/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Why did I poop this morning?

Ahh jackson pollock, exquisite piece indeed. Good choice op

>>2162693
There is nothing to understand. There is no narrative, it doesn't represent anything. It is paint on a canvas, with no outside referent or pretentious message. You like it or you don't.

But because of this, it is essential to experience the actual object, and not a thumbnail on a computer screen. The canvas is as large as your living room wall, and the paint has built up thick textures.

Part of the reason many people cannot understand or appreciate Pollock or other abstract expressionists is because they come into the gallery with preconceived notions about what art should be and what it should express. Don't expect a message, don't bother looking for recognizable objects, just appreciate it for what it is. Or don't, you're not forced to like it. Just don't judge it by irrelevant standards, look at the artist's own philosophy and goals.

>>2162706
Great post, pretty much nailed it all.
I have nothing to add except that I'm happy to see posts like yours on /ic/.

>>2162706
>>2162772
Gay.

>>2162706
>It may be a piece of shit but it's A REALLY BIG piece of shit

sage

>>2162777
I kissed his ass for a reason don't be jealous now.
>>2162795
lol was wondering when you guys would show up. Time to get outta this thread.

The real interesting thing about Pollock's work is not the work itself but the fact he was funded by the CIA in an effort to make abstract meaningless art forefront in the American culture so that people would not pay attention to any art considered subversive or political.

>>2162693

This is not from your time, so of course you have no reason to like it anymore than african masks or icelandic belts.

Why did our ancestors (Pollock was born a hundred years ago) think that noise was art? Same reason that egyptians thought it was a good idea to repeat the same patterns ad nauseam.
Those guys just saw the world in a different way than we do now. We may try to understand in a rational way, but we'll never see it like they really did.
They had their reasons to experiment the way they did and we have our reasons for wanting something else (like each new culture).

> Pic related I guess.
> Hard mode: Pollock was CIA.
> God mode: Pollock was a hack, his paintings were done by Picasso's father from the Netherworld.

>>2162852
>This is not from your time, so of course you have no reason to like it anymore than african masks or icelandic belts.
I don't believe this reasoning. There are people who don't like anything from their time, and there are many things from the past that are appreciated. Not everyone is selfish enough to only like what are their own (be it due to being their own culture they are part of or past culture), unless they're that type of egotistical Italian or similar.

>>2162706

>>2162852
>Why did our ancestors (Pollock was born a hundred years ago) think that noise was art? Same reason that egyptians thought it was a good idea to repeat the same patterns ad nauseam.

lol

No.

They were told ex catedra that this is on par with everything else that provided the concept of art with all of it's prestige and that this time they're just too simple to understand.

Without the art galleries (just like without that signature under the tattoo denoting that this is "art") none of it would ever gain popularity.

They were conned.

Your post is nothing but a pathetic cop out, pretending we don't have the materials and the cultural affinity to understand something as recent as Pollock's garbage.

>>2162693
Because there is nothing to understand.
Because it is easy to do, yet worth more than everything you will ever create.

>>2163451
But I am Beethoven

>>2162706
>with no pretentious message
riiiiiight

>>2163453
Nice try shitlord, Beethoven was black

>>2163629

My sides: Lost

>>2163629
fucking gold

>>2163629
Why white people always trying to culturally appropriate niggas?

>>2162693
As a general rule I will never draw on someone else's work since I find it very disrespectful to the original artist regarding of skill level, but you could probably make some cool colab out of that one.

>>2163620
Why would you assume there is a pretentious message? Pollock didn't want you to read a lengthy artist statement in order to understand his work. He wouldn't even give his paintings descriptive titles, preferring to call them "1A" etc. It's paint on a canvas, and it pretends to be nothing more.

>>2162838
>he was funded by the CIA in an effort to make abstract meaningless art forefront in the American culture so that people would not pay attention to any art considered subversive or political.
yeah, no. it was funded because it arose during the cold war and we wanted to highlight a homegrown artform and seem more cultured than the USSR. and it's not like the CIA created abstract expressionism, it just gave support to a movement that was already established and succeeding. No different from the patronage the church gave artists in the renaissance.

>>2163712
By funding art that should never have existed in a sense they did create it.

Same with this faggot on top of reddit what a piece of shit.

