What do you guys think of Jackson Pollock's work? What do you see?
I don't see much honestly, I don't even remember the process of those paintings except that it's splats of paints.
It's not even enjoyable for the eyes. I don't like the colors, the composition.
>>2556739
>What do you guys think of Jackson Pollock's work?
I dig it. Wasn't too big of a fan until I saw one in person. It spanned and entire wall and thick lines of textured paint raced and battled across the canvas. There were even a few handprints here and there. So long as you don't bring your preconceptions about what painting should or shouldn't be, you stand a chance of liking it, but he isn't for everyone.
>What do you see?
Paint on a canvas. This isn't a Magic Eye image, you're not supposed to see images in it.
>>2556764
Process is pretty simple, he drips and splatters liquid house paint onto the canvas using brushes, sticks, etc. Inspired by Native American sand painting.
>>2556739
They look like something very fun to do.
I see these pieces more as exercises than as complete works (can't quite bring up the proper word for it). Doing something similar to this is kind of like dumping mental clutter.
>>2556739
I like the way the colors and lines cross each other, very energetic. I do similar pieces myself...
>>2556832
Very tasteful work you have there.
no 7 is the only one of his i care about
cos it kind of looks like a ralph steadman drawing
>>2556864
Thank you. People here tend to hate my work or call me a Pollock rip off.
it's shit
>>2556832
>I do similar pieces myself...
No you do not, you have one layer of paint scribbles covered by another layer of paint scribbles with no interaction or interplay, the only difference between them being the color
Among artists, Pollock is over rated pretentious trash, but even his work has more depth, texture, thought and variance to it it than yours. How the fuck someone can make shittier paint scribbles than another man, fuck if I know, but you managed it
>>2557020
Most of Pollock's works are trash, as you said. The only thing with Pollock is that he painted very big canvas. Homie's painting is better than more than 50% of Pollock's works.
>>2557020
>you have one layer of paint scribbles covered by another layer of paint scribbles with no interaction or interplay, the only difference between them being the color
>his work has more depth, texture, thought, and variance to it than yours
This. Looks like the product of a pollock-themed sips & strokes workshop
>>2557039
Found the phillistine, homie
>>2557020
Similar method, but not in scope. Agreed there. In my mind, I'm 'closer' to Rothko than Pollock regarding thought process. Pollock's energetic paintings used the canvas as an arena to display the artist within the work, whereas Rothko was more introspective
>>2557020
I don't think there is a standard for paint scribble, dude. Anons is as good as Pollocks, doesn't matter that there aren't 10 more layers of scribble. It's not even "scribble" since that implies touching the surface. Those are drips. And between Pollocks and anons, there is only one difference: one of them wasted more house paint. You actually can make the argument that Anon's painting uses a bit more restraint and is therefore, skilled to a degree. There is not much skill in pollack, which you sort of recognize in your comment by citing his work as overrated and pretentious. Which is not to say it can't be enjoyable. It can be appreciated as a work in itself, same as Anons. I really don't understand how you cite pollack as overrated and then use him as standard to measure someone else's work. If pollack is sort of shit, as you say, then I don't see how anons painting pales in comparison. He used two layers, and pollack has used as many and fewer in some. The blackground definitely heightens the two layers, each of which seem distributed nicely. In other words, the composition is okay....as much as flinging around paint can be. Lol why did I respond.
>>2557066
Nice that you left the space on the sides open. Would hang.
>>2557066
Arabic ?
>>2557092
Thank you. Leaving the sides unmarked allows me better control of the distribution of paint.
>>2557093
I don't understand the question.
>>2557105
I used to start a lot of paintings like pollack drip paintings just to see what images I could make out....or what basic forms I liked. Then I'd go in and paint into it in various way, using the underlying lines as a guide.
>>2557110
Interesting process on your part
Did Pollack have the artist's curse? Did he look at his paintings and see only the spots he fucked up?
When/how did he know a piece was completed?
>>2557119
Different tastes, get over it
>>2557119
Anon's drip painting is so bad it actually makes me appreciate Pollock's awful stuff. It looks like he put paint in a couple of mustard bottles and squirted it out while flailing his arms until he had the surface reasonably covered. Pollock's is far more visceral and aesthetic, trash though it may be, anon has found a way to actually be worse.
