinda like, watching a tv program where they're making food, and you say oooo ahhh wow look at all the ingredients that went into that, it looks incredible, its so complicated a recipe, it must be incredible. without even smelling it or tasting it. and then you see a another program of some guy grilling a burger in his backyard. and you say well that's not very impressive looking and he only smashed up some meat. it couldn't be very good.

when in fact a juicy homemade burger is fanfuckingtastic.


basically you need to GET BACK TO REALITY AND EXPERIENCE LIFE.

awesome conclusion? rothko is still boring.


Ah, I see

I'm really not sure those are the best examples in the world though, since our inherent views towards food are different than towards splatter (At least, I'm pretty sure they are)

oooo ahhh wow look at all the ingredients that went into that, it looks incredible, its so complicated a recipe, it must be incredible

Well I guess that would apply to someone who doesn't know what the ingredients are, but if I watch someone making something and I see what he puts in it, I can usually tell if I'll like it or not =/

Plus I love hamburgers =(

[Jasonwclark]

You can say what you want about Pollock as an individual painter, but Abstract Expressionism as an artistic movement, is essentially an intellectual/aesthetic movement. When Duchamp put his "Fountain" on display in Now York, it was a grand dick slap to the predominant aesthetic theory of the day... and we're still dealing with the fall out nearly a century later.

The basic argument (if you want to call it that) is that the painting doesn't require any real grounding in tradition; classical, figurative, symbolist, what have you; it only requires an "art context." Eventually even titles are challenged as unnecessary. The whole Dada experience basically councils us to look at the world the way Lucretius did; treating every moment in life as an opportunity to make aesthetic judgments. You can trace the intellectual movement under girding it to 18th-19th century thinkers, operating mainly in Germany and France. Nietzsche is probably the most extreme and important of these thinkers. In radical opposition to Plato, he challenges the main branches of philosophical learning; (Meta)Physics, Ontology, Epistemology and Ethics, and reduces them all to Aesthetics. Philosophy, Logic and the natural sciences, are all subsumed within "Art." He gives the image absolute primacy, and sees the choosing/selection of images (e.g. the basic aesthetic judgment) as the basis of all human understanding. Images and sounds combine to form concepts, and the rest of human knowledge builds from there. Much of the really controversial twentieth century artworks, can be view as responding to this general thought. Pollock, persuades us to see the paint and the process itself as worthy of recognition, as 'art.' Warhal, wants you to examine Pop/Commercial art with greater aesthetic sensitivity. Lichtenstein elevated Comic strips, and forced people to recognize them as art. Duchamp was more extreme, he and many of his Surrealist followers turned to 'ready-mades,' which are basically found objects presented as 'art.' The whole movement had a very Heideggerian feel to it, where the basic relationship between techne and poesis, (or technology, and artistic creativity) is stressed as paramount. Nobody considers a urinal with much appreciation these days, but just try creating one out of the dirt of the earth -assembling something like that from scratch- Suddenly you realize what a marvelously ingenious work of art it is.

The same could be said of a Styrofoam cup or a plastic bottle; we routinely dispose of them as useless, but I bet someone would have stabbed and killed you for one 500 years ago. "Are you for real? A cup that never breaks?" ;) The catch-22 is that human beings are only aesthetically fascinated by what seems great/rare. Once everything becomes an art object, and all techniques are esteemed with equal value, then the whole Dada project collapses in on itself again. The originators of the movement understood this inevitability, and even warned against it. I think this is probably the essential dilemma of contemporary art; that the old ideals of imitation and symbolism were thrown down, and now we're left to gather up the pieces and errect new ideals (or else reconstruct the old ones.) And of course, as the maxim says, its a hell of a lot harder to build something up, than it is to destroy.

Sorry, that turned into a much longer digression than I intended. The main point that I wanted to make, was that its almost impossible to properly appreciate a painting like that, without discussing the ideas and context that surrounded it. Personally, I think Pollock and Van Gogh are venerated as much for their tragic lives, as they are for the paintings... You almost need a biographical plaque hanging beneath the painting, to understand why others find it so interesting.

