Jackson Pollock is advertised as the most important American artist of the 20th century, who projecting the imprint of philosophy, art history, and the human experience into visual form, incorporated both chance and control while painting with a physical immediacy and gesture.

The videoclip, titled Fellow Drippers, formulates alternative approach to understanding Jackson Pollock.

Well..I may be a cretin..but to me..that stuff is just so much paint splashed all over...with an intellectual spin on it..

The problem with his art that I see is that it was too political. The art itself may have had nothing to do with politics, but at least part of the reason it became popular did since it was just following world war 2 and art critics felt we needed a new "american" art form.

There was something I remember about before going into abstract expressionism he tried doing realism in art school but didn't do too well at that.

I agree, sorry. Been to galleries and seen them up close, far away you name it. Didn't get it. But hey that's just my opinion. :}

..I may be a cretin..but to me..that stuff is just so much paint splashed all over...

The problem is that not only people extraordinarily simple in character, but even very learned individuals can't tell masterpieces of modern art from ridiculous fakes when great names are detached from them.
See:
http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/51587/

Did an abstract masterpiece kill your father or something?

HAHAHA! Well said Zack.

I think that modern art is one subject and artist recognition is an entirely different subject... Some people might not be able to tell masterpieces of any kind of art when great names are detached from them. And others might overlook masterpieces only because they are not made of someone with a name (they know)... >:|
|XOD|

Well, I also think that calling something a 'masterpiece' is an opinion as opposed to a fact. Not everyone will agree a piece is a masterpiece even after they have it all explained to them. So it is kinda hard to say someone 'overlooked a masterpiece' if it really doesn't fit the viewer's interests...

You are right Mr. Gigandas. <:)
|XOD|

Yeah. It is more of an opinion thing.
I don't think that's a masterpiece. I could probably do it o_o;
He just splashed paint on.. paper or whatever that was XD

I finally watched the video, and your right. It does look like bird shit. :}

Did an abstract masterpiece kill your father or something?

They killed Art.

I'm a simple man. I like pizza..and cheeseburgers... I love dogs..and pictures I enjoy. I don't want someone to explain to me why I should be impressed with ..."movement..and emotion...and color...and form...and ..whateveritisism..." If i see a picture I like..I like it.. if i see a picture I don't...no amount of intellectual fawning and spinning will make me like it. I smoke , too. I'm pretty stupid, huh.

To some degree, I agree Dave.

I think understanding the elements of design and having some general knowledge of art history, I've developed a more eclectic taste for art than say the "average Joe", then again, I attended art school. We are talking about visual art, the key word being "visual", so it helps to understand the visual language to appreciate all forms of "visual" art. Same with music (another art), I think the more you know about it and the more music you hear (with an open mind), the more you can appreciate all genres.

So basically, it comes down to having more knowledge about the subject, the more you know about something, the better you can understand it and appreciate it.

But yeah, even if you understand why a certain piece is visually stimulating and understanding the artists intentions, doesn't mean you're going to like it.

I finally watched the video, and your right. It does look like bird shit. :}

This is because the birds use the same technique as Pollock: dripping.

this again? sheesh... what is it you hope to accomplish? or do you just enjoy putting your opinion out there sooo much?

Hate to say it, never considered bird shit art. Something that should just be washed away. But like I said, just my opinion.

They killed Art.

Please elaborate.

And to clarify, is your gripe with the abstract art celebrities or the entire genre of abstract art?

no amount of intellectual fawning and spinning will make me like it

... because if someone likes abstract art, it is because of intellectual fawning and spinning, rather than anything of geniune value? You aren't a martyr, Dave. No one thinks less of you for disliking abstract art. Now, acting like others are having the wool pulled over their eyes while you see that the emperor has no clothes, that gets irritating.

never considered bired shit art. Something that should just be washed away

People stared at me, while I was videotaping it. I tried to educate them about dripping technique, but poor philistines didn't get it.

It's a privelege of being older.. people expect you to be irritating.. so I work at it. BTW anyone know how to get the dripping brush in Lascaux to work?

Nope. In fact it'd take some skill to reproduce such a piece in Lascaux.

How about the "paint can " fill tool.,,can I get the lid off and just pour it?

The problem with his art that I see is that it was too political. The art itself may have had nothing to do with politics, but at least part of the reason it became popular did since it was just following world war 2 and art critics felt we needed a new "american" art form.

