Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
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.

What is art? That's really hard to pin down.

Insights and incites by Notes

There's a whole lot of stuff nowaday that gets put into galleries and museums that I feel the same way about - how can this be art? A lot of it seems to be an intentional flipping-off of the very concept of art as a definable thing.

Personally, I'm pretty tired of the "is it or isn't it Art" arguments. The more people say "this is art, and that ain't art", the more other people say, "who are you to say" and so on. Seems a waste of time, like the use of samples debate and such.

My take, which I will of course decline to claim is of any authority, is that, if an artist's work has a discernable idea, and an effective execution of the idea, then I'll try to do justice by it. I like to see some actual skill of the hand involved, some clear finesse going into the thing. Of course, the very idea of the work could be offensive or wrongheaded according to my values. I may lament that certain art is heading off into regrettable directions. But the culture is going to do what it does - so there's some value is just seeing what in the world people have in their heads if for no other reason than feeding my sense that I ought to produce something that heads off in what I think is a far better direction.

Artists are very reactionary - no one hates art more than certain artists hate the productions of certain other artists. It's just the way art history often progresses.

Lots of art is, to my mind, "art", but of a very minor sort. The idea is small, and the skills involved are minimal. So it has to be pretty unique, has to have a fresh message of some sort, 'cause there's not much else to it. To me, this exactly defines someone like Warhol. Ok - I get it - the soup can is just something a person can kind of like - it's familiar, comfortable, iconic, and part of everyday life. So what the heck, paint a big picture of one. Small idea, not much skill of execution, but an affirmation of everydayness, for everyman - like Pop of all sorts. It had a fresh feel when he produced it - so, ok, there's that, it takes 30 seconds to appreciate the small idea involved, and move on to something more substantial. Like Pollock who had more profound ideas and worked very hard at his technique, even if it in time it's viewed as a sort of abortive attempt to jump out of his own skin. Pollock I would hang on my living room wall if I could afford it - Warhol...I'd hang by the breakfast table, IF it didn't cost more than $100. It would at least be a conversation starter.


Last edited by Nowarezman; 09/24/20 09:58 PM.