Also here is a slightly larger image

Blue Poles, Number 11
Jackson Pollock, 1952
on display at the National Gallery of Australia

[chaosrocks]

and I love Rothko

and if some one shows me something that they love..... I try to see what it is. becasue I value their insight....

i think the hero myth of the tragic artist is over played... from orpheus forward

chaos

[alesoun]

Maybe with visual art, as with music, it boils down to "I like it" or, "I don't." Each individual's taste/perception is influenced by so many things. Who decides the right and wrong; and on what objective basis?

[chaosrocks]

the other point is how to be curious and interested in the stuff we don't like
its easy to contemplate and try to understand the stuff we like.

[alesoun]

Yes, but that takes effort and suspension of beliefs. If we instantly dislike something (think of a taste or texture you dislike) it's hard to tempt us to try again..

[Elwell]

Yes, but that takes effort and suspension of beliefs. If we instantly dislike something (think of a taste or texture you dislike) it's hard to tempt us to try again..
For an example of how this can be overcome, read this (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/steingarten-everything.html). (AGAIN WITH THE FOOD ANALOGIES!)

[alesoun]

I would if they'd let me register! I think there might be a problem with the zip code..... Me being in Scotland where we don't have them.

Can you quote or summarise?
It's late....

[alesoun]

Ooh! *bangs head on wall* I don't think I've actually expressed a personal opinion one way, the other, or both! My pc keeps crashing! I know I'm a night owl, but I need to sleep sometime. Elwell, can you summarise or quote that? I just can't register with the site, so I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

[Elwell]

Try this (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Umb-MJYrLHkJ:www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/steingarten-everything.html+%22the+man+who+ate+everything%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us), it's Google's cached version.
I also like http://www.bugmenot.com for sites that require registration. Enter the url, and they'll give you a username/password combo.

[alesoun]

Thanks; received and did a speed read. First impression...... you have a wicked streak.

I'll read it again in the morning......

[pollocksthebollocks]

Its not just splattering paint, I am bored with this argument, Pollock was a genius and the movement, You have to see it in all its awe, it took him months to paint them.

[pollocksthebollocks]

Ah, I see

I'm really not sure those are the best examples in the world though, since our inherent views towards food are different than towards splatter (At least, I'm pretty sure they are)

oooo ahhh wow look at all the ingredients that went into that, it looks incredible, its so complicated a recipe, it must be incredible

Well I guess that would apply to someone who doesn't know what the ingredients are, but if I watch someone making something and I see what he puts in it, I can usually tell if I'll like it or not =/

Plus I love hamburgers =(

Just read the Pollock article on my blog and then come bach aaarrrggh

[drd]

Just read the Pollock article on my blog and then come bach aaarrrggh

You're article says that mathematicians can analyze a Pollock and determine some sort of mathematic function in his works; But how on earth does one go about creating a specific mathematical, fractal-like design by dripping paint. Even if they're dripped, the splatter on them doesn't look like it's been dripped on there at all, but slung, and the randomness in this cannot possibly yield a mathematical result (?)

I dunno, parts of that article don't sit well with me

[pollocksthebollocks]

You're article says that mathematicians can analyze a Pollock and determine some sort of mathematic function in his works; But how on earth does one go about creating a specific mathematical, fractal-like design by dripping paint. Even if they're dripped, the splatter on them doesn't look like it's been dripped on there at all, but slung, and the randomness in this cannot possibly yield a mathematical result (?)

I dunno, parts of that article don't sit well with me

Oh well, you dont like it others too, you are just annoying now. I think you will understand differently later, when you have been around a bit and seen a bit more. I respect your attitude towards it now, but I have my own thoughts about your thoughts and about everyone else's. You have to read more, buddy.

[drd]

Oh well, you dont like it others too, you are just annoying now. IY think you will understand differently later, when you have been around a bit and seen a bit more. I respect your attitude towards it now, but I have my own thoughts about your thoughts and about everyone else's. You have to read more, buddy.

Can you kind of respond to my query instead of just calling me annoying? I think the former would be the fastest route to getting me to understand Pollock's paintings, as you supposedly do

"I think you will understand differently later, when you have been around a bit and seen a bit more."

