How is Jackson Pollock supposed to be art?

Question

Art is supposed to educate and show pathos, no? All of Pollock's work that I've seen does neither, and just looks like the tarpaulin beneath a set-painting session.

I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me -- seriously, not "Well it all depends on what you like...", because I could do the same thing and people would be like "You're an idiot." -- why Jackson Pollack and his ilk are considered art.

Thanks.

I'm not saying that just because I dislike it his work is automatically not art. That would be petty. Personal tastes aside, though, I just can't see how it educates or invokes pathos.

Answer 1

Jackson Pollock's work, sometimes known as "action painting," is more about the process and less about the product. It is about the artist being one with the painting. I have never been a real Pollock fan, but I have come to understand it's relevence to the world of art. It's about experiment, new ideas, etc. Art is not always supposed to be beautiful. It is to create a response, reaction, from the viewer. The more I paint, the more I realize that beautiful, realistic images are easier to create than are more abstract, thought provoking works. One is a "learned" technique, the other is comes more from inside.

Answer 2

Seven answers so far and you haven't got the right one yet. Art has progressed in stages from cave wall depictions of the hunt and through the centuries developed deeper and deeper towards the personal expression of the painter until the invention of the camera really freed the artist to paint more than simply the subject in a realistic way. By the time Pollock came along abstract works were a very acceptable form of painting. His own contribution was to take it one step further and use his subconscience to paint. It is painting without consciencious thought about the final result. The subconscience has always been a part of an artist's work but J. Pollock was the first to bring it into its own and make art with only the subconscience. That is his unique and great contribution to the development of art.

Answer 3

It's basically a con job by snobs and art professors who don't have to make a living with their art.

It's an extreme expression of the idea that what ever happens is art. If you take the idea that nothing happens by chance, then throwing paint can be somehow meaningful, since even though it is thrown, it lands as it is meant to.

I don't buy it.

To me, art involves skill. Good art to me is representational, that means you can recognize the things painted, and therefore they communicate to you to some extent. Current art thought includes this requirement but also leaves room for the expression of the artist. In other words, when I paint a scene, a landscape, say a barn and a tree and some hills, and clouds in the sky, they way I paint them results from me, my personality, the kind of person I am.

Too much representationalism, and you have photorealism, a sort of unhealthy attempt to compete with a camera, and exaltation of technique and technical prowess (skill).
Too much self-expression, and your art is incomprehensible.

My, a lot of big words. The bottom line is that the best pathway for the artist is found in a balance between these two extremes.

Answer 4

where did you get that definition of art?
art is something a person creates to convey a feeling, thought, or moment.
by this definition, your daughter's crayola portrait of the dog is art just as much as the mona lisa, as long as when you see it, it incites a feeling inside you.

i feel something when i look at pollack's work. you have to be in front of them, though. i had seen pictures in books and the internet beforehand and never cared about pollack until i physically stood in front of sone of his paintings.

Answer 5

jackson pollacks art expression was about kinetic movement and emotion based on body motion much like dance....he trailed and flung and dripped and poured.. as his body expressed its feeling.. then the size (hugh) and color choices were elements in the presentation of his paintings.. there are 6 elements of art.. line.. texture, space(and form), value, color, and time(and motion).. notice subject matter is not one of them,,

Answer 6

Pollock's paintings were about the motions. He wasn't just dribbling paint here and there; he was using sweeping motions, almost like a dance.

You don't have to like it, or even understand it, but it is still art. It was his expression of what he felt and how he wanted to paint.

Answer 7

I see the person with the cap in the center of the piece. I don't think there is supposed to be another face inside this painting, but with all the paint splatters, you could easily think that there is another.

Answer 8

Art is a reflection of our time and culture. Jackson Pollack
captured the angst and fury in our society when he was painting. Just because you don't like it, I don't care much for
it either, doesn't mean it isn't art. There are some great books on art and its meaning. Very interesting.

Answer 9

Jackson Pollock and other abstract expressionist are ultimate forms of emotion. They don't just show emotion, they show emotion in movement. I know you don't want a simple answer, but that is what Jackson Pollock is, action. He was a reaction to the art that came before him and you do either get it or you don't get it. Also, he actually based a lot of his painting off of American Indian sand art.

Answer 10

People always say...how is that art, I can do that. WHat you are missing here is the fact that he was the first to create are like this. His art reflected the time in which he lived. He created those splatter paintings by placing the canvas on the floor....artists before him propped the canvas up. When you look at his art you need to realize that because he was the first to create this style of painting, that he is considered genuis for doing so.