Why is Pollock considered good?

>>2648733
because he was bold brave and creative. those were always more important than pure skill.

>>2648745
>creative
how so?

here we go again

>>2648733
cause your mother sucks cocks in hell!

>>2648763
If you cannot feel the raw power and genius of Pollock, then you have no spark. Give up on art, completely.

File: 1460085139093.jpg (9KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 273x185px

i see enough bait threads on shit like r9k, i don't need them here

>>2648785
If you can't explain the raw power and genius of Pollock, then you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

I could very well give the same answer for any piece of shit to be found. "You don't understand it, give up." This is in fact, no answer at all.

File: Rembrandt_night_watch.jpg (151KB, 1600x1333px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1600x1333px

>>2648733
This is what "artists" do when they have no talent to do art like pic related.

>>2648808
No. It's because we have freedom and free will to do what we want, what we want to do, and experiment and discover something new. There's a world of possibilities that you are disregarding if you think the only legitimate way of doing art is drawing figures.

>>2648862
>all those freedom you have and you choose to be shit

kek

>>2648808
it's looks like this normie just threw some paint on the canvas and called it a day. where's the inspiration?? Rembrandt was a neckbeard and his toothpaste sucks.

>>2648865
10/10

>>2648865
That's where there lies a fundamental difference between you and me. When I see Pollock, I see an unparalleled genius of the abstract expressionism movement. When someone like you who has no spark looks at his work, they say 'shit'. How ignorant.

>>2648873
>>2648785

>still hasnt explained what qualities of pollocks work have merit
>either unable to or a troll
>gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

>>2648865
we have a win

>>2648873
Explain us the spark.

>>2648733
You have to understand that an artist's true merit is expressed through their ideas, not their actual artwork. Artists are philosophers and thinkers and that is why they are paid, they don't simply "make pictures".
Jackson Pollock believed that the soul could only be expressed through by painting, and that within these random paint strokes you could see it best. Specifically, Jackson Pollock was interested in the subconscious self, and the only way you could have access to this subconscious self was to paint, he was inspired by Carl Jung and his psychological theories on the subject.

>>2648876
because spark m8
incommensurable genius

>>2648907
what does the painting above express?

>>2648763
he was all about the rejection of the past, he used unconventional methods of application as a part of a growing movement which incorporated artists more in the creation. He also used unconventional paints and was known to really get into his works which were also unconventionally not on an easel. Like >>2648785
should have said, seeing one of these fuckers in person is very powerful whether or not you see it as creative

>>2648910
unsure on this exact one but he mostly dealt with rhythmic ideas in juncture with seasonal mind sets as a form of personal expression

File: 1384874579795.gif (982KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 320x287px

>>2649015
sounds gay

File: 14032752352355.png (866KB, 706x1200px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 706x1200px

Pollock is shit but the art he produces is aesthetically pleasing when viewed in person.
still not worth $300 million tho. I'm not sure why rich people like throwing away their money so much

File: freud.id.ego.jpg (31KB, 365x330px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 365x330px

>>2648910
I already told you,
its very important:
The painting express the subconscious self.

>>2649041
>I'm not sure why rich people like throwing away their money so much
They buy them to make money dipshit. Buy a painting for 50 million, throw it in a vault, and a few years later you sell it for 100 million.

>>2649065
or, in a few years, it's worth absolutely nothing, assuming that people will actually stop being retarded in the future and focus on art that's actually good

File: 06e.jpg (108KB, 1181x897px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1181x897px

>>2649041
>still not worth $300 million tho

Just because something is "worth $300 million" doesn't mean it's worth $300 million

>I'm not sure why rich people like throwing away their money so much

You have to understand that the rich work on an entirely different level. The worth of $300 million can be absolutely nothing compared to someone who makes billions annually. Add that to the fact that when you have all this money, normal things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. become worth absolutely nothing.

What can the rich buy when all commodities become meaningless? The ultra rare, and one of a kind. Something with brand recognition, yet one of a kind, so that they can flaunt to their rich buddies. Pollock is an easy answer.

Can you start to see how massive this dick waving contest is?

The exchange of money has become just a sport. The numbers have more value than the actual money itself. Everyone wants the best stats, because once you get to that level, life becomes absolutely meaningless outside of that.

