3 ms·

Ability to reproduce - or imitate - has very little relation to the cultural 'value' or 'goodness' of art. Viewing art as simply technical skill alone is meanin

Ability to reproduce - or imitate - has very little relation to the cultural 'value' or 'goodness' of art. Viewing art as simply technical skill alone is meaningless when you have a photograph, a printer, or a robot. Think about the introduction of photography. Like you said, the ability to imitate something (in this case 100%) with no skill or practice. That's photography. And it changed everything. Impressionism came from this period. And I think it's interesting when placing Pollock on this timeline, he only did the drip paintings for a couple years of his career. But a lot of people would place these paintings towards the start of AbEx. Which some define as an opposing reaction to encroaching government, McCarthyism, lack of individuality and conformity, communism, etc. It's not just one technique or style. It's a way of expressing individuality and emotion. Pollock's drip paintings and that type of 'action painting' directly tears apart that narrow view of art you expressed. These pieces purposely make the individual 'building blocks' visible. the brush strokes, paint etc. What art was before is now being broken down, the parts put on display. One has to view it in the context of the time. Think about the Hollywood blacklist, USSR, control and conformity built from fear. And Pollock goes and does that. It was a protest of individuality and expression and is about SO much much more than reproducibility.

ianai 6y ago
This would be like going through the full material of calculus (1,2,3) and saying “it’s trivial and therefore not impressive nor worth learning” after every single proof, derivation, lecture, and homework problem. You can do it, but you’ve not actually demonstrated any knowledge of the material. Nor would such refutation actually prove that calculus doesn’t contribute greatly to the modern world.

ianai 6y ago

This would be like going through the full material of calculus (1,2,3) and saying “it’s trivial and therefore not impressive nor worth learning” after every single proof, derivation, lecture, and homework problem. You can do it, but you’ve not actually demonstrated any knowledge of the material. Nor would such refutation actually prove that calculus doesn’t contribute greatly to the modern world.