I'm in the wrong business

[cartman]

This painting by Jackson Pollock:

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/pics/1.example.01.jpg

reportedly just sold for $140 million dollars!!!!

:eek:

If you need me, I'll be out in my garage with a few cans of paint perfecting my splatter patterns.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/us_nm/arts_pollock_dc

[rkmsuf]

This painting by Jackson Pollock:

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/pics/1.example.01.jpg

reportedly just sold for $140 million dollars!!!!

:eek:

If you need me, I'll be out in my garage with a few cans of paint perfecting my splatter patterns.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/us_nm/arts_pollock_dc

It's art! Have you no culture?

[albionmoonlight]

All joking aside, I'd love it for someone who knows about this sort of stuff to explain why certain abstract (for lack of a better term) art is great and why some of it isn't.

Cause I sure don't get it.

[rkmsuf]

Thing looks like a picture of someone's throw up after a large portion of McDonalds food.

[scooper]

This painting by Jackson Pollock:

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/pics/1.example.01.jpg

reportedly just sold for $140 million dollars!!!!

:eek:

If you need me, I'll be out in my garage with a few cans of paint perfecting my splatter patterns.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/us_nm/arts_pollock_dc

No matter how long I stare at it, I can't see the sailboat.

[wade moore]

All joking aside, I'd love it for someone who knows about this sort of stuff to explain why certain abstract (for lack of a better term) art is great and why some of it isn't.

Cause I sure don't get it.


What he said.

I've tried REALLY hard, but things that are this abstract I just don't understand.

[dawgfan]

I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind here:

1. For all of you that joke about going into the garage and splattering paint on a canvas, try it and see how it compares. For the all the apparent haphazardness of Pollack's splatter series, there was a method there and he was careful in choosing what colors to use and where, and what types of patterns to use;

2. A lot of the importance placed on Pollack's work comes from the time period when they were made - his splatter paintings, as much as anything, were a way of pushing the abstract envelope in showing what could be considered "art", so they were in some ways as much conceptual pieces as they were anything else. Because of the nature of what he was doing, it invites criticism from many who really don't think of it as fitting their definition of art.

Different strokes for different folks - I can appreciate Pollack's work. I wouldn't pay $140M for any of them, but I enjoy studying them when I see them in museums and reproductions in books and posters.

[Eaglesfan27]

All joking aside, I'd love it for someone who knows about this sort of stuff to explain why certain abstract (for lack of a better term) art is great and why some of it isn't.

Cause I sure don't get it.


Ditto. My wife has been buying paintings for the new house, and I just don't get the abstract pieces at all. All of the other work, I can "get" but she has two abstract pieces that just make me scratch my head every time I look at them.

[cartman]

For all of you that joke about going into the garage and splattering paint on a canvas, try it and see how it compares. For the all the apparent haphazardness of Pollack's splatter series, there was a method there and he was careful in choosing what colors to use and where, and what types of patterns to use;


I don't have to be anywhere near as good as him. If I can be just 1/1000th as good, that'll still net me $140K.

:D

[Raiders Army]

I like Thomas Kinkade, the painter of light. He pwns this guy.

[dawgfan]

I don't have to be anywhere near as good as him. If I can be just 1/1000th as good, that'll still net me $140K.

:D
It's worth a shot, but I think the primary value in Pollack's work (from a monetary standpoint) is that they were originals. John Squire, the old Stone Roses guitarist painted in a similar style to Pollack, and while he was good at it, I doubt he got more than a few thousand dollars for his work (unless they were bid up due to his Stone Roses fame).

[TroyF]

I'm sure that people in the know, who appreciate abstract art and who spend money on it, understand this is a very valuable painting.

I don't think any less of them for it or take anything away from them. I respect the fact they think that paint splatter thingie above is art.

While all of what I just wrote is true and I really believe it, I'd also walk right by an "original" peice of work like this at a flea market and not look back.