>>2162852
You can understand if you read history.
Illiterate.

>>2162852
Who determines what a painting is worth?

Is it You? Is it "The people"? No? Who then?..

Go look it up I'll wait.

>>2163710
>He wouldn't even give his paintings descriptive titles, preferring to call them "1A" etc
>not pretentious

>>2162693
I dunno, man. It's just pure abstraction. It's like listening to baroque classical music or jazz. It's a cool paint composition on a canvas. That's about it. Some people like it, some people don't. You can think whatever you want!

That said, you can take your principles of design and shit and see a definite visual intent to each composition, even some emotion in there, or at least the viewer's imagination can interpret there is. This is why I'm not saying this shit is non-objective. That's kinda cool if you think about it, yeah?

Daily reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>>2163746
Yeah, but how fucking pretentious is it to title a highly abstracted painting devoid of any obvious representation/symbolism with some kind of dippy symbolic title? The guy wanted to pour paint splatters and shit that looked cool.

>>2163760
>Yeah, but how fucking pretentious is it to title a highly abstracted painting devoid of any obvious representation/symbolism with some kind of dippy symbolic title?
Exactly
>The guy wanted to pour paint splatters and shit that looked cool.
That's fine by me, I think it's shit though.

>>2163746
Better than
>Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhon coming on

>>Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhon coming on

HAHAHA I JUST GOOGLED THIS WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT

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

>>2163782
it's a painting by JMW Turner that depicts slavers throwing slaves overboard during a storm for insurance money.

>>2163779
>>2163782
>>2163913
I don't see anything wrong/pretentious with the painting...? how old are you guys?

>>2162693
Because lines are their own thing when they're not tied to shape.
>>2162693
Rushed lines come from a rushed artist, disparity of color, style and distribution of the overall painting also comes into shape.
jk idk shit lol

>>2163940
Turner had some OK pieces, this was not one of them.

>>2163955
why? I think it's really lovely. its compositionally sound, the mood matched the subject before I even really read the title, and the usage of color in the sky and water is nice. its not a bad painting, honestly the one you posted isn't as interesting

>>2163955
what's the point in liking Turner if you're just into his generic early work? that's not what earned him his place in art history.

>>2162706
>>2163722
^correct

Part of the issue is that folks conflate "modern art" (pollock) with "post-modern" or "pop" art" . Pollock is often mixed in with them because some of the theory behind his works are appropriated to make post modern garbage that we all agree to hate.

>>2163962

It just looks fucking blurry to me... a lot of his stuff the shapes and perspective is highschool level terrible. I Like this one though.

>>2163958
Theres a bunch of shit all over the place.. I like some parts of it, but I wouldn't show this to anyone if I painted it.

>>2163964
>>2163966
if you feel that way then you need to build up your understanding of the principles of art and maybe read up on impressionist art before trying to criticize

theres a lot of thought put into those pieces technically, same goes for jackson pollock paintings.

>>2163966
>implying that painting isn't better than anything you've ever painted

>>2163979
Fuck that.. I won't be indoctrinated by your shitty art circle jerk. This art sucks, and if you don't understand what that means, perhaps you need to raise your standards.

>>2163987
I've seen better painters then Turner when I was at school, why would you be surprised?

>>2164020
Don't get me fucking wrong though.
A lot of turner's stuff is really good.

But not that piece.

>>2164020

There's a lot of shit to rebel against in art school. a LOT. But Turner was an actually interesting artist who lived by his values and did something unique and beautiful. theres better things to have a problem with.

Holy shit this thread is filled with ignorance

>>2164033
Again, I honestly have no problem with Turner, I already said I loved a lot of his paintings, even though some of the ones I like are homages to his favorite artists.

>>2164020
>I won't be indoctrinated by your shitty art circle jerk
nice buzz words, do people actually think like this? it's one thing admitting that kind of artwork isn't something you can really get into, that's understandable. but it's not really hard to understand why it's revered and what about it is aesthetically appealing. it's less about painting something close to how it looks in real life but more about painting based on mood, emotion, and suggestion.

also with that reply to the other dude, you're comparing his work to completely different styled work. it's like me comparing bouguereau to picasso...two artists with totally different end goals with their work that do fantastic in their respective styles.

>>2164038
exactly why I rarely come to /ic/ anymore

>>2164067

That's because you're part of the establishment.