>>2557125
ye alright, to live and let live
but I don't get how someone like Pollock can devote his whole life to something so.. meaningless
I mean, he doens't portray real life, he doesn't create something new, he just projects his inner struggles on a giant canvas (at least that's what I think Pollock was doing)
but why just using drips of paint, splattering them everywhere, every drooling ape could do something like that
I don't know, I just don't get why action-painting in general is seen as a somewhat interesting form of art
but as you said, different taste and stuff
>>2557131
Art is at its simplest color and lines. A 5 year old's drawings on a fridge are not technically amazing, but they are without a doubt artwork. I'm not attempting to preach, more like live and let live
>>2557128
Art is subjective.
![zkMckFv[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CP1nlfR.jpg "zkMckFv[1].jpg")
some of his drip paintings are cool, but this is my favorite that ive seen by him.i think he gets a bad wrap for being funded by cia and people thinking hes a hack. >>2557140
>>2557125
>>2557105
these look like melted cheese to me, if u were going for something that looks like pollock paintings i would have wayy more layers,
>>2556739
Nothing, but good spacing nonetheless
>>2557362
I'm not trying to be Pollock, merely myself
The Merzbow of art.
>>2557405
isnt merzbow the merzbow of art
>>2556769
OPs image doesn't do much for me but the one you've posted looks awesome
>>2557405
yeah,it really is just like noise music. it's about the texture he is able to create. Pollock creates unique textures with colors and the physical paint, merzbow does it with sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
>>2557140
>Art is subjective.
Talent is not.
>>2557396
Well yourself is shit. Read the sticky
>>2556739
I see a vast city from perfect aerial view and the green splotches are wierd shaped parks.
>>2557463
>Robert Florczak
>illustrator
His work is so kitsch and cheap it's an eyesore to look at and his words have 0 merit.
>>2557783
Going wrong in what way, friend?
>>2557066
I'd hang this on my wall over a Pollock painting any day of the week. It's actually pleasing to look at.
>>2557888
Glad you like it.
>>2557905
Which is your favorite?
>>2557888
you're hopeless
>>2558153
>you don't pretend to enjoy garbage art just to seem cultured, refined, and to fit in with your pseudo-intellectual hipster friends
>therefore you're hopeless
>>2558237
Nah bro, apparently you do enjoy garbage art. That's the problem.
>>2556739
They're shit.
>>2556739
I see life in them, the universe or even neural structures
But most importantly I see a hack who became a millionaire by selling paint splatter
>>2556739
Its basically 'work' that rich jews use to launder their money with.
>>2556769
>raced and battled across the canvas
I think I'm gonna puke
>>2558500
Common side effect of a lack of imagination
>>2557105
I really like those paintings of yours and I'd actually hang some of them on my wall but when it comes to the price I wouldn't pay a lot more than what the paint and canvas are worth on their own
>>2558505
So what you're saying is that the fascinating thing about the painting is your own imagination?
Where do I find such imaginitve people who I can sell my splattered paint for a 100 million dollars?
>>2558508
I should mention they are for sale.
>>2558508
If you honestly like them that much just make one yourself. Get a canvas, line it with some blue masking tape, squirt a couple complementary colors on it out of a mustard or ketchup bottle and peel the tape off. It isn't fucking rocket science.
>>2556739
piece of shit. all art like this is garbage.
Has he ever made... difficult art? Something that would require tallented, rather than process and notoriety.
>>2557396
well, "yourself" looks like a very cheap ripoff of Pollock
>>2556832
i dont like this
>>2559402
What do you mean by that? Or are you just shitposting for the sake of shitposting?
This thread still going? I'll just reiterate here that I don't feel Pollack was a notably talented painter, just very driven and was at the right place and time. Ultimately he was really driven by a lot of inner turmoil, but that can be said of many artists.
The important thing to remember here is that almost anyone can be shown how to make the paintings he did. And Anons Pollack-like paintings prove it. Why is there still a debate going on here?
>>2560260
>Pollack
>almost anyone can be shown how to make the paintings he did.
Prove it.
I think he's fucked
>>2560260
>Anons Pollack-like paintings prove it.
mustardism < abstract expressionism
>>2560116
Not that Anon but I assume he means something along the lines of showing an understanding of anatomy, 3D space, lighting and so on
>>2560268
seems more like a description of a style and a particular approach to a medium rather than "talent", though I'd love to hear his definition of talent.