To each their own. :)

[MJ4H]

i wouldnt pay 14 bucks for that map of Queens

[NoMyths]

Having taught Pollock, I'm familiar with the difficulty in appreciating abstract art. Perhaps an easy way to understand why abstract art is appreciated is to consider why some people like classical music and others like chaotic guitar rock. Each provides an aesthetic experience that, despite holding certain craft elements in common, is very different from the other. One of the strengths of abstract art is that it forces the viewer out of their traditional comfort zone in regards to art. The image works differently on a viewer of a Pollack than it does for the viewer of a Caravaggio. Many viewers find the aesthetic stimulation to be an affecting experience -- some positive, some negative. But the argument abstract art makes is that there is more than one way to see the world, and to settle for the traditional one may overlook other facets of experience that can be more strongly communicated in an abstract style.

I think the earlier admonition for folks who think they could duplicate Pollock's efforts to give it a shot is a useful one. I'd also suggest that people check out Ed Harris' film version of Pollock's life (titled, ahem, Pollock).

For me as a viewer, I rarely understand the literal sense of Pollock's work, but am captivated by its energy and its sense of urgency. The act of creation is laid bare on the canvas -- you can see Pollock moving around the margins, physicalizing the piece. There's nothing mannered or restrained about it, a potential hazard in immature art. My own aesthetic tends toward Post-Impressionist work, in which realism and abstraction merge -- I'm less satisfied by Pollock than by Van Gogh, for example. But I can appreciate the strengths of Pollock, even if I find it to be lesser work than many other artists who suit my aesthetic more precisely. But my preference for other work doesn't mean Pollock's is bad (which it's not). One of art's functions is to challenge us, to shake us out of our ordinary experience of the world. I think Pollock does that better than most abstract artists.

[NoMyths]

dola

You have to admit, the idea of demolishing structure and form as a foundation for visual art is a compelling one. Though Pollock didn't invent the idea, he took it to a radically different plane.

[MJ4H]

My take on abstract art such as this is:

I don't understand it, but that doesn't mean it can't be understood. I used to experience music that is rough on the ears in much the same way that this painting is rough on the eyes with a similar reaction. I would think: why is this random assortment of sounds considered any better than a random assortment of sounds that I could throw together? Well, after years of musical training, I am definitely able to understand music of that type much better. There are, in fact, many layers of things going on in sophisticated music that your average listener doesn't really differentiate from gibberish. It has to do with training, knowledge, and experience. For instance, the more familiar you are with certain sorts of harmonies, the more you are able to perceive when the more sophisticated harmonies are being built upon and expanded upon. At some point, if you aren't familiar with the basic technique that is being developed upon, you will not recognize what is going on at all and the result will be pretty meaningless.

I hesitate to give concrete examples of what I mean, but if anyone is even vaguely familiar with music theory, then perhaps it will help. Say a composer decides to take a well known melody, turn it into a tone row (in a serialist style) and layer it on top of itself in retro-grade inversion, this would be difficult to follow in itself. If, the composer then decided to find a clever way to harmonize this using, say, Hindemith's idea of progressively consonant intervals, the resulting sounds would be very odd to the average listener, but depending on how cleverly it was pulled off, it could be a completely ingenious composition, technically. (Note: I'm not just trying to throw out meaningless musical terms, I'm being serious in that things can get pretty hairy and complex under the hood, and without proper training, one may not have a clue).

Does this make it pleasant to experience, and thus, good art? I'd say it depends entirely on your level of knowledge, training and experience. If you understand the workings of what's going on, it can be sublime. If you don't, it might be gibberish. That doesn't mean it's worthless, and it certainly doesn't mean it is on par with random noise.

I am not making any qualitative judgement about this particular work of art, because I do not know what is going on in it. It may, in fact, be gibberish. However, I am not qualified to say that. If an artist I believed had serious technical knowledge of how this stuff works told me there are some interesting things going on in this piece, I would definitely believe them, though I would hope they could try to at least explain it to me in layman's terms.

[Marc Vaughan]

2. A lot of the importance placed on Pollack's work comes from the time period when they were made - his splatter paintings, as much as anything, were a way of pushing the abstract envelope in showing what could be considered "art", so they were in some ways as much conceptual pieces as they were anything else. Because of the nature of what he was doing, it invites criticism from many who really don't think of it as fitting their definition of art.
Pollack's stuff I can just about accept as 'art' (although personally £2.50 would be a bit much for me to pay for one rather than £xm) especially given the succinct explanations given here by more knowledgable people .... however the lass who put her unmade bed on display and called it art .... anyone want to rationalise that one away as 'real' art for me?