There was something I remember about before going into abstract expressionism he tried doing realism in art school but didn't do too well at that.

That is correct. I've seen 1999 British documentary about him and it mentioned that the media had the need for a cowboy-painter. Pollock had a foto of himself in a cowboy hat (he never rode a horse though). They mentioned that after filming of the 1951 documentary, Pollock yelled at the director: "that is you who is phony, I am not phony" and turned over a table.
Ed Harris, the director of the 2000 movie "Pollock", had mentioned in an interview that Pollock could not compete with talented students in his art school.

He was as much a painter as he was a cowboy.

So what's the big deal then?

He wasn't a member of 2Draw..is what..

It's a privelege of being older.. people expect you to be irritating.. so I work at it. BTW anyone know how to get the dripping brush in Lascaux to work?

You cant achive the effect by such unnatural means. As was pointed out by thingsthatgo in the artforum, birds were designed this way to say us something. And some people take the whole flocks of them in their heads and start to spatter and flutter.

That...was a joke...just in case you weren't aware .... as was the one about taking the lid off the paint can..

Please elaborate.

American art museums are full of smut and trash, while the work of real artists (like Thomas Kinkade) is completely ignored.

this again? sheesh... what is it you hope to accomplish? or do you just enjoy putting your opinion out there sooo much?

When I see smut I call it smut. I think that the majority of American people will agree with my opinion.

You can't be serious. Thomas Kinkade? You can't possibly be serious.

Thomas Kinkade is pretty friggin popular last time I checked. I've seen stores selling nothing but his works everywhere...

ahahaha Thomas Kinkade? ahahaha
assuming this is whom you are referring to, borrrrring!
you know, they make photography for a reason.

Eh, you could probably say the same thing about typography (except for that you'd wanna use a computer instead of using pens), but I'm taking a course on that.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with reproducing landscapes or any of that since certain people prefer it painted/drawn, over a photograph...

that doesn't make it good =P

That's what all the people who can't do it say :P.

Let us make an analogy. Because I don't slice peoples heads off with a kitchen knife, I can't.

Let's say we go with that analogy and say "prove it" since it's no crime to show me that you're capable in this case :).
And I'll be the judge. Trust me, I'll be fair as long as it really is good enough.

Reference?

photo by self

I meant, "where is it," so I can compare :P.

I don't think you'll see Kinkade in an art history book anytime soon but he is a good business man.

He'll go down as a great business man, not a great artist. I see his work as a pop-culture collectible more than a serious collection of art work.

I'd somewhat agree with Cloxboy...

I sort of admire him, cause he makes me laugh. He messes with the outer world's view of art...He said "I want my paintings to be in every house in America." And what do you know, there's mugs, teddy bears, glade candles, greeting cards, prints etc...
Most everyone knows who he is...so he is successful in that way. His work isn't my style, but he does have skill. The thing is he makes pretty images, most of America wants pretty pictures in their houses, not something that is going to make them question existence. (People feel overwhelmed/stressed as it is.)

I don't think he REALLY thinks his work are these great master pieces, rather I think he is taking advantage of his audience.

eh?

not anywhere close

He'll go down as a great business man, not a great artist.

Does one need to be a crafty buiseiness man to sell Kinkade's high-quality paintings, or canned exrements of Piero Manzoni?

Thomas Kinkade. Am I right, the painter of light? Well I'm not a big fan of his but he is talented. If I'm thinking right in his early days he worked on the Frank Frazetta animated movie, " Fire and Ice" Worthless knowledge for sure. :}

Simkin: Yeah, Kinkade is a business man, that's the difference between a working artist and just an artist. Working artists live off their art and promote their art, just like anyone promotes a service or business.

Kinkade sells his work to be mass produced on credit cards, greeting cards, T-shirts, books, lamps, etc., I don't know about you...but I think he's in it for the money. His work is totally unoriginal, it's basically wallpaper for the masses. I don't believe someone who really is passionate about their art work would mass produce it like Kinkade does. He claims he's a great fine artist, master of light but I think he's got many people fooled, he's an entrepreneur not the next Van Gogh.

What's really lame is that he tries to pass himself off as a great fine artist, unfortunately for him, any respectable person/artist can see right though his bull shit. If he had just said "I'm going to mass produce my mediocre images to make money", I could accept that. That's why most people in the serious art community don't respect him, all in all, he's just a fake.