I don't think you understand all the variables it takes to make something worth $300 million dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwgRDW05-ZY

>>2649067
>getting mad at what people spend their money on
>getting mad at people who take advantage of said people

>>2649090
>The worth of $300 million can be absolutely nothing compared to someone who makes billions annually. Add that to the fact that when you have all this money, normal things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. become worth absolutely nothing.
>Can you start to see how massive this dick waving contest is?
neet who knows nothing about the world detected. First off, there aren't fucking leagues of billionaires out there, there's only a few select individuals, and typically families are the ones buying these expensive artworks (like the royal family of Qatar). They're not just throwing away money because they can, they're just retarded and want even more money, to which I say: Buying art is an investment. The value of that $300 million painting might drop to $100m the next decade due to low demand. No one will want that ugly yellow shit in the future.
Brand recognition is everything until it's not. Because I guarantee you no one will give a shit about Picasso in the future, seeing how art history and art in general isn't important in schools nowadays, meaning our younger generations will cease to care or demand his abstract garbage. Just look at this board. Most people here loathe Picasso, and the age group is primarily young males aged 15-25. Hopefully the abstract art trend will die out soon, as it appears to be doing.
stop being so verbose in your argument. it's very amateurish and annoying. "the ultra rare, and one of a kind..." stop being so fucking dramatic senpai

File: 1371823696950.jpg (41KB, 401x486px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 401x486px

>Its another "/pol/tards think they know about art" episode

>>2648808
>If you can't sing or play an instrument ... make fucking rap or vaporwave.

Seems legit. Unironically.

>>2648733
Because a lot of insecure cunts like to feel important

>>2649059
Fuck me don't talk about ''subconscious''. Freud's theory on human mind is so full of shit it's not even taught as a science, it's a ''philosophy''. Plus, if you noticed anything about the painting it wouldn't be subconscious in the first place, it's like when hypnotists say he didn't make you fall asleep because you didn't have enough faith.

File: meggs-heavenly-creatures-exhibition-recap-thinkspace-7.jpg (654KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1280x853px

Because it influenced the way people do art and changed the way people see art.

When you see a painting with splatters like this.. that is jackson pollocks influence.. he is the father of this ish.

And it's shit. Don't anyone listen to the guy who you don't have spark if you can't appreciate Pollock. People do things like this to cover up their lack of spark. Besides, being influential doesn't necessarily mean being good in any way.

>>2649197
meant to quote >>2649187

>>2649197
You sound like you draw manga.

>>2649124
>subconscious
where is the memory of i.e. your local store when you don't think about it?

File: image.jpg (71KB, 634x418px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 634x418px

>>2648733
"Pollock: Old lace maker" - Francis Bacon

>>2649207
you're wrong.

>>2648733
Because nobody can understand what the hell are his paintings representing

>>2649207
>grasping at straws

Pollock was a pioneer who had the balls to literally just throw shit at a canvas and act like it was art, faggots like >>2648785, realized it was garbage but if they played along with the idea of it being art would seem intellectually superior to the masses who "just don't get it".

Other examples of this sort of behavior of pretending to like garbage to seem enlightened include Piccaso, Basquiat and Death Grips.

>>2649187
that's a hell lot better than pollock

File: ca8c7463007c21900b1df3a0c95e0ea2.jpg (22KB, 236x276px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x276px

Pollock self-portrait

this guy really couldn't draw for shit

>>2649395
Yes, but in a sense pollock gave birth to it.

File: The Connoisseur.jpg (141KB, 540x700px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 540x700px

"The Connoisseur"

It features an old man staring at a Jackson Pollock's painting, except it isn't really an actual painting by him. Rockwell tackled both at once the pseudo-intelectualism of modern art and the "even a child can do it" argument, because that abstract piece was done by Rockwell himself, and in the same way Pollock painted, in the floor.

There is as much spark and raw power in this painting as in a Pollock

>>2649405
Rockwell's color choice is actually better than pollock's desu.

File: 1964brassau03.jpg (46KB, 564x296px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x296px

No spark, the whole success behind Pollock's paintings is meeting the right people and sheer luck. Remember how critics praised Pierre Brassau?

>ctrl f
>"cia"
>no results
Pollock and others were pushed by the CIA to promote american soft power during the Cold War and move the "center of culture" and art from Paris to New-York. This is documented.

>>2648907
hippy dippy bullshit.

>>2649187
I already explained the answer right here.