[CraigSca]

That looks a lot like the Stone Roses debut album.

hxxp://www.maths.dundee.ac.uk/~sanderso/music/roses.jpg (http://www.maths.dundee.ac.uk/~sanderso/music/roses.jpg)

He's mentioned in their song, "Going Down" - "Yeah, she looks like a painting, Jackson Pollock's No. 5..."

Yeah, I'll plug the Roses any chance I get.

[NoMyths]

Pollack's stuff I can just about accept as 'art' (although personally £2.50 would be a bit much for me to pay for one rather than £xm) especially given the succinct explanations given here by more knowledgable people .... however the lass who put her unmade bed on display and called it art .... anyone want to rationalise that one away as 'real' art for me?
The best argument for that as art, in my opinion, is to consider it as 'found' art or in terms of hyper-realism. The problem with it, of course, is that art is a combination of voice and craft. Too many artists rely on 'artist's statement' explanations for their work, which to my mind is patching over a limitation in the work itself -- never a good sign. The unmade bed, thus, isn't art -- it's an idea. No craft went into it, and no voice went into it -- instead, the voice comes from outside, trying to inject meaning into something that contains minor meaning at best without qualifiers.

[Toddzilla]

Having taught Pollock, I'm familiar with the difficulty in appreciating abstract art. Perhaps an easy way to understand why abstract art is appreciated is to consider why some people like classical music and others like chaotic guitar rock. Each provides an aesthetic experience that, despite holding certain craft elements in common, is very different from the other. One of the strengths of abstract art is that it forces the viewer out of their traditional comfort zone in regards to art. The image works differently on a viewer of a Pollack than it does for the viewer of a Caravaggio. Many viewers find the aesthetic stimulation to be an affecting experience -- some positive, some negative. But the argument abstract art makes is that there is more than one way to see the world, and to settle for the traditional one may overlook other facets of experience that can be more strongly communicated in an abstract style.

I think the earlier admonition for folks who think they could duplicate Pollock's efforts to give it a shot is a useful one. I'd also suggest that people check out Ed Harris' film version of Pollock's life (titled, ahem, Pollock).

For me as a viewer, I rarely understand the literal sense of Pollock's work, but am captivated by its energy and its sense of urgency. The act of creation is laid bare on the canvas -- you can see Pollock moving around the margins, physicalizing the piece. There's nothing mannered or restrained about it, a potential hazard in immature art. My own aesthetic tends toward Post-Impressionist work, in which realism and abstraction merge -- I'm less satisfied by Pollock than by Van Gogh, for example. But I can appreciate the strengths of Pollock, even if I find it to be lesser work than many other artists who suit my aesthetic more precisely. But my preference for other work doesn't mean Pollock's is bad (which it's not). One of art's functions is to challenge us, to shake us out of our ordinary experience of the world. I think Pollock does that better than most abstract artists.Um, yeah...what he said...

[Glengoyne]

Color me a fan of Pollock, but not so big a fan of abstract art.

I really like Pollack's work. I have always been drawn to it.

[Glengoyne]

Oh yeah. I'll add that I do appreciate abstract art much much much more than what is more considered Modern art.

I don't care how many fish you put in baggies, or how much you piss in a bowl. Compared to cush thing in my book, Pollock's stuff pretty much uncontestably falls into the category of "art".

[King of New York]

I guess the issue is that:

"someone paid 140 MILLION DOLLARS for a Pollock painting"

as opposed to :

"someone paid 140 million dollars for a POLLOCK PAINTING."

Why would anyone pay 140 million dollars for any piece of art? Answer: conspicuous consumption; in other words, to show that they can.

[dawgfan]

Having taught Pollock, I'm familiar with the difficulty in appreciating abstract art. Perhaps an easy way to understand why abstract art is appreciated is to consider why some people like classical music and others like chaotic guitar rock. Each provides an aesthetic experience that, despite holding certain craft elements in common, is very different from the other. One of the strengths of abstract art is that it forces the viewer out of their traditional comfort zone in regards to art. The image works differently on a viewer of a Pollack than it does for the viewer of a Caravaggio. Many viewers find the aesthetic stimulation to be an affecting experience -- some positive, some negative. But the argument abstract art makes is that there is more than one way to see the world, and to settle for the traditional one may overlook other facets of experience that can be more strongly communicated in an abstract style.