Clox-Does that mean you don't respect portrait artists either?

not too many portrait artists sell their work on QVC.

I'm rather fond of the decorative holiday candle toppers, myself.

not too many portrait artists sell their work on QVC.

Part of the reason is that Q in QVC stands for quality.
In another thread I posted the scores given by the people to several abstract masterpieces.
http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/51587/

If he had just said "I'm going to mass produce my mediocre images..."

Make a quiz containing Kinkade's images and yours (like my "True art or a fake?" quiz) and let us see the results.

... and the C stands for convenience, certainly a very important aspect of masterful art. After you're done shopping for "masterpieces" you can click over to the pets area and buy your dog some clothes. Combine the two in one order for extra savings! This is only a few steps away from selling your art in Wal-Mart.

How many times are you going to link to that forum? You seem to think that if you repeat yourself over and over we'll just spontaneously start seeing things your way.

I would like to see his opinions on plates, and coffee mugs,and calendars, myself.

the majority of the american people... you mean the same majority rushing to buy the new vin disel dvd, t.k. postcards, american idol cd, and hemmy powered whatever? by all means have them backing your opinion. godspeed! but your opinion will always remain just that.

t.k. is talented, but souless. plus there are a thousand other artists who do the same thing of equal or better quality. whoopdedoo.

I think my opinion here is that once again, art is art. It's not always about expressing as seen in Kinkade (whom I'm not a fan of, btw) or in typography where you make some fancy fonts (and those are only couple examples of the many fields). I mean of course it's up to you whether you choose to appreciate certain fields of art, but to say that people not on your side are being 'fooled' by people like Kinkade, seems wrong to me. I'm sure there are artists even in the abstract field out there who are in it for the money. If you wanna sit there and analyze who you're gonna hate for that, go ahead, but you don't have to diss others for not seeing it in the same manner...

-After all, Kinkade has the technical talent and execution down. Nothing wrong with living off your strengths...

-I'd also like to add, that part of being an artist is that you can execute the idea. I know plenty of creative people, but lack the technical skill. So being able to actually draw/paint well, suggests artistic talent to a certain degree. Anyone can draw stick figures in some crazy fantasy scene where you can't tell what's going on, but they probably won't be recognized for it.

I think my opinion here is that once again, art is art.

No one said Kinkade wasn't an artist, or that his art wasn't art. It was however opined that he wasn't a great artist, contrary to Kinkade's statements about himself.

... but to say that people not on your side are being 'fooled' by people like Kinkade, seems wrong to me.

Saying that people not on your side are being fooled by people like Jackson Pollock is okay in your book though?

You'll note that Clox prefaced his statement on that by saying it was his opinion, rather than stating it as a fact. Additionally, he didn't say that Kinkade was fooling people into enjoying his work, but into regarding it as thoughtful fine art, which Clox contends it is not.

http:www.annoyingyellowquoteboxes.com

Exactly Zack, you get my point.

Read this Kinkade Critique. I think this guy puts what Kinkade is doing into perspective. He's a bit of an elitist and I don't exactly love his art either but I think he makes some good points about Kinkade and art in general.

Gingandas...I agree. I think it all boils down to the artist ego, and what one is interested in. The way I see it, Kinkade is interested in what is pleasing to the majority, and self promotion...its alot like hip hop (at least some aspects). I say kudos to him for successful marketing. As I said before, I don't think he actually takes himself so serious...I think he's having a little fun and personal laughs.

And that article/critique is very interesting...I really enjoyed this part:
"Conceptual art is late Modernism and no "new" kind of conceptual art can be Postmodern except when it’s Neo-Conceptual, if you can wrap your brain around that."

I also think Kinkade's "gimmicks" are great...It's all a game, and some people figure it out faster or in different ways. I think overall there is a dumbing of society, and I just see Kinkade as someone who's messing with it. It makes me laugh.

Who cares if people embrace Thomas Kinkade or any other artist for that matter...I'm happy they're not starving, and making art. If not only for them personally, but also for the continuation of the cycle of creation. Everything seems to feed off eachother...like the discussion alone of an artist's work, is inspiration for other works.

Of course all is speculation and my personal perspective.

