Why do I always have to defend Jackson Pollock?

Question

do you defend him as an artist- or are you on the side of "hes not an artist"

Answer 1

Hi:

I like Jackson Pollock, and I defend him as an artist. I think it is odd that a lot of people either really are snobbish about more modern abstract art and look down their noses at people who don't like it, and other people who think they could have painted whatever just as well (which I would really like to see sometime, by the way!) However, any of those people who disdain his work, would probably happily take a piece of it.

I've heard that Pollock died just a little too soon to be able to use acrylic art paints, and he probably really would have used those for some of the effects it looks like he was trying to get in his paintings. His work shows the beauty of the paint itself, which a lot of artists can really appreciate.

Answer 2

There is certainly no debate about this amongst art historians, indeed Jackson Pollock is a very influential figure in modern art. Now as to whether or not you like him, thats up to you, but you cant deny his identity as an artist or his presence in art history. Go to any modern art museum that collects modern art from The New York MoMa to The Getty and you will undoubtedly find a work by Pollock. Why, because these museums are run by people with extensive backgrounds in art and art history , and not backgrounds in auto mechanics,engineering or computer science people who would at best have less than a fundamental understanding of art. As to why you have to defend him, let the art historians do that for you, and in the meantime choose your fights wisely.

Answer 3

Honestly, I am not a Jackson Pollock fan. His art does not appeal to me. But obviously it does to someone because he's famous. His paintings are worth a lot of money!

Pollock believed that expression could come from the subconscious, so often he would barely pay attention to where he put the paint, but let his mind wander.

Now, some are going to say, "Shucks! I can do that!" These are often the same people that say he is not an artist. And yet he made millions doing what all these people say they can do. So here's what I say to those people: If you can do it and be as famous as he is, show me.

Yes. Jackson Pollock is absolutely an artist.

Answer 4

I prefer Lee Krasner's work myself, though I do think of Jackson Pollock as an artist.

I figure if people want to complain about how they could do that and make millions and whatever without doing a bit of reading in art history, well, I'm not going to argue with them. Not worth the time. I might mention they should do some reading.

Answer 5

I really like the work that he did before he got into dripping paint technique. I think he was probably an artistic genius and very important with art movement and historical significance, but I do not like the paintings that he is famous for! I don't like them at all.

Answer 6

I absolutely defend him as an artist - few achieve his kind of fame without being talented. I think people that say he isn't an artist, or isn't any good, and so on, are uneducated, at least in an artistic sense. He's not one of my favourite artists, but I can certainly appreciate what he did.

Answer 7

There is no reason to defend him... if people think he's not an artist, than they don't know much about art :P

Answer 8

I like his work. He is a great artist. And by the way, if he wanted to, he could draw a cow that looks like a cow. He just chooses not to.

Answer 9

The debate over abstract art will never end. I wouldn't waste your breath. People who are sincerely interested will listen, but most will just want to make fun without any attempt at understanding. Pretty pictures of lakes and cows will always be more popular.

Answer 10

He's definitely an artist...just not a very good one, IMO.

Still amazed that his No. 5 sold for 140 million dollars.