I think the earlier admonition for folks who think they could duplicate Pollock's efforts to give it a shot is a useful one. I'd also suggest that people check out Ed Harris' film version of Pollock's life (titled, ahem, Pollock).

For me as a viewer, I rarely understand the literal sense of Pollock's work, but am captivated by its energy and its sense of urgency. The act of creation is laid bare on the canvas -- you can see Pollock moving around the margins, physicalizing the piece. There's nothing mannered or restrained about it, a potential hazard in immature art. My own aesthetic tends toward Post-Impressionist work, in which realism and abstraction merge -- I'm less satisfied by Pollock than by Van Gogh, for example. But I can appreciate the strengths of Pollock, even if I find it to be lesser work than many other artists who suit my aesthetic more precisely. But my preference for other work doesn't mean Pollock's is bad (which it's not). One of art's functions is to challenge us, to shake us out of our ordinary experience of the world. I think Pollock does that better than most abstract artists.
Nicely articulated - this is what I was trying to get at, but with much less success.

Another thing to add to this is that art can be experienced in different ways to serve different purposes - my enjoyment of a Pollock painting is of a different quality than the enjoyment I get from a Monet or a Van Gogh or a Dali or a Picasso or a DaVinci (etc.)

I like the comparison made elsewhere to music - I was not a fan of punk music or hard rock when I was young, but my ears gradually adjusted and I now appreciate a much broader spectrum of music. And, like paintings, I derive different enjoyment from different styles of music - if I'm in a mellow mood looking for background music, I'll listen to ambient Brian Eno or Yume Bitsu; if I want something visceral, I'll opt for Tool or Zeppelin; you get the picture. So it is with visual art - looking at a Pollock painting is a different experience than looking at Monet.

[Mac Howard]

I must admit that I find a certain interest and pleasure in looking at a Pollock painting without knowing why. But further along this path I am with Marc - I've never quite seen what is worth displaying, let alone calling art, in a pile of elephant dung or old car tyres :rolleyes:

[SFL Cat]

Modern and Abstract art...invented to provide work for those in the art field who can't draw.

[Grammaticus]

I wish I could come up with a gimick like this that would make everyone think a mess was worth more than the price of the paint it took to make it.

[dawgfan]

Modern and Abstract art...invented to provide work for those in the art field who can't draw.
A remarkably ignorant statement.

[SFL Cat]

An equally ignorant retort...see I can do it too!

[Shkspr]

Modern and Abstract art...invented to provide work for those in the art field who can't draw.

Pretty sure that the drawing skills of talented abstract artists are no worse than the drawing skills of a similarly talented batch of representational artists. You've got to be able to play by the rules to learn them well enough to ignore them.

[dawgfan]

I wish I could come up with a gimick like this that would make everyone think a mess was worth more than the price of the paint it took to make it.
And if you did, you would be an artist of some merit. Throughout the history of painting as an artistic medium, there have been artists that pushed the medium and stretched the boundaries of what could be done, and they weren't universally loved at the time. Many people today consider artists like Van Gogh or Monet to be their favorites, yet at the time they were far from universally loved - many hated the advances they made in impressionistic painting styles.

[dawgfan]

An equally ignorant retort...see I can do it too!
Except that it's not, since your statement isn't true. Abstract painter does not equal someone with little to no drawing talent, and in fact, in the vast majority of cases, the complete opposite is true.

Your debating skills are lacking.

[SFL Cat]

Having been in commercial art and graphic design for twenty-five years, I would love nothing better than to sh*t on a piece of canvas and have someone pay $140 million for it. I'd laugh all the way to the bank.

[st.cronin]

That looks a lot like the Stone Roses debut album.

hxxp://www.maths.dundee.ac.uk/~sanderso/music/roses.jpg (http://www.maths.dundee.ac.uk/~sanderso/music/roses.jpg)

He's mentioned in their song, "Going Down" - "Yeah, she looks like a painting, Jackson Pollock's No. 5..."

Yeah, I'll plug the Roses any chance I get.

I wanna be adored.

[CraigSca]

I wanna be adored.

Thank you, sir! :)

[Dutch]

I loved that album.

