2 ms·
"If art is intended to garner a reaction - Pollock accomplishes that in spades." Sadly, that's not difficult to do, especially if the artist has critics, media
by pmoriarty 6y ago
"If art is intended to garner a reaction - Pollock accomplishes that in spades."
Sadly, that's not difficult to do, especially if the artist has critics, media, museums, and galleries propping them up and giving them publicity.
The history of 20th Century art is full of shock art antics which rile up the public.
One of the most telling examples is Piero Manzoni's "Artist's Shit"[1], which (true to its name) consists of tin cans containing Manzoni's excrement.
Manzoni sold the cans for their weight in gold ($37 each in 1961), but since then they're selling for as much as €275,000 each.
Poetically, some cans have since burst because of the gases built up inside, making the "art" worthless.
The estimation, outrage, and value of such "art" in the art market, in the eyes of critics, and in the view of the public aptly summarizes a lot of modern art. Perhaps that's why they sell so well.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
- qzx_pierri 6y agoEdgy art like this is mostly used as a money laundering racket by the ultra rich, a way to piss away money by the rich, and a way to feel cool by aimless middle class hipsters. I love it all, but some people refuse to acknowledge this.