>>2649405
In 1961, Rockwell's studio was temporarily transformed into an abstract expressionist's workplace as he painted The Connoisseur, a painting about the relationship between conventional and modern art. Always fascinated by modern and abstract art, Rockwell designed a cover in which he could acknowledge his appreciation of the genre. By placing his back to us, he leaves the interpretation of the museum visitor's reaction to the viewer. If we can assume that he is a surrogate for Rockwell, we may also assume that the gentleman is smiling approvingly.

Rockwell constructed his painting in a manner similar to the work of artist Jackson Pollock. Journals in his library would have provided him with information about Pollock's process. Rather than paint the connoisseur and then surround him with the abstract image, Rockwell first produced the abstract as a separate and complete image. He was then able to position a cutout of his painting of the man over his abstract in order to test the final effect. Later, he combined the images for his final painting.

Rockwell submitted a section of the sample painting to an exhibition at the Cooperstown Art Association in New York, signing the canvas with an Italian signature. It took first prize for painting. Another section of the abstract canvas, signed "Percival," won Honorable Mention at a Berkshire Museum exhibition.

The Connoisseur, Norman Rockwell, 1961. Oil on canvas, 37¾" x 31½". Cover illustration for The Saturday Evening Post, January 13, 1962. Private collection.

Reference photos for The Connoisseur by Louie Lamone, 1961.

>>2648907
They sure got you to swallow that crock of shit, real goooood.

>>2648733
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o

>>2648907
>there is greater value in the idea
>therefore, it doesn't matter if the final result is deliberately bad, childlike, or meaningless

Non sequitur.

alternatively:
>the work is bad
>it doesn't matter because it was probably born out of a great mind

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb

>>2648733
Looking nice so far. When will the author finish it?

>>2649305
i actually like some of death grips stuff, maybe because i have anger issues.... not everybody who likes something popular, likes it because its popular. people are strange, and you seem closed minded. just like the other anon said, if you see a pollock in person its fucking huge and boisterous. personally i don't like pollock but ive seen a painting in real life and i was struck for a second. it really is an interesting style!

>>2649398
that looks like something i would do if i was bored and doodling around for no raisin!

>>2648733
Because you can't make an exact copy of any of his paintings.

>>2649680
>there are no forgeries of Jackson Pollock paintings

This is my problem with 99% of art, especially modern art.

If you drew a face with 3 fucking eyeballs and five ears in art class at school, your teacher would think you're taking the pissed and say 'draw it properly' - but Picasso does it and he's a genius.
If you paid a sketch artist to draw you and he gave you two noses and three ears, you'd want your money back.

Pollock creates this shit, and he’s a genius challenging the status quo.
If a pavement artist or someone did that piece, you'd say 'you 'avin' a giggle, M8?'

>>2649421
Chimpanzee that!

I remember some stunt on TV, where they got these art critics to review and value some paintings - all new works, never unveiled before, a nice swanky gallery hosted them.
They came up with all these wild interpretations, fawning over the composition, the proportion, the passion, the use of light and colour, all kinds of wanky bullshit.

Works were valued at thousands upon thousands for their genius.

Then the producers of the show revealed the 'artists' - they were infants with no training or experience - this was the first time they used paint and canvas.

Immediately the critics dropped their valuations to almost zero.

File: painting-self-portrait-style-evolution-pablo-picasso-1.jpg (307KB, 700x1065px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 700x1065px

>>2649305
>Other examples of this sort of behavior of pretending to like garbage to seem enlightened include Piccaso, Basquiat and Death Grips.
But Picasso has good stuff. At difference of Pollock, Picasso could paint.
He reached a very high level at a very young age, and whether we like or not the work he did later, what makes the difference for me is the fact that it was a conscious choice and not something he did because he could not do otherwise.
I have never seen anything by Pollock that it isn't shit or a splatter.

>>2649680
You don't need to make a copy. People can't distinguish between a Pollock and a random splatter I could make in one morning.

>>2649702
That reminds me of Aelita Andre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J24NRbFuynE

>>2649704
i agree. most people on ic don't know much about art history, which is a shame. it should be apart of learning art ,as it will expose you to so many different styles!

Picasso was legit in his early career, concious decision or not... he sucks later in his career!

i also think its strange everybody knows who Van gogh is but never heard of Gauguin! they were fuckin buddies, just Gauguin was fuckin little girls and being reckless while van gogh was a depressed fuck who cut his ear off over a hooker! lol!