[Marc Vaughan]

Yeah, I'll plug the Roses any chance I get.
I salute you sir for your great taste :D

The best argument for that as art, in my opinion, is to consider it as 'found' art or in terms of hyper-realism. The problem with it, of course, is that art is a combination of voice and craft. Too many artists rely on 'artist's statement' explanations for their work, which to my mind is patching over a limitation in the work itself -- never a good sign. The unmade bed, thus, isn't art -- it's an idea. No craft went into it, and no voice went into it -- instead, the voice comes from outside, trying to inject meaning into something that contains minor meaning at best without qualifiers.
Slightly less eloquent - but I've found the most outrageous of the 'conceptual' artists seem to be those who start off doing something which seems at least interesting (and can be appreciated as being 'maybe artistic' in the way that Pollock can be).

However after a while they seem (to me at least) to lose interest in what they're doing and simply try and push what can be considered art in an almost childish attempt to get attention - a bit like a kid in art class handing in a blank piece of paper and telling the teacher its a white cat in a snow storm or the naked emperor asking about his clothers .... they're daring the art critics to actually say "You lazy shit, you didn't just didn't bother did you" ... they know the critics won't date because it's what the public have been thinking all along and to say it now would discredit a lot of 'prior art'.

(just my overly cynical take on things - I'm off to admire some elephant droppings and an unmade bed or two on another site now ;))

[Tekneek]

I loved that album.

Bye, Bye, Badman...

[Subby]

I like Thomas Kinkade, the painter of light. He pwns this guy.
Yeah God pretty much handed that guy his paint brush. 500 years from now they'll be talking about the genius that was...Thomas Kinkade.

[Tekneek]

The only thing that bothers me about art is the way that some people wax on about the symbolism in it. I often want to ask them if anyone asked the painter about this, or if they just made it up for themselves. It reminds me of literature courses where they try to tell you what is the 'correct' symbolism to be found in various literary passages. Unless the creator of the work explains these items, is there really a right or wrong answer? I suppose I am just a boor if I don't always agree with the 'educated' position on various works of art?

Since he has been dead for over 50 years, it does make sense that his original works would probably appreciate in value, doesn't it? Nobody was making that point, but it seemed like it might be a factor to me. Demand would likely increase over time as new money discovers a new appreciation for art and bids on these items whenever they become available.

[Mustang]

The only thing that bothers me about art is the way that some people wax on about the symbolism in it. I often want to ask them if anyone asked the painter about this, or if they just made it up for themselves.

I had a professor for English lit do that... She asked for an interpretation of a poem, I provided one and she promptly told me I was wrong and provided the 'official' interpretation.

But, back on topic... if you want to take a gamble, you could spend $53K

hxxp://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=523589

[NoMyths]

The only thing that bothers me about art is the way that some people wax on about the symbolism in it. I often want to ask them if anyone asked the painter about this, or if they just made it up for themselves. It reminds me of literature courses where they try to tell you what is the 'correct' symbolism to be found in various literary passages. Unless the creator of the work explains these items, is there really a right or wrong answer? I suppose I am just a boor if I don't always agree with the 'educated' position on various works of art?
Speaking as a professional interpreter of literature, yes, in achieved work there is usually a great deal that experienced readers will note that an amateur reader will not. Consider this: does the amateur fan of an NFL team notice as much during a game as an experienced fan? Of course not. While the experienced (or educated, if you will) fan will be picking apart the defensive scheme, watching the line, breaking down the matchups between receivers and cornerbacks, the amateur fan will just be caught up in the excitement and energy. It makes perfect sense that an experienced viewer of any art will be considering aspects that a less experienced viewer would not.

Keeping that in mind, let's consider this complaint about interpreting literature (one that I dealt with every semester I taught). It's problematic to talk about "correct" and incorrect interpretations of art. On the other hand, you can usually say with certainty what is and what is not present for many things. Great art usually has many, many things present, which raise ideas that may or may not have been intended by the artist. Remember too that most artists are not their own best critics; many times they themselves are not aware of all facets of their work, and the ideas and emotions it may raise.

