/ic/, convince me his work was art and not bullshit.
You can attempt the same thing and it wouldn't as good because you aren't Pollock.
>Implying that throwing paint randomly takes talent and vision
>>2890633
why can't you convince yourself? why do you need others to tell what to like? Are you that lonely and inept?
No. You like it or you don't. Arguing about the definition of art won't change that.
>>2890633
If anyone can sell blobs of paint for that amount of money it really doesn't matter if some random anon thinks it's art or not.
He had the spark. He had lots of energy and emotion.
But everything is art if you want it to be.
It's more about his technique than the result.
I liked it when I was a high school student, used it for my final project. Using it was pretty relaxing to be honest, not thinking about a thing and just throwing and dripping paint onto a surface.
>>2890962
You do know that most of the money was strictly for laundering purposes, right?
Also it doesn't work today, most money launderers have switched to real estate and bitcoin, depending on how tech savvy they are.
>>2890983
>strictly for laundering purposes, right?
I hear this a lot, but no one ever has anything solid to back it up. There are much safer ways to launder than
>we paid off all the art appraisers to agree this is the hot new thing
I mean, I fucking hate pollock, but art's utility for laundering is way overstated.
>>2891000
Nice try Shlomo
>>2890997
You might actually be retarded. There's no doubt you're insecure.
>>2890641
Being the first that starts throwing paint randomly takes talent and vision. Probably.
>>2890633
His work was bullshit, it has no thought behind it. He was a drunk that lived off his wife. His Jew wife was more concerned about helping him destroy art than their relationship, so he was just a useful idiot.
>>2891000
You only need one appraiser to say it's worth anything, though, and once it's "bought" for that price then all the other guys will take notice and say the same thing.