You and your Pollock , Keane, warhol, hurst Metzinger, Kline, klint, Malevich..

Your art isn't "hard to get into" its low quality and a product of cultural degeneration.

Oh and in before "Hurr hurr Sakimichan" or some bullshit weeb strawman.

>>2164109

You are cancer, holy motherfucking shit

>>2164109
Taking a break from /pol/ eh?

>>2164115
Neither of you are wrong though. You both just have different definitions of what makes good art.

>>2164119
I don't browse /pol/ a lot, but when I do it's filled with racism slander and just like..99% Hard trolls or something... cause no one makes any sense.

Just because I feel strongly about art standards I'm automatically labeled a degenerate? :/ k k

>>2164144
not that anon, but I assume it's because of your narrow-minded opinion and your reference to "cultural degeneration." it literally reads like something hitler would write about art.

>>2164109
this

>>2164109
who said anything about the art being "hard to get?" Pollock is literally the easiest art to understand in the world. there are no puzzles or tricks, it is what it is and you like it or you don't.

if you don't like it, refrain from rants about "entartete kunst" because it makes you look like a fucking tool.

>>2164155
Alright maybe I should pick my words better, But what do you call it when you go from Bierdstadt and Sargent to Kasten or Alcalay?

>>2164157
Rocks and Toilets "are what they are" as well, Still doesn't make them good art.

You can call it art! By all means! Have your installations filled with garabage with large writeups next to them about the "Collapse of the link between Society and nature through industrialization"

Standards are low. Standards Must Rise.

>>2164165
if by toilet you mean Duchamp's "Fountain", it isn't "just what it is." It's the beginning of conceptual art, where the concept takes precedence over the art object and the context and intent is essential in understanding the work. none of this is true for a pollock painting. You're creating a false equivalence between abstract expressionist art and conceptual art.

>>2164161
porque no los dos?

it's apples and oranges. realism still exists, abstraction just exists alongside it. it seems like you're working under the false assumption that art has a singular goal, which is the faithful representation of reality.

>>2164171
You're telling me you think no one before duchamp created with the concept dominating ?

Bull shit, Look at Egyptian hieroglyphs and Wall carvings, Duchamp was not the beginning.

>>2164174
There's definitely some abstract art I like, Im not saying down with Abstract art.

I'm saying down with art that takes the skill level of a child to complete, but is paraded around like it's got some super deep meaning and its awesome! (pollock)

>>2164176
you're saying that hieroglyphs are the original conceptual art? are you retarded? the egyptians still paid heed to traditional aesthetic concerns, they had it down to a fucking formula. and this was a time before the concepts of "fine art" and "art for art's sake" even existed, you're comparing a written language system to gallery work for christ's sake.

but for the sake of argumentation let's say you're right. that still doesn't change the fact that pollock isn't creating conceptual art, and it doesn't mean that Fountain "is what it is", it still relies heavily on concept and context.

>>2164180
prove that a child can make art on the same level as pollock. have you ever taken the online quiz where you guess whether a work was created by an abstract expressionist, an animal, or a child? it's simple to tell the difference.

and pollock's work has never claimed "some super deep meaning", quite the opposite.

>>2164187
I took that quiz. Couldn't tell TBH.

>>2164186
Are you saying that Symbolism Isn't Art? but the Rock is? Are YOU retarded?

Hieroglyphs are as much art as they are a written language. A modern example of this would be Graphic Design Fonts and Moon Language paintings.

Most of egyptian art was highly symbolic faggot, Things that represented their Gods, the afterlife, Ideas like Ascension.
http://wpmsart.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/8/24884056/1803243_orig.jpg

I really don't understand why there is so much hate towards abstract work on ic.... "its shit"... I mean, its non representational, you either like it or not.... not much else to it. I bet most of you people who hate Pollock have never seen any of his work IRL, its gorgeous... also like another OP said, this is from a different time period... then again this is 4chan and since a majority of its users are somewhere high on the autism spectrum, I can understand why this concept would be difficult and frustrating to grasp... anyway love n peace

>>2164190
>Are you saying that Symbolism Isn't Art
Symbolism (capital S) is a movement from the late 1800s, of course it's art. And did I say that symbolism (small s) isn't art? No, I did not.

