Is this really a masterpiece?

>>2943154
what is it

>>2943154
yes, you're just not high enough level to see it

>>2943156
Jackson Pollocks one: number 31. A landmark in abstract expressionism. The man poured and flicked paint onto a canvas.

>>2943156
A dirty carpet

as with most things: if you have to ask, it isn't.

>>2943154
Lolooks like something shit on the canvas and smeared it out

>>2943183
I was thinking maybe my iq is too low to understand it.

>>2943154
Anything is a masterpiece if you want it to.

>>2943154
if youre a dumbass maybe

>>2943194
That's exactly what they want you to think, so that this shit gets more value (cause it's probably a money laundering scheme).
What i think is that these paintings work kinda like the "king's invisible suit", people just pretend that these paintings are amazing, but in reality they just want to look smarter than everyone else.

It's not as random as some of you uncultured plebeians believe.

Since 1999, more than 10 scientific groups have performed fractal analysis on over 50 of Jackson Pollock’s (1912-1956) paintings which were created by pouring paint directly onto his horizontal canvases. Recently, fractal analysis has been used to achieve a 93% success rate in distinguishing real from imitation Pollocks. Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock's fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals and Nature's fractals.

>>2943154

To answer your question, I must first know on which aesthetic criteria you intend do distinguish real masterpieces from acclaimed sacred cows.

If I was to base my opinion on the author's intent, I don't see how it expresses the inside world but as far as being confusing on purpose goes, it works (hence the name of that painting).
However I can see why the idea itself was interesting to experiment with, being inspired by surrealist painters, Pollock's interest in psychoanalysis, etc. In this way, it's rooted in its time and makes sense. It isn't a "happy incident" happening when an absolute madman threw paint on the floor.

Since he died rather young, it's impossible to know in which direction his art would have gone later, though.

Finally, Pollock was one of the tools used by the USA to establish America as an important center for modern art. They needed to break the traditional rules of representation to make it happen.

>>2943224
There's also a study discounting that study, so take it with a grain of salt. I like Pollock, I just don't need math to validate my aesthetic tastes.

>>2943154 (OP) #
Literally impossible to judge in person, this thing is he size of your living room wall and covered in texture, even a few handprints. Scale is not irrelevant.

You're still allowed to hate it even if you've seen it in person, but you can't offer a very informed opinion without having done so.

>>2943252
stop talking about my dick, will you?

>>2943154
Yeah, the kind of masterpiece you get on the floor when painting the fence.

>>2943257
Work on your aim

>>2943154
i've never really found much deep meaning in it, i just think it looks neat
of course a lot of the experience is in seeing it in person up on a wall with how big it is
probably not a masterpiece
still think it's neat, still feel it's worthy of it's place in art history imo, if only for the dialogue it opens up

File: fuckingnothing.jpg (100KB, 533x400px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 533x400px

>>2943224
>93% of the people they hired are too incompetent to imitate him
>images made automatically by a computer are as meaningful

>>2943154
Yes! I've the same in my garage, wich mean this guy proved that everybody can be a genius.

>>2943224
>It's not as random as some of you uncultured plebeians believe.

Garbage made with purpose is still garbage.

>>2943154
Not by a parsec.

>>2943224
>No one else can perfectly replicate the ketchup stain on my shirt so that makes it a master piece.