I didn't think I liked his work until I made an attempt to understand cubism. If you're an art student luring me into a trap then you'll probably get me. My mother is an artist but my knowledge of art isn't much above average.
However, when I realised that cubism allows the painter to represent more than one thing at the same time, I thought, "Oh. Okay." and the thought kind of germinated. It wouldn't leave me alone in terms of what it made possible. And I looked at Picasso's work again and began to appreciate it.
As time went on, this grew. I'm now fascinated by him and his genius. There's an extra level of dimensionality about cubism. I find it utterly wonderful. It's like seeing a 3D film, except better, because what is extra is interpreted.
Don't close your mind to it just yet. Also, don't strictly go off the way art looks (I know that sounds stupid. How else are you meant to judge it?) but go off what it says.
Interesting, I'll consider what you said. Now here's one I really dont understand: Jackson Pollock. I suppose Picasso at least had his own form of what he considered art, and it at least resembled some kind of effort. Pollock, not so much. I may be missing something there also. Maybe my mind is lacking that creative part used to decipher the "emotion" or effort that others see.
Part of the reason why Pollock is so famous was because he was the first great American artist. American artists were often ridiculed by the European "Art World" they just weren't good enough. Moran, Cassat, and Sargent were all great artists before Pollock but they just couldn't break the European elitism. And then an American is the pioneer on an art movement, a big art movement. Take that elitism.
Pollock's appeal is that there is a system to his art. It looks out of control but there is a design and a plan to it. Order in chaos is a difficult. It's a technical thing not an emotional one. Pollock will probably be more known for breaking the elitist art world than abstract expressionism.
Huh... that's interesting. Although I don't think I'll ever really like Pollock per se, just the concept of "order in chaos" makes me understand his stuff a bit better. I think you explained it well :)
When you say that Pollock was the first "great American artist", do you mean that he was the first to be accepted by European society as a worthy artist?
First great to be accepted by European Society. There were many great American artists before Pollock but unfortunately they weren't recognized in Europe.
Is it normal to think Pablo Picasso's paintings are horrendous?
← View full post
I didn't think I liked his work until I made an attempt to understand cubism. If you're an art student luring me into a trap then you'll probably get me. My mother is an artist but my knowledge of art isn't much above average.
However, when I realised that cubism allows the painter to represent more than one thing at the same time, I thought, "Oh. Okay." and the thought kind of germinated. It wouldn't leave me alone in terms of what it made possible. And I looked at Picasso's work again and began to appreciate it.
As time went on, this grew. I'm now fascinated by him and his genius. There's an extra level of dimensionality about cubism. I find it utterly wonderful. It's like seeing a 3D film, except better, because what is extra is interpreted.
Don't close your mind to it just yet. Also, don't strictly go off the way art looks (I know that sounds stupid. How else are you meant to judge it?) but go off what it says.
--
Santa'sUlcer
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Interesting, I'll consider what you said. Now here's one I really dont understand: Jackson Pollock. I suppose Picasso at least had his own form of what he considered art, and it at least resembled some kind of effort. Pollock, not so much. I may be missing something there also. Maybe my mind is lacking that creative part used to decipher the "emotion" or effort that others see.
--
FocoUS
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Part of the reason why Pollock is so famous was because he was the first great American artist. American artists were often ridiculed by the European "Art World" they just weren't good enough. Moran, Cassat, and Sargent were all great artists before Pollock but they just couldn't break the European elitism. And then an American is the pioneer on an art movement, a big art movement. Take that elitism.
Pollock's appeal is that there is a system to his art. It looks out of control but there is a design and a plan to it. Order in chaos is a difficult. It's a technical thing not an emotional one. Pollock will probably be more known for breaking the elitist art world than abstract expressionism.
--
Lynxikat
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Huh... that's interesting. Although I don't think I'll ever really like Pollock per se, just the concept of "order in chaos" makes me understand his stuff a bit better. I think you explained it well :)
When you say that Pollock was the first "great American artist", do you mean that he was the first to be accepted by European society as a worthy artist?
--
FocoUS
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
First great to be accepted by European Society. There were many great American artists before Pollock but unfortunately they weren't recognized in Europe.
I'm not sure I understand Jackson Pollock yet, either. Not to say I never will, though. Same with Mondrian.