>>2649099
Kinda reminds me of the interesting careers of both Damien Hirst, and Charles Saatchi.
I don't know where to begin, but read any story on either of them, and see how they are intertwined, and read between the lines...

>Saatchi worked in advertising
>opens an art gallery
>Damien Hirst is newly graduated art student
>value of his work - £0-500
>Saatchi agrees to put exhibition in his gallery
>price tag is suddenly £5,000 + out of nowhere
>because Saatchi only schmooze with richfags, no riff-raff
>numerous pieces are bought and resold between them
>Damien goes international
>hires students to do most of his art, he just signs them
>Damien's most valuable work - a gold skull with diamonds, bought by mysterious Asian phone bidder for record £120 million at auction
>much whispering about this in art circles
>that's a lotta lettuce, and art buyers usually show off their shit, so word gets around in arty circles who actually bought it
>skull appears on market again, then disappears again
>a convenient fire, seemingly arson, burns several million's worth of Saatchi's art collection
>rumours that warehouse was empty
>insurance paid out anyway, but valuations and actual damage disputed

>>2649041
Is that a Rothko?
I hate his shit too.
I could be wrong, it just looks like that Red one,
Which is also shit.

>>2649117
ahahahahahahah funny shit brofampai.

but some rap is actually good, vaporwave definitely not!

>>2649117
I have to agree here.

art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

>>2648808
Or when they're not from the 17th century

>>2649398
>steady steady
>easy does it
>Aw shit, I'm starting with a pen
>Whelp, just fuck my shit up fampai

>>2648870
>and his toothpaste sucks.

Top Kek

>>2648733
Because you can't teach art history without teaching about him. The quality of an artist is based on how many people were inspired to create their art because of him.

Regarding money...
"The value of a painting at auction is not necessarily the value of a painting. It is the value of two people bidding against each other, because they really want the painting."

>>2649908
kek

>>2650009
>Because you can't teach art history without teaching about him. The quality of an artist is based on how many people were inspired to create their art because of him.
Modernist thinking fallacy.

The amount of influence an artist imposes depends on the writings of contemporary art historians to begin with. Then the influence is written about by later art historians. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To say that an artist's quality is based on influencing others is arbitrary to begin with and is only important to the record-keeping aspect of art history, not art appreciation. Great artists of the past are said to have been said to be influential because they were good, not that they were good because they were influential.

History is the record of change, not the record of what is good.

>>2648733
>Why is Pollock considered good?

easy way for pretentious people to feel sophisticated and above the proles who enjoy crass realistic art.

>>2649187
I don't like pollock, but I would rather have his painting hanging on the wall than this. Even if I didn't know who he was. This is some kitchy shit, jeez.

File: The-Emperors-New-Clothes.jpg (530KB, 2029x2279px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 2029x2279px

>>2650112
PIC FUCKING RELATED.
Sometimes I feel like I am the only person who has read this book or is familiar with it.
I keep it front of mind at all times.
It's a great bullshit filter.

'oh, the composition here is superb' says a renowned art critic.
'i was just going to say that, fantastic composition'
Says an art student.

How do things like these end up being worth so much?
What do you need to do to sell a piece of junk for millions?

>>2649117
Some rap beats and lyrics are actually good.
Vaporwave is pure shit alongside with pop

>>2650533
vaporwave is dope l2 groove pleb

To be fair Picasso was a master painter and yet he did cubism which looks like something a child could do.

>>2650795
Then show me your best rendering of picasso or pollock. You won't come close

>>2650795
Picasso being a master of realism is a myth. Early Picasso did basically sight size paintings, you can tell since all his paintings are of his family acting out different scenes and they are very stiff and lifeless. Some people say his father did the painting but I doubt that's true, I do think he heavily coached him in his paintings though. Having an experienced artist point out your mistakes and give advice as you work will drastically bump up your quality. Because of this picasso's work without his father is at a much lower level and his construction isn't very good since he only really knows how to copy shapes, after a while he realizes he has to put on the emperors new clothes to continue.

>>looks like something a child could do
>>it's not worthwile if it takes no skill

Is this a real argument? Why do people think art is about being skilled, when basically it's achievable for everyone to get to a decent level? I admire the idea of an obligation to gain enough craftsmanship to be able to portray reality and only then deviating from that into abstraction, but to consider chinks and movies' concept arts the endpoint of it all is to mistake crafts with fine arts. Imagine art as something that gets boarder, not "better".

