3 ms·

My opinion of Pollock changed drastically when I saw something in person. For me, it was Greyed Rainbow, which is completely uninteresting in a book and quite e

My opinion of Pollock changed drastically when I saw something in person. For me, it was Greyed Rainbow, which is completely uninteresting in a book and quite enthralling in person. I don't think this phenomenon is limited to abstract expressionism though. Even being from Iowa, I didn't understand what was special about American Gothic until I saw it in person.

hodgesrm 6y ago
Giotto is the same. His paintings seem lifeless in a book with 10" pictures. But there's a room in the Uffizi which features Madonnas by Giotto, Cimabue, and Duccio. They are mind-blowing. First of all they are not 10 inches but 10 feet tall. Second, Giotto's Madonna and Child almost feels as if they are alive. Seeing his work side-by-side with contemporaries it's instantly obvious why Vasari considered Giotto as the reviver of the art painting. [1] (The others were no slouches either.) [1] https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/giorgio-vasari/the-lives-of-the-artists/giotto/ https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/giorgio-vasari/the-liv...
allenu 6y ago
I had a similar reaction. When I would see Pollocks in books, I would dismiss them as being overrated, but when I finally saw one in person, I was really overwhelmed. There's something about the presence of it that really pulls you in. Maybe it's the size of the pieces that does it.
sjcoles 6y ago
I had a similar reaction to Mark Rothko's work. On a page it seems silly and stupid but standing in front of a giant canvas that is seemingly perfectly imperfectly painted is just something else. It engulfs your entire vision and is really something that needs to be experienced in person.
- jackthetab 6y ago
  I have experienced them in person. Still don't get it. Looking for an source that can explain it to me.
  - bane 6y ago
    I remember going to the National Gallery in D.C. and while asking for a map the person at the desk told me "you should go to the tower, we have something very special there". It was an exhibit of some Rothkos and a video about his life and significance to help the viewer interpret his works. I found the paintings terrible, but knowing I usually understand them more once I understand the artist I went to go watch the video. During the video there was a couple rude guys who started snickering at the video. Usually I get kind of upset about this sort of thing, but to be honest, I actually agreed with them. I came away from the experience feeling like I had just been part of a huge prank. I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. A couple years later I was in a small museum in another country, and across the room saw a painting of a couple of poorly rendered squares in flat shades and thought, "I bet that's a Rothko." Sure enough it was, and now I can recognize his paintings from 20 meters away. So I guess his work is recognizable and unique and I've learned some very begrudging respect for his work that way I guess -- they're at least recognizable trash.
    - goto11 6y ago
      > I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. May I ask how you came to the conclusion the painting are trash - and not just that you personally didn't like the paintings?
  - goto11 6y ago
    Maybe you just don't like Rothko? People like different things and that is fine. I don't think there is a anything to "explain" about Rothko and that genre - the point of the paintings are the physical form and colors itself, there is nothing "behind" which need explanation.
  - Smoosh 6y ago
    Can a stone plucked from a riverbed be beautiful? Why? If you look closely, it is imperfect. If you look around you can find others, very similar. Perhaps any river could have produced it. It isn't saying anything. It isn't telling you anything. It isn't being anything other than a stone. Yet surely, it can be an object of beauty, causing thought, curiosity, contemplation and feelings. If a stone, why not a canvas deliberately created from inspiration and feelings? Isn't abstract art even more artful than simply copying what your eyes can see?

hodgesrm 6y ago

Giotto is the same. His paintings seem lifeless in a book with 10" pictures. But there's a room in the Uffizi which features Madonnas by Giotto, Cimabue, and Duccio. They are mind-blowing. First of all they are not 10 inches but 10 feet tall. Second, Giotto's Madonna and Child almost feels as if they are alive. Seeing his work side-by-side with contemporaries it's instantly obvious why Vasari considered Giotto as the reviver of the art painting. [1] (The others were no slouches either.) [1] https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/giorgio-vasari/the-lives-of-the-artists/giotto/ https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/giorgio-vasari/the-liv...

allenu 6y ago

I had a similar reaction. When I would see Pollocks in books, I would dismiss them as being overrated, but when I finally saw one in person, I was really overwhelmed. There's something about the presence of it that really pulls you in. Maybe it's the size of the pieces that does it.

sjcoles 6y ago

I had a similar reaction to Mark Rothko's work. On a page it seems silly and stupid but standing in front of a giant canvas that is seemingly perfectly imperfectly painted is just something else. It engulfs your entire vision and is really something that needs to be experienced in person.

jackthetab 6y ago
I have experienced them in person. Still don't get it. Looking for an source that can explain it to me.
- bane 6y ago
  I remember going to the National Gallery in D.C. and while asking for a map the person at the desk told me "you should go to the tower, we have something very special there". It was an exhibit of some Rothkos and a video about his life and significance to help the viewer interpret his works. I found the paintings terrible, but knowing I usually understand them more once I understand the artist I went to go watch the video. During the video there was a couple rude guys who started snickering at the video. Usually I get kind of upset about this sort of thing, but to be honest, I actually agreed with them. I came away from the experience feeling like I had just been part of a huge prank. I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. A couple years later I was in a small museum in another country, and across the room saw a painting of a couple of poorly rendered squares in flat shades and thought, "I bet that's a Rothko." Sure enough it was, and now I can recognize his paintings from 20 meters away. So I guess his work is recognizable and unique and I've learned some very begrudging respect for his work that way I guess -- they're at least recognizable trash.
  - goto11 6y ago
    > I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. May I ask how you came to the conclusion the painting are trash - and not just that you personally didn't like the paintings?
- goto11 6y ago
  Maybe you just don't like Rothko? People like different things and that is fine. I don't think there is a anything to "explain" about Rothko and that genre - the point of the paintings are the physical form and colors itself, there is nothing "behind" which need explanation.
- Smoosh 6y ago
  Can a stone plucked from a riverbed be beautiful? Why? If you look closely, it is imperfect. If you look around you can find others, very similar. Perhaps any river could have produced it. It isn't saying anything. It isn't telling you anything. It isn't being anything other than a stone. Yet surely, it can be an object of beauty, causing thought, curiosity, contemplation and feelings. If a stone, why not a canvas deliberately created from inspiration and feelings? Isn't abstract art even more artful than simply copying what your eyes can see?