3 ms·
Have you seen the painting in question live? If you haven't I really recommend it. I didn't really get it either until I got a chance to really see some of his
by dagw 7y ago
Have you seen the painting in question live? If you haven't I really recommend it. I didn't really get it either until I got a chance to really see some of his works up close. The the scale and details and layers and dynamism and the way the paint is sculpted into a 3D surface just doesn't come across on a computer screen.
You don't have to like it, but there is no way you can in good faith study a Pollock and come away believing a 3 year old could have done that.
- dekhn 7y agoFair enough. I had the same experience with Van Gogh (the 3D paint scuplting). But I expect that even the zoomed-out version looks like something I'd care about, like a flower, not abstract.
- dagw 7y agoNot caring for the way a piece of art looks is not a good reason to belittle the talent and effort that went into creating it.
- dekhn 7y agoPlease note that all my lines written above are polite and do not belitte anybody. Instead, they are statements about what I feel and believe based on my experiences.
- dagw 7y agoAgreed. I apologize for the way that came out. But will you conceded that saying a 3 year old could to that does come off as dismissive. There is skill and technique in what Pollock did even if you think the end result is shit.
- dagw 7y agoAgain, I apologize if I can off as confrontational last night. All I'm really asking as do you give Pollock just the same few minutes of up close study you gave Rembrandt that first time in the Rijksmuseum, before you write him off. Personally I might recommend Greyed Rainbow at the Chicago Art Institute. I know I felt pretty much the way you did until I actually got to really see some of his works in person and up close.