Amateur viewers/readers many times react negatively to the idea that it takes more serious thought than a surface viewing/reading entails in order to suss out all of the layers of meaning in a work. Great art rewards that kind of attention. Yes, one can overanalyze a piece, and many times assume meaning where there may be none. That's a strength of art, though, not a weakness -- the ability to engage a viewer in a subjective imaginative experience, even if that experience is generated from things beyond the canvas. An artist can't consider how every single viewer will react to a piece -- everyone's aesthetics are too different. Rather, artists make what we make to the best of our ability, and hopefully there are enough people who think it's worthwhile that it doesn't vanish instantly. There are, unquestionably, things that can be proven to be at work in art, just as there are more subjective aspects that may or may not be in play. That's from where the enjoyment in art criticism comes.

[Subby]

I <3 NoMyths...

[st.cronin]

Speaking as a professional interpreter of literature, yes, in achieved work there is usually a great deal that experienced readers will note that an amateur reader will not. Consider this: does the amateur fan of an NFL team notice as much during a game as an experienced fan? Of course not. While the experienced (or educated, if you will) fan will be picking apart the defensive scheme, watching the line, breaking down the matchups between receivers and cornerbacks, the amateur fan will just be caught up in the excitement and energy. It makes perfect sense that an experienced viewer of any art will be considering aspects that a less experienced viewer would not.

Keeping that in mind, let's consider this complaint about interpreting literature (one that I dealt with every semester I taught). It's problematic to talk about "correct" and incorrect interpretations of art. On the other hand, you can usually say with certainty what is and what is not present for many things. Great art usually has many, many things present, which raise ideas that may or may not have been intended by the artist. Remember too that most artists are not their own best critics; many times they themselves are not aware of all facets of their work, and the ideas and emotions it may raise.

Amateur viewers/readers many times react negatively to the idea that it takes more serious thought than a surface viewing/reading entails in order to suss out all of the layers of meaning in a work. Great art rewards that kind of attention. Yes, one can overanalyze a piece, and many times assume meaning where there may be none. That's a strength of art, though, not a weakness -- the ability to engage a viewer in a subjective imaginative experience, even if that experience is generated from things beyond the canvas. An artist can't consider how every single viewer will react to a piece -- everyone's aesthetics are too different. Rather, artists make what we make to the best of our ability, and hopefully there are enough people who think it's worthwhile that it doesn't vanish instantly. There are, unquestionably, things that can be proven to be at work in art, just as there are more subjective aspects that may or may not be in play. That's from where the enjoyment in art criticism comes.

Analogy can be a powerful tool in understanding, but it's important to also keep in mind where a particular analogy falls apart. Your analogy is "watching a football game" is like "interpreting art." Where this becomes disanalogous is when you realize that there is a correct way to analyze a football game. EITHER the reciever ran the wrong route or the QB made a poor throw - there is no room for interpretation in the matter.

This, to me, is the dramatic weakness of much abstract art - that it can mean anything, therefore it ultimately means nothing.

$.02 from an amateur

[NoMyths]

Analogy can be a powerful tool in understanding, but it's important to also keep in mind where a particular analogy falls apart. Your analogy is "watching a football game" is like "interpreting art." Where this becomes disanalogous is when you realize that there is a correct way to analyze a football game. EITHER the reciever ran the wrong route or the QB made a poor throw - there is no room for interpretation in the matter.

This, to me, is the dramatic weakness of much abstract art - that it can mean anything, therefore it ultimately means nothing.

$.02 from an amateur
Ah, but you overlook an important consideration -- as a viewer, we can't know whether the receiver ran the wrong route without being on the sideline, having the coach (or, say, artist) telling us what he'd intended the play to be. We can only react to our interpretation. One viewer will say the WR ran the wrong route, one will say it was good defense, one will say the QB didn't make the throw, one will say it was the wrong play call...

The analogy is more apt than your example credits. Abstract art can't mean anything. The Pollock above cannot be said to represent Abraham Lincoln's struggle with emancipation -- there's simply nothing in the piece or outside it to suggest such an interpretation. Besides, it can be very problematic discussing meaning in abstract art -- firmer footing can be found discussing craft, similar pieces the artist is working on, personal response, etc. Being the viewer of anything -- football, art, literature -- is to be outside of the experience in a key way; you have only your education about the matter at hand, your experience, and your perception to draw on for interpretation.

