4 ms·
There was a discussion on HN not long ago about things that are obvious in hindsight[1], and I think Pollock's work might fit this category. Beyond the aestheti
by quicklime 6y ago
There was a discussion on HN not long ago about things that are obvious in hindsight[1], and I think Pollock's work might fit this category. Beyond the aesthetics, and even if his artworks were easy to reproduce, there's some value not just in the art itself but the discussion that it sparked in the community, and the impact that it had on perceptions of modern art.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24229269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24229269
- everdrive 6y agoIf the point is the conversation it generates, then it's not really art. Tt's either meta-art, or performance art, or something like that.
- hilbertseries 6y agoYour argument seems to hinge on the idea that meta art or performance art, are not themselves art. This is quite a strange argument. Perhaps you should read about conceptual art, like Duchamps fountain, which is certainly art. Or if you really want to get upset read about Cattelan’s latest piece involving a banana and a piece of duct tape.
- ianai 6y agoJust my casual interaction with the art world tells me the conversation art inspires is always a value add to the art.