I think Pollock today is somewhat of an interesting question though..
To attempt to put myself in the shoes of someone back then, I could perhaps have a more visceral response to the subversiveness of this, in contrast to realist and even expressionist paintings, as well as its novelty.
I think it was an interesting and useful experiment to have a sort of 'abstract expressionism' in art.
But in 2017, with what the internet has become, to the younger generation and more technologically adapt older folk, novelty itself has become far less novel I believe.
And also, abstract art, in the sense of Pollock's work is something many more people today are not surprised by falling under the label of 'art'.
Yes there is the "you like what you like" pov, which I accept but I'd like to challenge that more.
Because I think there is a case to be made that reading or listening to music can allow the average person to connect with and feel what an artist is attempting to articulate emotionally, much more viscerally than by looking at paint on a canvas.
It could be that I'm just not tuned into it, which I'm fine with, but that's I guess what I'm asking, is if abstract expressionist paintings can in fact show an artist's self, which is I believe the intended goal.
I personally only see an artist's personality in that I see their attempt to do this, so perhaps I see emotion which would be analogous to a person writing "I am sad", but I don't feel emotion, which would be analogous to a person crafting emotive poetry to express this feeling.
I much prefer contemporary art, and can enjoy the minimalism and concepts and absurdity as the artist intended
Edit: Also I accept the economics of this(why Pollock is worth millions) is an entirely separate issue.
Why the hell is splashes of paint worth millions?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I think Pollock today is somewhat of an interesting question though..
To attempt to put myself in the shoes of someone back then, I could perhaps have a more visceral response to the subversiveness of this, in contrast to realist and even expressionist paintings, as well as its novelty.
I think it was an interesting and useful experiment to have a sort of 'abstract expressionism' in art.
But in 2017, with what the internet has become, to the younger generation and more technologically adapt older folk, novelty itself has become far less novel I believe.
And also, abstract art, in the sense of Pollock's work is something many more people today are not surprised by falling under the label of 'art'.
Yes there is the "you like what you like" pov, which I accept but I'd like to challenge that more.
Because I think there is a case to be made that reading or listening to music can allow the average person to connect with and feel what an artist is attempting to articulate emotionally, much more viscerally than by looking at paint on a canvas.
It could be that I'm just not tuned into it, which I'm fine with, but that's I guess what I'm asking, is if abstract expressionist paintings can in fact show an artist's self, which is I believe the intended goal.
I personally only see an artist's personality in that I see their attempt to do this, so perhaps I see emotion which would be analogous to a person writing "I am sad", but I don't feel emotion, which would be analogous to a person crafting emotive poetry to express this feeling.
I much prefer contemporary art, and can enjoy the minimalism and concepts and absurdity as the artist intended
Edit: Also I accept the economics of this(why Pollock is worth millions) is an entirely separate issue.