Do you know what's retarded? Pretending that art has had a static meaning from 4000 BC to today. I never claimed hieroglyphs weren't art, but that they weren't conceptual art. If you think they are, then you legitimately do not understand the meaning of conceptual art, which is a concept that has only existed for about a century.

>>2164195
THIS

>>2164195
>I really don't understand why there is so much hate towards abstract work on ic
>this is 4chan and a majority of its users are somewhere high on the autism spectrum
It seems you do understand.

>>2164198

LeWitt (1967), a renowned Conceptual artist, wrote that Conceptual (thought) and Perceptual (sensory) Art have contradictory principles and objectives. Modern artistic interpretation of these styles, which has a tenuous association with Ancient Egypt, is highly subjective and definitions are broad. Art created primarily for the sensation of the eye is Perceptual. Perceptual art depicts the subject-matter realistically - like a photograph or snapshot-in-time - and is how we would actually perceive it in “real life”. Art that depicts the subject more symbolically or abstractly and conveys a concept or idea is classified Conceptual. It is ancillary to the primary rationale if compositions are appreciated for creative skill and artistry. LeWitt (1967) stated that the “… idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work” and that “… the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. LeWitt stresses that conceptual composition is less dependant on the expression of skill by an artist and ‘simply’ an execution by a craftsman.

It is ironic that after thousands of years of developing foreshortening as ‘the’ high-art form of the three-dimensional medium some modern artists have re-embraced Conceptual art. This movement has a similarity to the Ancient Egyptian technique of representing on a flat ‘canvas’ things that in reality have depth (Schäfer, 2002, p.80).

From the Same fucking thing you're reading to me.

>>2164198
ALSO No one said shit about art Being static.

Art is life and life is cyclical.

>>2162693

The thing is, Pollock went away from any representation, wether realistic or symbolic. Look at his earlier art, it's full of symbols (and looks rather childish).
And later we have that kind of thing, absolutely unreadable and which is not "anything" in particular. It almost seems to be random and not man-made.

I'm used to art expressing something through the final product (like most of you, I guess) so it's always weird to see an artist focusing on the medium itself.

So, what made him do that kind of thing?
> Jazz, psychanalism, freedom of creation, buzzwords, etc.

If you hate it, OP, try to see some Pierre Soulages. You'll certainly like Pollock more.

> tfw I like Malevitch and people think I'm just trying to be a contrarian hipster

>>2164207
>psychanalism
heh what.

>>2164180
is that supposed to be abstract?

>>2164207
don't forget about the importance of nascent existentialist philosophy to abex artists.

>>2164210
What, is it not abstract enough for you?

>>2164209
idk what that means, but he was a raging alcoholic which eventually lead him crashing his car. kek

>>2164209

Psychanalysis was the english word I was trying to write.
Pollock was interested (like a lot of artists of his time) in some of the ideas that Freud and Jung made famous at the time. Like the unconscious and the expression of the unconscious.
Think how he would walk on the canvas and let his instinct go wild. People at the time really believed that our unconscious had something to say (similarly, writers tried automatic writing...).

Welp I'm out of steam :/
But good talking to you again. ..
See you next time you decide to post this thread
again.

I prefer >>2163979 to >>2164020 quite honestly. One looks like a shitty attempt at a photograph, the other like it's trying to push art farther along. I'll take the new and obscene for 400 Alex. Dumping as much time into a abstracted piece would do wonders though.


There is a bunch of bales in the field behind my house. I'm going to get all cubist on that shit and make some shit paintjng. Because fuck you.

>>2163962
Was it Turner who said some thing like true artist aren't afraid to get dirty. I remember my teacher had a big boner for him. Always talked about his pieces and how he literally painted living worlds.

>>2164109
>>2164165
I'm not part of anything, I'm a no name artist working as a cashier who hasn't even gone to college
>hard to get into
thats the thing, its not. theres an aesthetic appeal to the art, the artist still thinks about values, composition, color theory, blah blah but without any realistic representation. even pollocks work has a level of balance and usage of contrast in it that requires knowledge of art to actually make. there's no conspiracy behind it, its just a different kind of art that doesn't resonate with you

>>2164252
if thats what gets you excited when painting then do so. thats also something I think people forget about. different people feel like they can really express themselves with different types of art and mediums, regardless of whatever preconceived notions people have of what good art is. thats the beauty of it

This thread is painful to read. Any one of you dumbasses who thinks their opinion that historically established art movements are "shit," and your limited knowledge is sufficient to dismiss it- are kings of mount stupid.