I really don't know how this would make a difference; What are you implying? You could, you know, explain it to me instead of calling it off as an age issue.
=/

"You have to read more, buddy."
Explain please

[pollocksthebollocks]

No actually, you are absolutely right. I dont want to change your opinion, or make you understand, and age doesnt matter at all. Everybody has their right to their own opinion. I accept if neither Pollock's nor Rothko's art says anything to you. I see it differently, I love this art and when I saw it up close I was overwhelmed by its beauty. I know that it took Pollock sometimes weeks to paint one of these you could almost say murals and when he painted it there was control. I know this because I have done it myself, and its not just a case of splattering paint, you have to have some control over what your doing, or it will just end u a mess. I went to an exhibition once in Cracow, thats in Poland, it was a wannabe Pollock, and what he had painted was a mess there was no control no harmony, no color coordination, it isnt so easy to do, but I can understand how some people may see it as just a "slab of red" or a "splatter on canvas".

Respect 8)

http://www.jamespresley.co.uk/images/obrazy/08_d.jpg

[Crush]

No actually, you are absolutely right. I dont want to change your opinion, or make you understand, and age doesnt matter at all. Everybody has their right to their own opinion. I accept if neither Pollock's nor Rothko's art says anything to you. I see it differently, I love this art and when I saw it up close I was overwhelmed by its beauty. I know that it took Pollock sometimes weeks to paint one of these you could almost say murals and when he painted it there was control. I know this because I have done it myself, and its not just a case of splattering paint, you have to have some control over what your doing, or it will just end u a mess. I went to an exhibition once in Cracow, thats in Poland, it was a wannabe Pollock, and what he had painted was a mess there was no control no harmony, no color coordination, it isnt so easy to do, but I can understand how some people may see it as just a "slab of red" or a "splatter on canvas".

Respect 8)

http://www.jamespresley.co.uk/images/obrazy/08_d.jpg

Is that one you linked a Pollock or someone elses?

It looks like a petri dish, or a fish tank, with little things swimming around in it like it's alive and dancing about when you look at parts of it closely, I like it :)

I don't really get this feeling from other pollock stuff I've seen, but then I've never actually seen one in person either :bashful:

[pollocksthebollocks]

Is that one you linked a Pollock or someone elses?

It looks like a petri dish, or a fish tank, with little things swimming around in it like it's alive and dancing about when you look at parts of it closely, I like it :)

I don't really get this feeling from other pollock stuff I've seen, but then I've never actually seen one in person either :bashful:


Its actually one of mine :) Thanks, I am glad you like it. I did it a couple of years ago

[Crush]

Haha awesome :teeth:

In that case a bit of feedback, I like the dribbled on stuff, but the smeared stuff isn't really saying anything to me. I'm not sure how you'de fix the composition if you got rid of it since there would be some dead space though (maybe just add some more dribbles? :P)

I still like it though, it reminds me of the early parts of the game spore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA

[Jason Rainville]

My only interaction with "real" abstract painting (as in, there in the room with me) was with the fine arts girls in my painting class. Needless to say, twas not enlightening, inspirational or fun in the least.

I don't like abstract art. Might never like it. But I can respect it. The idea of abstraction is at the heart of what I want to do (being a student of graphic design) but unfortunately none of the abstract art I see communicates anything to me. It takes abstraction to far, over the line, into non-representational forms. I don't get that, sorry. I don't know why something that appears to be something simple and ordinary should be considered as anything else.

I don't like it, but I can respect it.

[Elwell]

There are only two kinds of art; good art, and bad art.
Each one exists many forms.
The second kind will invariably outnumber the first.
The only remedy for this is time.

[Favila]

Most of modern art doesn't tell anything to me. Maybe i'm just ignorant and cant understand the art language of modern art, but I think that an artist should be kind of a translator from the essence of the thing the want to represent (emotion, story, human figure, whatever) to the language of the viewer so he can understand the meaning of the picture. Just as when you want to draw a women but your skills are poor and the viewer sees a man.

So when the artists brings his emotions to the canvas but nobody can understand it, for me this has the same value as a thumbnail for composition or that rough sketch to catch the idea. It's just for the artist to capture that emotion so later he can translate it.

For me that's the what sets the quality level of a picture, all the rest is just a matter of style, you can say things with more or less words, the important thing is to tell the message.

Sorry for the bad english!!

[Chiko]

I've never really appreciated Modern Art myself. Although I DO love some abstract things, I fell that sometimes artists push it into the spectrum of ridiculous.

Like for example a painting with splatters and random lines, that can be very interesting. While a canvas covered in nothing but red falls under self righteous and pretentious. To me it says, "I painted this to create controversy and be well known." Not "I have something to express."