File: 1357389355090.png (621KB, 856x447px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 856x447px

>>2651035
dude - I have no idea wtf you are trying to say

>>2649704
I'm 90% convinced by the daddy piccaso meme

>>2651035
Because if it's something that takes no dedication or at least cleverness there is no point being famous for it?

A pollok painting might go really well in a room but anyone could just make it themselves.

File: rothko-orange.jpg (12KB, 309x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 309x400px

>>2651035
>Why do people think art is about being skilled
it is
not necessarily inborn challenge, but without any skill needed to produce art the very concept of it vanishes into nothingness
and that's what we've see with postmodern art - a random splatter? that's art, a black square? that's art, yellow and orange rectangles? definitely art, what if we hang some bottles from the ceiling? art, let's buy stuff from grocery stores and never take it home! this is serious performance art.

When the display of skill is out of art, everything is art, and there is no way to distinguish good art from bad. "Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder!" hardly, since good taste and beauty has shown to be objectively traceable for music and literature throughout (it wouldn't be incorrect to consider a philistine a man who says that Paradise Lost or Odyssey are bad poems, or that Shakespeare was a bad playwright, or that Joyce English language was terrible, or to say that Mozart was a bad composer, etc) so it'd turn out to be a surprising thing to have 'art' in general, most notoriously painting, all-in-all entirely subjective.
But we can add something to this that we have not seen in other artistic disciplines: 'experts' in modern art often cannot tell the difference between the work of a monkey or a seven year-old girl and an artist. There is really, no differentiation between good and bad, and the concept of art vanishes.

>Imagine art as something that gets boarder, not "better".
It should get better as well. It would be a terrible thing if techniques that have been around for thousand of years were deployed in the very same manner without the slight development.
And while it can get broader, 'broader' is a complex term, because art can get infinitely broader with restricted rules. What are these rules? Contemporary art says there are none. I disagree.

>>2648733

his works are just as much about the physical process of painting as they are about the end product. (not unique to him, but to him and other abstract expressionists of his time) the fact that you can see the physical actions of the artist is/was revolutionary.

>>2648907
Art is a form of communication. If the masses don't understand your art, then you're a shitty artist. It's like me typing:
"hgrgjghykjyuygjugjkgyutyjifguiyrfyufrhugyhjfyu"
It communicates nothing, and you're a goddamn lier if you say otherwise.

File: 1390314154544.png (63KB, 250x167px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 250x167px

>>2651502
I'm getting real sick of this kind of horse shit

File: schopen.jpg (31KB, 300x358px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x358px

>>2648808
>comparing artists 3 centuries apart

>>2651547
>hgrgjghykjyuygjugjkgyutyjifguiyrfyufrhugyhjfyu
What a beautiful post. Like silently closing and opening an umbrella while staring at your dying grandfather. It stirred the very bottom of my soul. I'll buy it for 30 million.

>>2651568
So, what you are saying right now is that we are losing talent as time goes by and artists now and in the future will never be this good?

>>2651598
I'm saying that painters from different eras have different challenges

In the renaissance people were unable to solve perspective, in rembrandt's era they were unable to solve light, post-impressionism realism is already solved. Goals of different eras are not the same, so of course artists will try to achieve different stuff.

Pre-impressionism realism was the goal, after impressionism anyone could do perfect realism due to the advances of previous artists, technology and the camera, so it's obvious they'd try to make something new

>>2651628
and what are artists trying to perfect now?
what is the technique rothko is trying to develop that wasn't done before?

>>2651436
The yellow rectangles did take skill to pull off though. Rothko shows an advanced knowledge of oil painting and color theory in those big ass squares to conceive an specific atmosphere, which might not be fully appreciated in the 12 kb pic you posted.

Makes me think you're judging those pieces from those small photos rather than from the work itself in person.