Hmm, so are Kinkade's opinions about himself (mentioned previously) actually true then? I thought that was just the idea you got about him; or a presumption. I dunno, I can see why certain people would say that an artist needs to have certain qualities, but you'll never be able to force those characteristics upon everyone. Seems to me that as long as his audience is satisfied, it's fine whether they want to believe he's truly a 'great' artist or not. Again, naming a piece a 'masterpiece' is a matter of opinion, not a fact. As much as someone may like abstract, 'soulful' art in their house, maybe they prefer beautifully done landscapes, houses, and scenery which won't intimidate them. Whether they wanna call that masterful is up to them.

-It's like music, really. Who one person may call a 'genius', may be trash to another. No one's being 'fooled' into thinking that so-and-so's work is genuine music or not.

you know, they make photography for a reason.

haha.

LisaAnne: I think you made some good points.

To all of you: I think Kinkade and his gimmicks lack artistic integrity. And yes, I feel it's important we distinguish artists like Kinkade from serious artists because there is a standard, in art history and in the current art community. All art is not created equal when it comes to integrity and craft. I respect artists who care about how each piece of art they make represents them (in style, expression and skill) and I think they are BETTER artists for having that mentality.

People seem to think that opinions are somehow free from analysis. "But that's just my opinion," they say. "You can't say I'm wrong, it's my opinion."

One could be of the opinion, for example, that reading books makes people less intelligent. Is this a well-formed opinion? Most would say no. While you cannot conclusively say that this person is factually wrong, you can reason out the situation with them and argue a point. Opinions are not things that exist entirely independent of fact and reason.

It's like music, really. Who one person may call a 'genius', may be trash to another. No one's being 'fooled' into thinking that so-and-so's work is genuine music or not.

I don't think the analogy works here. Very few people (besides perhaps stoners) will tell you that a shallow, thoughtless song was deeply meaningful and philosophical. In contrast, I consider Kinkade's work to be quite shallow, which is contrary to what Kinkade's marketing promoters (yes, he has his own staff) would say.

Also, I forgot to say earlier that I agreed with your statement about artistic execution, with the caveat that simplicity of execution doesn't necessitate lack of skill in execution.

Well what I mean by my personal opinion is...take it with a grain of salt...
I have my view of the world...my interests what have you...and there fore my words have slant.
I also think opinions are valid...(the cycle of creation)....But an opinion clear in thought, and has some "backing" is obviously more convincing to the majority.

...and Kinkade's fans of course, hehe.

t.k. is talented, but souless.

And who are your soulfull folks? Those who produced canned excrements, travesties of crucifix and of Madonna, and smut on canvas? Give me a break.

there are a thousand other artists who do the same thing

This is quite possible. It would help, though, if you gave some links to their paintings. Now let us stick to your estimate: thousands. The results of the "True art or a fake?" quiz prove that the number of people who can create the same thing as abstract grand masters is billions. The ratio of a thousand to a billion is a million. Kinkade is thus one of a million and thus is worth looking at by millions of people.

im not saying a can of shit has soul either. there are many sellouts in many genres of art. but his (t.k.) work can be found in a magainze next to that very same can of shit. souless in the sense he makes art just to sell. plus its bland recreations for the sake of "oo something pretty". or as lisa anne said "escape". no real substance past aesthetics. hes in it for business, not art. art just happens to be his marketable product.
now heres a poll you should make: ask how many artists create for the pure purpose of profit.

id take a stick figure portrait from my sister over his bullshit. at least that has soul.

another thing about "the estimate"... everytime i go to the beach in wildwood, capemay, atlantic city, ocean city, rehobeth, the mall, etc etc. all i see is similar works like his. its redundent. wow a pretty scene. id prefer to look out my window. so yes, his work may be in demand. why? because people want something easy to understand, and pretty to gawk at. art is more than that.
so call me crazy or whatever, but i have a desire for that which isnt bluntly obvious, something that isnt done to death.

You're in south jersey solve? Dang..we should tour the motel art galleries sometime..often there's a sale on velvet Elvis...or Kincaid coasters....