[st.cronin]

Ah, but you overlook an important consideration -- as a viewer, we can't know whether the receiver ran the wrong route without being on the sideline, having the coach (or, say, artist) telling us what he'd intended the play to be. We can only react to our interpretation. One viewer will say the WR ran the wrong route, one will say it was good defense, one will say the QB didn't make the throw, one will say it was the wrong play call...

The analogy is more apt than your example credits. Abstract art can't mean anything. The Pollock above cannot be said to represent Abraham Lincoln's struggle with emancipation -- there's simply nothing in the piece or outside it to suggest such an interpretation. Besides, it can be very problematic discussing meaning in abstract art -- firmer footing can be found discussing craft, similar pieces the artist is working on, personal response, etc. Being the viewer of anything -- football, art, literature -- is to be outside of the experience in a key way; you have only your education about the matter at hand, your experience, and your perception to draw on for interpretation.


What you are pointing at here is that "meaning" in art (abstract or not) is not the point, but rather the "experience" is what is essential. The difficulty I have with abstract art is the varieties of experience can be so broad as to make any particular experience questionable. An opera by Monteverdi has a unifying effect on it's audience - all listeners have a common emotional experience.

Art that fails to do that, I consider inferior.

[NoMyths]

What you are pointing at here is that "meaning" in art (abstract or not) is not the point, but rather the "experience" is what is essential.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would certainly agree that the experience of reacting to a piece of abstract art is important to its aesthetic.

The difficulty I have with abstract art is the varieties of experience can be so broad as to make any particular experience questionable. An opera by Monteverdi has a unifying effect on it's audience - all listeners have a common emotional experience.
Unfortunately, I'd disagree with your example. The audience of any performance is not going to have a common emotional experience -- they are having individual experiences, some of which will be similar, and many of which will be different. And while talking about music starts to head off into the weeds a bit -- music is a very different beast than painting -- it's still important to note that there are few shared anythings.

Art that fails to do that, I consider inferior.
I can't point to a single great piece of art that unifies all viewers in a common experience. Instead, I tend to think of 'superior' art as engaging a greater emotional and intellectual range than 'inferior' art -- rather than being simplistic enough to encourage only one kind of reaction, shared by all viewers, great art has a spectrum of effects and ideas that are enacted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess the issue is that:

"someone paid 140 MILLION DOLLARS for a Pollock painting"

as opposed to :

"someone paid 140 million dollars for a POLLOCK PAINTING."

Why would anyone pay 140 million dollars for any piece of art? Answer: conspicuous consumption; in other words, to show that they can.

Absolutely. That's the issue tha the original poster was trying to make, but somehow people took it as though it was an insult to the painter. It wasn't.

[Julio Riddols]

Pkt << omn.

(This post is on auction now, bids starting at $2.50. It is an original post, and it can be your post if you are the highest bidder.)

[Marc Vaughan]

I had a professor for English lit do that... She asked for an interpretation of a poem, I provided one and she promptly told me I was wrong and provided the 'official' interpretation.
I often argued with the 'official' lines for these at school with the point of view that any writer will probably have an 'off day' at some point when they probably aren't 100% happy with what they've done but leave it be ... little knowing that 100 years on someone is trying to interpret stuble nuances into it, not realising that actually Shakespeare had a hangover and simply wanted to throw out a few lines before lunch ;)

I've sometimes wondered whether critics themselves actually shape the artist - for instance an artist does something without 'realising/thinking about it specifically' which the critic likes ....

The artist then reads the critics interpretation, thinks yeah thats cool and decides to incorporate similar things in future work.

[Dutch]

I often argued with the 'official' lines for these at school with the point of view that any writer will probably have an 'off day' at some point when they probably aren't 100% happy with what they've done but leave it be ... little knowing that 100 years on someone is trying to interpret stuble nuances into it, not realising that actually Shakespeare had a hangover and simply wanted to throw out a few lines before lunch ;)

Well, a great writer would revise ad-naseaum, so we would hope Shakespeare went back a few million times and said, "What the hell was I thinking????" and erased and modified bits and pieces. :)

I've sometimes wondered whether critics themselves actually shape the artist - for instance an artist does something without 'realising/thinking about it specifically' which the critic likes ....

The artist then reads the critics interpretation, thinks yeah thats cool and decides to incorporate similar things in future work.

In the case of abstract art such as the one pictured here, I believe that is possible. Of course, I have to believe that because I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at.