I have nothing against modernism and there are plenty of works that are dear to me. And like I said, I am not the world's authority on art. When in Madrid I made an effort to see Guernica in person and no print does it justice. I've seen works by Miro, Degas, Calder, Kandinsky, Cezanne, Hockney, Klee, Rothko, Braque, Dali ('he' has a great museum in St Petersburg FL), Frankenthaler, Gauguin, van Gogh (great museum in Amsterdam), Motherwell, Klimt (another you need to see in 'person'), Matisse, Mondrian, and so on.
I'm aware of art movements from the Impressionists and up. I like what I like and can appreciate a lot of what doesn't move me thanks to my art major wife. But throwing paint on a drop cloth IMO is not art. An artist doesn't do random things and call it art. That would be like a musician getting hundreds of tiles with multiples of each chromatic note, pulling them out of a hat and notating them on a score. Then doing it again for harmony. Random IMO isn't art.
Pollock's in person look like painters drop cloths with nothing but random splatters to me.
I have a white roof. I just pressure cleaned it to prepare to repaint and there are places that have been randomly stained: Mildew, bird droppings, stains from tree tannins, plus bisters cracks and checks in the old elastomeric paint. That isn't art to me, it's random. Some of the spots are actually quite attractive, but it ain't art. And IMO neither is a painter's drop cloth.
But like I said, that is my opinion.
For those who like Pollock, please take no offense. In art as in music, the more abstract you get, the more personal you get, the narrower your audience gets.
What is art? That's really hard to pin down.
Insights and incites by Notes