Art? Maybe. Random paint splatters that my 8-year-old sister could do? Definitely. That might sound a little harsh, but those were my first thoughts when I looked at Jackson Pollock’s painting on page 85 of our textbook. Maybe I’m missing something, but when I look at Pollock’s paintings I don’t really sense any skill involved. I’ll admit that they do look neat. But that’s about as far as I’ll go with that.
I guess I should give him some credit for his creativity though, considering that his art is considered the beginning of “action painting.” He also added bits of random objects, such as sand, nails, and bottle shards, to the layers of his paintings, which is a creative way to add texture and make the paintings unique.
Pollock was expelled from 2 different high schools and struggled with alcoholism most of his life, so he obviously had some inner turmoil. Looking at his paintings, they seem like they could be the results of Pollock using painting as an outlet for frustration or troubled emotions. According to Pollock, each of his paintings had a life of their own, with him controlling their direction. Looking at it from that perspective, it’s possible that his paintings were not just random paint splatters, but rather his way of dealing with difficulties in his life. I suppose that that’s what art is really about. Not so much what we, the viewers, see, but the story behind the art.
I still don’t see much talent involved in Pollock’s works, but it’s quite possible that I’m missing something in my very limited knowledge and experience with art. What do you think?
When I saw these "paintings" in the book, I thought the same thing: Art? Random splatters of color don't exactly measure up as art. After reading you blog, I have to say I completely agree with you. I'm not so sure I call it art, but if it is how he dealt with his struggles in life, then by all means let him splash all the paint his little heart desires.
ReplyDeleteI think that art, in many cases at least, is something that is pleasing to the eye. Do deep meanings really matter if it is pretty to look at? Furthermore does there need to be a meaning at all if people look at it and like it? I'm not sure, but I completely agree with you that the paintings look neat. So why isn't that art? If my little sister could make something that is pretty to look at and lots of people like it, couldn't that be art? Or is the fact that she is 10 mean that she is incapable of creating art? If she thinks that it is art and she enjoyed creating it, then who's to say it isn't art, which brings us to your point about how he may have created these paintings to deal with his life. I completely agree. I guess perspective has a lot to do with it. If you are looking for the most technical piece of art, then don't go for a Pollock, but if you are looking for something that makes you feel good and looks nice, then pick out something that does that for you. Who cares if a ten year old, or a Pollock, made it. If you think it is good art, then go for it.
ReplyDelete