/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2556764
Process is pretty simple, he drips and splatters liquid house paint onto the canvas using brushes, sticks, etc. Inspired by Native American sand painting.

>>2200932
>>2201153

(updated with correct picture)
here is your pure and earnest art

not saying there's anything wrong with pollock or abex, but this is what you produce when you try to reject all the art that came before you and create something entirely new.

who isn't the least bit influenced by other artists though? even pollock was influenced by lyrical abstraction and native american sand painting. do you shut your eyes and ears when you walk past a gallery window, and shun museums?

everyone is influenced by art history, other than outsider artists, whether they realize it or not. using perspective? thank Vasari. enjoy the nude or still lives? those genres were established long ago. paint a vase of flowers then give some thanks to the Dutch Golden Age. do you like expressionistic brushwork or impressionistic handling of like? thank the modernists.

you lose nothing by learning about artists and movements that came before you, it can only inform your practice and lead to new insights.

>>2178452

>paying millions for someone else's opinion

/ic/ I am disappoint, I thought you understood about aesthetics and an author's work

>>2163746
It's almost like you have no idea what pretense is.

>>2133376
that was rothko's goal, but he failed. art is not transcendent.

I prefer pollock. not bullshit about spirituality, just paint on a canvas.

>>2097634
(not that anon)- I absolutely agree with you that it must be seen in person, as the scale and subtle use of color can't be conveyed in a thumbnail on the internet. that being said, I have stood in front of several Rothkos, and was nothing but bored. Seeing a Pollock in person was quite an experience though.

>>2093462
graphite powder could cover the surface a lot quicker than a pencil

>>2034293
>deep and daring
never said that. take pollock for instance, (someone asked earlier what's "common sense" about pollock). He isn't trying to be deep, there's no esoteric message, his work is what you see. Paint on a canvas. No outside referent, narrative, representational subject matter, no 2deep4u message. It's all about the aesthetic experience of paint dripped, drizzled, and splashed across a giant canvas. what could be more 'common sense' than that? you like it or you don't, but you can't criticize it for being some lofty shit that it isn't trying to be.

>>1821190
I disagree. The painting itself is the subject, it doesn't need to reference anything outside of itself. It's a painting about painting. And personally, I get rock hard when I see a Pollock irl.

>>1793384
how does it feel to be dead inside?

>>1754645
no, he's right. the problem really is that abstract-haters WANT it to be something more than it is, and assume it's trying to be more than it really is. Pollock for instance wasn't trying to reference anything at all, his paintings are completely non-representational. they aren't "about" anything. However Scrubs will think the painting gains value because they see a duck or a figure in the meaningless drips, or they assume he's trying to convey some sort of deep spiritual message, when in reality he's just painting, nothing more or less.