>>2556739
From far away it actually looks like a nug of weed.
That's the joke.
>>2560261
I assure you that anon could take the time to add more layers, he simply chose not to. Prove to us that it requires any special skill to make a drip painting.
>>2560276
That's a nice nug
i thoroughly enjoy anything pollock has done
it either makes me smile, laugh, or just feel good and warm inside
>>2560277
Anyone can make a drip painting. Not everyone can make one as well as Pollock. If you honestly think anon's mustard paintings are as good as pollock's work, then you're completely tasteless.
Also consider:
>Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock's fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals.
> In 2015, fractal analysis was shown to have a 93% success rate in distinguishing real from imitation Pollocks.
abstract from the study:
> Here we study Pollock’s unique artistic style by using computational methods for characterizing the low-level numerical differences between original Pollock drip paintings and drip paintings of other painters who attempted to mimic his signature drip painting style. Four thousands and twenty four numerical image content descriptors were extracted from each painting, and compared using Weighted Nearest Neighbor classification such that the Fisher discriminant scores of the content descriptors were used as weights. In 93% of the cases the computer analysis was able to differentiate between an original and a non-original Pollock drip painting. The most discriminative image content descriptors that wereunique to the work of Pollock were the fractal features, but other numerical image content descriptors such as Zernike polynomials, Haralick textures, and Chebyshev statistics show substantial differences between original and non-original Pollock drip paintings. These experiments show that the uniqueness of Pollock’s drip painting style is not reflected merely by fractals, but also by other numerical image content descriptors that reflect the visual content.
Still waiting you to prove "anyone can be shown to make the paintings he did."
Jackson Pollock. That's right. The drip painter. Okay. He let his mind go blank, and his hand go where it wanted. Not deliberate, not random. Some place in between. They called it automatic art. Let's make this like Star Trek, okay? Engage intellect.
I'm Kirk. Your head's the warp drive. Engage intellect. What if Pollock had reversed the challenge. What if instead of making art without thinking, he said, "You know what? I can't paint anything, unless I know exactly why I'm doing it." What would have happened?
He never would have made a single mark.
The challenge is not to act automatically. It's to find an action that is not automatic. From painting, to breathing, to talking, to fucking. To falling in love...
>>2560314
That's an interesting study, but it doesn't prove that pollack had any conscious control to the extent of producing stress reducing fractals. They might be present in his work, but they're adventitious if anything. Pollack was not in conscious control to the extent that you're suggesting. If you scrutinize Anons "mustard" painting with a computer I'm sure you can find interesting relationships. In other words, complexity can arise out of events, but only in certain kinds can we attribute the cause to someone's unique skill. And pollack does not have a skill that is especially unique. We can all, with a little motivation and energy, create a drip painting. The only difference is layers and time.
Anon, do a fucking drip painting with more layers. Let's see your awesome fractal powers lol.
>>2560314
Also, you're really leading away from the discussion with all this talk of fractals, computer models, etc. I k ow it sounds groovy, but it doesn't prove anything as far as skill goes. A computer can analyze handwriting , and there is a enormous amount of complexity involved there. That doesn't mean I posses a unique skill which makes my handwriting unique. It just means my handwriting is unique. Why? I don't fucking know lol.
>>2560360
>>2560364
I was trying to express why that wasn't a big deal but you've done it admirably. I'm fairly confident if any of us made a couple dozen drip paintings that same computer could tell ours apart from someone else's. It's just more narrative, regardless. That says nothing about the end-result and is just more narrative.
>>2560360
>Pollack was not in conscious control to the extent that you're suggesting.
A pollack is a fish, and I suggested nothing about conscious control. The unconscious/subconscious was a key feature of surrealism and abstract expressionism.
You said it could be demonstrated that anyone could do what Pollock does, but you've yet to demonstrate it, preferring instead to spout personal opinions like facts.
>>2560364
>Why? I don't fucking know lol.
So I guess you didn't read the actual study? It explains 'why' in great detail. You seem to think it only proves a pollock looks like a pollock, but it explains the specific features found in his work that differentiate it from most imitations.