>>2651637
>and what are artists trying to perfect now?
Since impressionism no one is trying to perfect anything. Solving doesn't mean perfecting either, you could argue that 'prefecting something' was never the goal of any art movement

Nowadays the goal is (arguably) to make something with inherent value. The art movement has grown so big that this is the most abarcative answer I can give

Also bear in mind that abstract expressionism is about 100 years old too. Its goals weren't only splattering paint on a canvas. If it weren't for the vanguards you wouldn't have cartoons, comics, animation, design or even be able to discuss if abstract art was worth a damn

>>2649305
A while ago, there was a police officer in Norway who thought the new, expensive art in their police station was shit and that he could do better, despite having zero art experience.
Well, he went home and started painting and making sculptures, all of which were purposely pretentious and ridiculous, and art critics now consider him an artist. One even said that his "portfolio" would be good enough to get him into art college. He recently held an exhibition which set a visitor record, where the theme was to expose the art community. He refused to call it an art exhibition.
So yeah, the entire art community is just one big joke.

http://www.tv2.no/a/8304792/

>>2648808
just fuckin try to envision and plan the canvas without a photo reference for you to trace

>>2651665

As far as abstract goes the thing he did in the garage was actually pretty aesthetic

File: le dog and son face.jpg (25KB, 498x412px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 498x412px

>>2651670
>rembrandt didn't use references

>>2651665
This is kind of what annoys me.

Once you call yourself an artist, you cannot 'undo' being an artist.
If a taxi driver stops driving taxis, and seeks no further employment in that field, he is a 'former taxi driver' but an artist is an artist forever.
Once Warhol makes some art, he's called an artist forever.
Anything he says is art, is.

You simply cannot 'un-fool' art critics or fans.

If they like what you've done, they will read into that work whatever they want to believe.

You didn't do it yourself?
Doesn't matter.
('this artist challenges the perception of art, and the very concept of what an artist is? Is it the concept? Or is it in the making, the doing? Very clever')
You didn't study art?
Doesn't matter.
('this artist is saying 'art should not be studied, it should be made')
You found a shitty print on a rubbish dump, and smeared your shit all over it?
('this artist is saying that true art comes from the gut, and should be composed of everything they consume or absorb')
You present a blank canvas?
('the artist is saying "what is art?“ - is it the context it is presented in? This canvas is merely a canvas, but the artist constructed it themselves, therefore it is what they conceived and made! Genius!)

Artists are hustlers, so are gallery owners, etc - somehow drug dealing seems noble in comparison.

>>2651649
Correcting you.
Since impressionism no one is trying to paint anything. I dare say it was the last art movement.
Excluding surrealism, nothing good was made in the 20th.
>But muh Pop art
>Muh Soup can
Pop art only contributed to transform art in what it is now. A Money Washing Machine.
I'm not saying Pollack and Andy Warhol were painting only to get money. But they opened the door for thousand of artists - like rothko - to steal some money with shit.

>>2648733
The sooner you realise art isn't about how "talented you are" and start to realise all famous artists are just the kind of edgelords that over analyze everything in life and talk about how special snowflake they are, the sooner art will make sense
It's not about how good it looks it's about how much some faggot looking at it can go on about how it's post-kekrealism and is a representation of a dogs anus yadda yadda yadda ect ect

>>2649041
There is a painting in the gallery here similar to this, it's just a blue square in the middle of a massive unpainted canvas

>>2648733
he wasn't considered good, he was considered original. like most artists.

>>2649704

Picasso's conventional stuff was OK but not great. His plates are pretty bad desu.

>>2652187
protip: be skeptical to convenient truths. your brain will take every chance it gets to push a philosophy or theory that accommodates your ego. this is probably way over your level, but just keep it in mind and it might make sense eventually.

>>2652181
it amazes me how little some people know about art history. it's like you heard about dali and warhol and formed an opinion on the entire modern era based on the few movements that are common knowledge for the general public.

>>2649014
>seeing one of these fuckers in person is very powerful
Any painting that's fuck huge is "powerful"

>>2652355
you say that like it's a bad thing. it's true, scale can be essential to a piece, just like texture or color. not all big work is powerful though, I've seen plenty of shitty murals, and when I saw Pollock's "1A" (which floored me), I had just come from a room with Matisse's "Dance", which I found much less impressive despite being much larger.

Because his name was Jackson Pollock. Imagine if his name was Albert Thompson.

So shud my sons 1st namith b Jackson
fr creative powerith?

>>2652181
How can a person write so much with so little idea about what he's talking about?

>>2649715
>Damien's most valuable work - a gold skull with diamonds, bought by mysterious Asian phone bidder for record £120 million at auction
this literally never happened. and the skull was made out of platinum, not gold.

File: umberto boccioni.jpg (138KB, 736x525px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 736x525px

So, what do you guys think of Umberto Boccioni?

>>2653076
Is that a guy on a horse? Neat i guess