I wish you would sometime- bore on about him that is. I know so little about art that I can't give good reasons except that I love, or not. Hope you feel better. *sends you hot chicken soup by Luftpost*
Male tormented bastard with seventeen balls too many in his oh-so-cool denims? Yup.
Brilliant intense and insane painter who re-invented the wheel and the picture surface? Yup.
Producer of wonderful, lyrical canvases that swim before the eye and do such radical things to the Western painting tradition, within it and pushing it to its limit, that painting after that hit a dead-end from which it has yet to recover? Yup.
on occasion i work with folks from all manner of backgrounds who have no real interest in, or knowledge of, art. many of them find pollock hard to get to grips with, if they are not immediately attracted to the color or liveliness of the paintings - "that looks like my garage floor", "how can this be art?". my usual tactic is to ask them how they think it would *feel* to make a similar painting, and then take it from there.
it's easy to forget how much of modern painting can be simply baffling to those who have no prior knowledge of art (and some of the folks i refer to here can neither read nor write, although they are far from unintelligent). my job in this context is to provide them with means of making sense of works of art for themselves - how does it make you feel, what does it remind you of, what happened before/after, etc.
i have always found this work really fascinating as it also alerts me to how much of my "own" opinion has been shaped by a "formal" art education.
Ah, okay, you were not speaking for the professional estimation! And how I wish I had a garage floor like that....
Actually, the whole 'my grandson could do that' is a very intriguing response. (I get this, too -- even from the non-mature students where it's not the grandson, obviously). The great thing about that is that everyone *can* try it and one the most fun I've ever had actually *making art* (which I rarely attempt, wisely knowing my limits) was being made to create Pollocks by an art-for-art-historians lecturer at uni. Because, of course, you get instant gratification, unlike trying to make a Bronzino, for example. But you also realise what actual work *does* go into it. It's that which started me off loving Pollock, I think; he bored me before that. Also, you can't get Pollock from reproductions.
indeed not. the work which i refer to is gallery-based. ;)
yes, actually *making* a pollock-type artwork is much more challenging than it would appear. but even asking people to *imagine* making one has proven helpful in understanding his work - they usually do start to see that it would be energising and busy and physical. quite different from painting with a teeny brush, or using a pencil. and there you go, you're beginning to get a grip on action painting!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 05:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 11:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-22 05:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-22 09:43 am (UTC)n.x :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-22 12:29 pm (UTC)Male tormented bastard with seventeen balls too many in his oh-so-cool denims? Yup.
Brilliant intense and insane painter who re-invented the wheel and the picture surface? Yup.
Producer of wonderful, lyrical canvases that swim before the eye and do such radical things to the Western painting tradition, within it and pushing it to its limit, that painting after that hit a dead-end from which it has yet to recover? Yup.
How is he misunderstood?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-23 09:32 am (UTC)on occasion i work with folks from all manner of backgrounds who have no real interest in, or knowledge of, art. many of them find pollock hard to get to grips with, if they are not immediately attracted to the color or liveliness of the paintings - "that looks like my garage floor", "how can this be art?". my usual tactic is to ask them how they think it would *feel* to make a similar painting, and then take it from there.
it's easy to forget how much of modern painting can be simply baffling to those who have no prior knowledge of art (and some of the folks i refer to here can neither read nor write, although they are far from unintelligent). my job in this context is to provide them with means of making sense of works of art for themselves - how does it make you feel, what does it remind you of, what happened before/after, etc.
i have always found this work really fascinating as it also alerts me to how much of my "own" opinion has been shaped by a "formal" art education.
n.x :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-24 10:03 am (UTC)Actually, the whole 'my grandson could do that' is a very intriguing response. (I get this, too -- even from the non-mature students where it's not the grandson, obviously). The great thing about that is that everyone *can* try it and one the most fun I've ever had actually *making art* (which I rarely attempt, wisely knowing my limits) was being made to create Pollocks by an art-for-art-historians lecturer at uni. Because, of course, you get instant gratification, unlike trying to make a Bronzino, for example. But you also realise what actual work *does* go into it. It's that which started me off loving Pollock, I think; he bored me before that. Also, you can't get Pollock from reproductions.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-26 05:47 pm (UTC)indeed not. the work which i refer to is gallery-based. ;)
yes, actually *making* a pollock-type artwork is much more challenging than it would appear. but even asking people to *imagine* making one has proven helpful in understanding his work - they usually do start to see that it would be energising and busy and physical. quite different from painting with a teeny brush, or using a pencil. and there you go, you're beginning to get a grip on action painting!
n.x :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-26 09:23 pm (UTC)