I think French Impressionism and Jackson Pollock's style are overrated, what do you think of that?

Answer 1

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so you are entitled to your opinion. I like both the Impressionists and Pollock. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of Kadinsky. So we all have our likes and dislikes.

Answer 2

There are lots of great artists around who never get recognition; Great art is determined by the wealthy who have the money to buy it. Picasso and the Impressionists where trend setters of new styles of paintings so I think it is because they invented new types of artistic expression in paintings that their works are valuable. I'm not too fussy about modern art and most probably wouldn't have paid $2 for a Jackson Pollock painting if I'd seen it in an op shop! Maybe his works are valuable because he was like Picasso and the Impressionists and set a new trend in art style.

Answer 3

Jackson Pollock,yes. Impressionism no.

Answer 4

Maybe you personally don't like the styles, but art scholars generally recognize French Impressionism and Abstract Expressionism (Pollock) as natural progressions through the context of Western Art History.

Answer 5

If you mean by that there are more interesting artists out there, then yes. But everyone knows this, and that is not why they are worth the most at auctions. They are just milestones in art history, like Hiroshima, the French Revolution, etc. They are major historic facts, so whether it's 'good' or not is really not important.

I find Rembrandt and Da Vinci overrated... Caravaggio too. In fact, 90% of art history is overrated. How's that?

Answer 6

Yes: you are right.

Impressionism is nothing much more than sketching.

And Pollock's work is really very uninteresting indeed. His "importance" is a sign merely of the cultural power of the USA. If he had been, say, Taiwanese, no-one woud have paid him any attention, and rightly so.

Answer 7

Well, about Pollock, yes.

About the Impressionists -- who painted character of light and impermanent visual impressions and sensations vs. detail and structure of objects -- not so much overrated. I think what they did is not appreciated. It's just seen as fuzzy realism, period. It is more than that. To quote wikipedia "They used short, "broken" brush strokes of pure and unmixed colour, not smoothly blended as was the custom at the time. For example, instead of physically mixing yellow and blue paint, they placed unmixed yellow paint on the canvas next to unmixed blue paint, thus mixing the colors through our perception of them: creating the "impression" of green. Painting realistic scenes of modern life, they emphasized vivid overall effects rather than details."

There are few greater draftsmen that Degas, who is generally classed as an Impressionist, from any school.

Answer 8

i like jackson pollocks style mainly because its free and full of emotion but talent wise its not that impresive because my three year old cousin could do it

Answer 9

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I highly disagree with you. Pollock was a genius in his own right.

Answer 10

well maybe, until you try to do what these artists did for yourself..and then you realize just what masters they were..even Pollack..who's art was right for the time, his time...anyone else trying to do it and it just comes across as a poor copy..but there is a mastery and genius in his "dribbles" as for the Impressionists..try to paint something that is nothing but soft smudges close up only to be a recognizable object 10-15 feet away...that sir, is called magic...