I like Mr. Kinkade's artwork. His artworks look like christmas greeting pictures, everything is drawn brightly and much more colourful than the reality, and that at least makes him not a photograph copier. From a small amount of artwork I just searched on google, his drawings seem a little repetitive, without that being wrong. He likes old style houses in the countryside. He also draws chapels, American flags and portraits of Jesus. Nothing wrong about a person expressing his beliefs, art is a form of expression and the artist has the right to express her/himself about anything in her/his art.
However, if I wanted to buy gifts, greeting cards or stationaries, I would prefer drawings in the style of Maximus Vomitus. I appreciate pop and kitsch art and I would consider smurfs, anime, looney toons, comics, videogame sprites and webpage designs as art of some form. But it is best for an artist to have self-knowledge and not try to pass her/himself as something s/he is not. For instance, it is silly for a person who makes 3D models for video games like Doom 3, even if s/he is the best, to claim that s/he does exactly what Michelangelo used to do. |:)
|XOD|

One could be of the opinion, for example, that reading books makes people less intelligent.

This can be true in some cases, when people read without understanding, and pick up words whose meanings they don't know.
In another thread you made the statement that the scores in rating art were random. In my last posting I have shown that they were not, and that it was easy to see that.

I would prefer drawings in the style of Maximus Vomitus

you might enjoy those too

In another thread you made the statement that the scores in rating art were random.

I said no such thing. Maybe you need to read more books to up your reading comprehension. Here is what I said regarding the scoring:

When you're done assigning arbitrary integers to random works of art devoid of any context, you can even click on their pop-down list for other rating sites and go rate some babies!

'Random,' as I use it here, refers to the order in which the works of art pop up for judging. The definition of arbitrary that I use is "determined by whim or impulse." I did not say the scores themselves were random. Get your facts straight.

Another pwned. Man that's like a two finger kancho. With penetration.

I said no such thing.

You can interchange random with arbitrary in that sentence without affecting its meaning (or lack of meaning). There were suspiciously many "whims" to score each of the masterpieces below 5 on 1-10 scale.

You can interchange random with arbitrary in that sentence without affecting its meaning (or lack of meaning).

Excuse me? I just said that that was not the defition of 'arbitrary' that I was using when I wrote that sentence.

Oh technicalities...Right and Wrong...its all a matter of perspective.

This isn't poetry. Written statements are intended to have a very specific meaning, not something that's dependent on perspective.

lol Life is a matter of perspective coming from my perspective. But yeah anyway, I just thought people were getting a little bit up tight about things. (whether right or wrong in who evers eyes/mind)
Anyway this isn't a post directly about world/life views, and so I shall refrain for now. Take care.

I just said that that was not the defition of 'arbitrary' that I was using when I wrote that sentence.

Websters dictionary gives two relevant definitions of arbitrary:
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
The first definition is identical to random. Your statement would mean that the gradrers selected arbitrary integeres between 1 and 10. This statement is wrong.
In the case 2 your statement would mean that every grader was an arbiter. This was obviously the goal of the experiment: to have each image judged by many arbiters. In this case your statement is senseless verbosity.

The definition of arbitrary that I use is "determined by whim or impulse."

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

Determination by whim or impulse cannot be equated to determination by randomness. Whim and impulse are not random. It is plain to see that the scoring of the pictures was not random, but my point was that it was done on impulse and whim. I have told you my intended meaning and the reasoning behind my choice of wording. Speak to the issue or move on. Enough semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Rhetorical_use

In the real world...pray for the folks in Louisana and Mississippi who have to deal with what Katrina left behind yesterday.

In the real world...pray for the folks in Louisana and Mississippi who have to deal with what Katrina left behind yesterday.

Let us also not forget the carnage made in the art world by demon-posessed abstructionists. In his book "Eclipse of Art" Julian Spalding wrote that current state of art reminds him of the full solar eclipse he once witnessed.

Let us pray that Art see Light again, that pictures of Painter of Light get their proper places in American museums.

Enough semantics.

I posted detailed response in another thread. And yes we need more semantics, and also logic and math. It is your confused thinking, which is the root cause of your absurd believe that smut is art.

Read this Kinkade Critique.

Why should one read anything? Painting is visual art.

The problem is that not only people extraordinarily simple in character, but even very learned individuals can't tell masterpieces of modern art from ridiculous fakes when great names are detached from them.
See:
http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/51587/

Mr. Simkin, I saw your quizzes. The only thing they demonstrate is that you are a looser and not artistic at all. You are undistinguished, uncouth and ungrammatical. I suspect you also have bad teeth.

You created that account just to join in an argument that died months ago?

Mr. Simkin

I thought that I have a PhD in theoretical physics from Brown University. Perhaps this bleak heritage is not yet completely sweated out of me.