Your dismissal actually places yourself in the post-modern, "everyone's point of view is valid," and "me me me me me" camp of art. Grow up. Read a goddamn book.

>>9/10 "rustled jimmies"

>>2164252
I forgot how painting under changing light and staring into the sun can fuck things up. Solid fluorescent lighting too.

>>2164407
Amazing are you sure you're not related to Kadinsky ?

I'd like to buy this and hang it in my room

>>2164409
Assuming sarcasm, but if serious drop me a line. 10x12, oil on canvas. Email attached.

Here's something else I was working on. It's two views of a gazebo and a flower in the bed.

I'm pretty sure all abstract art is completely
pointless because there are LITERALLY 0
space marines in any of them.

>>2163911
damn it, this is fucking rad. It buzzes! Anyone else get the optical illusion of motion?

>>2164560
Please don't smoke crack

>>2164558
And no penises either
Like seriously dude? You're gonna make all those lines and not add a single penis? what the fuck is your problem?

>>2164558

I wonder how many of us are inspired by Pollock in 2015, if not only for cool textures for our space marines armors.

>>2163715
>should have never existed

LMFAO FIGGITS THINK THIS IS A SCIFI ANIME PUT THE RING IN THE VOLCANO FOR ELFKIND MIDGET ROFL CIA DIDN'T BUY THE SHIT THEY PAID TO SHIP OVERSEAS ONCE WTF

>>2164109

There's a Malevich exhibition in my home town.

I like the fact that he was one of the first to get into such a form of abstract art, and I liked the exhibition itself, but I don't find it genius in any other way other than 'he did it first'

The idea is great and the visual message is strong and aesthetic, but it lacks depth imo

>>2165854

>...Attempts to claim that styles of art are politically neutral when there is no
overt political subject matter are as simplistic as Dondero-ish attacks on all
abstract art as .. subversive." Intelligent and sophisticated cold warriors like
Braden and his fellows in the CIA recognized that dissenting intellectuals who
believe themselves to be acting freely could be useful tools in the international
propaganda war. Rich and powerful patrons of the arts, men like Rockefeller and
Whitney, who control the museums and help oversee foreign policy, also
recognize the value of culture in the political arena. The artist creates freely. But
his work is promoted and used by others for their own purposes. Rockefeller,
through Barr and others at the Museum his mother founded and the family con-
trolled, consciously used Abstract Expressionism, "the symbol of political
freedom," for political ends.

>Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of The Cold War - Eva Cockcroft - Art Forum - 1974

I assume you all have read this, being it is probably the first writing on the subject that lead to the conspiracy theory that is passed around so much here. They tried to fund a show, it didn't happen, they may or may not have inspired a museum to fund the show "100 American Artists". This is hardly the smoking gun woo woo bs atelierfags hype.

>https://www.msu.edu/course/ha/240/evacockroft.pdf

>>2165869
not to mention communist russia funding socialist realism directly as a state art form for political propaganda and discouraging or outright crushing artistic dissent is totally not weaponizing art for cold war efforts and stormfags making infographics for mein furer isn't exactly the same thing at all.

>>2165876
So you're admitting we had the shittier weapons?

>>2164407
>>2164439
i like it, since when were there actual painters in da house. oh that's right it's buried under all the "i'm going to school for game design cit pls no bully pls get gud read loomis >>/beginnerthread/"

>>2165878
>imbygin

USSR NSDAP doesn't exist faggot the whole world studies/emulates American art

>>2165903
This is the dumbest shit I've read in a while.

Have you been to see it in real life?

>>2165880
Used to major in CS (not for gaming reasons), ended up snapping and grabbing a brush and distancing myself from most tech. I will never move to a tablet, I love an expressive brush.

The technique is simple, quick sketch, move easel, quick sketch, move easel, quick sketch, erase lines to make nicely shaped forms, move between positions filling forms.

>>2164202
not that anon, but "similar" in expression, not intent. Hieroglyphs were literal in their meaning, at least to the Ancient Egyptians.