>>2560404
It is explains key features and I don't argue that Pollocks work isn't unique, however it isn't unique for any reasons which we would describe as "skilled". I don't think I need to cite scientific studies to say one could make a pollock style drip painting. Sure, a computer could analyze distinct features and prove, for this unconscious reason or that, that a specific work is a Pollock, but what does it prove? That other people cannot create aesthetically pleasing drip paintings? Bro there is really nothing esp talented about his paintings other than his recognition of how they fit into art at that time, and perhaps the scale. To each their own, but your citation of said scientific study doesn't prove anything other than that a computer can accurately detect a persons artwork. That doesn't mean anything about the artistic merit or skill of the artist. A computer can detect different works of art among a classroom of 5 year olds.
I understand the whole conscious/unconscious factor in surrealism and abstract expressionism. If you're arguing that pollock had a unique ability to let his unconscious energies direct the flow of his painting, and that a computer can recognize his work, and that his work has a calming effect on people, then more power to you. That's all true I guess. But it is not impossible for other people to create things very similar , and Anon is not far off. Just a few more layers and a little rhythm to it. Christ, it's all just mustard lol.
>>2560412
This
>>2560412
Basically : let me bloat my responses with a bunch of fancy fractal math bullshit and I'll sound like I know what I'm talking about.
And for the record, pollack the fish's art is enjoyable if taken and appreciated in itself, but I can say the same for a rock or a tree. That doesn't make them works of art, and it doesn't make Pollocks works great works of art from the stand point of skill.
>>2556832
I like it, but I would enjoy it more if it had a few more layers of paint, maybe darker colors to sit behind the yellow and violet
you guys look at animu all the time.
Are you really bashing Pollock?
His paintings might not be timeless, but they're fun and pack a punch (differently from mr. mustard here)
Speaken from someone who would rather have contemporary north korean painting than 90% of last century's western shit
>>2560415 #
>it is not impossible for other people to create things very similar
Nor did I claim otherwise. Any artist can be imitated, even the old masters. But claiming that literally anyone- man, woman, child, or gorilla- can paint like pollock is pants-on-head retarded and verifiably false.
i believe many people can make paintings like Pollocks, but not literally everyone. You're definitely stretching there. Your only support was the ability of computers to detect technical details in order to authentic Pollock paintings. Well, sure. I can't paint exactly like Pollock if the standard you're using is a computer software program. But no one is claiming that. What is being said is that most anyone can paint the way Pollock did. Most people cannot paint the way Raphael or Vermeer did. You're saying robots can tell true Pollocks from false ones is irrelevant.
>>2561781
There is very big difference in the average potential people have to successfully create a pollock style drip painting versus an old master painting, dude.
Literally meme art that sells on pure notoriety.
It's art, but it's like the emperors-new-clothes of art, sort of.
Undeniably aesthetic, obviously top quality visual appeal. But anyone can create one with enough effort. To say Pollock's originals were somehow unique and above the rest is basically blowing smoke up your own ass, the same way Pollack talked his method and process up.
Grab a dozen artists and force them to make Pollock-esk art for a month straight and you'll have pieces with just as much merit.
>>2561884
This.
>>2556739
4chan has bad taste go to 1chan for better taste or better yet just talk to someone normie
>>2561850
The average person can do neither. A great faker can mimic pollock, and a truly extraordinary faker can ape an old master.
If you want to claim the average joe can mimic pollock effectively, support your argument with evidence. I've supported my own argument by showing that a computer can distinguish between the two with 93% accuracy, meaning it is certainly possible to be able to imitate pollock, but far from common.
>>2560351
Ex Machina had an amazing take on robot waifus and was a fantastic movie all around.
>>2561754
The critique is appreciated.
>>2557020
He was the first to do it in a gallery setting, therefore he sets the standard of the aesthetic.
>>2562100
Here you go
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLCW0ZRv-A
If this guy can, anyone can lol. Now, before your nipples get in a bunch, I know that his peice isnt quite as fleshed out as Pollocks. But his attempt is closer to pollock than his attempt would had he tried to imitate an old master. There is reason that elementary schools introduce kids to Pollocks work and have painting sessions. It's because people don't feel intimidated when looking as Pollocks work. The feeling is, hey I can do something like that. The average kid or person doesn't react that way when they look at fucking Escher. Again, and I'm not the only person here who has had to point this out to you, your computer argument. Is quite irrelevant. If anything is speaks to how remarkable computers are.
>>2561850
yeah. I said that already, dude.
>>2561847
>detect technical details
what sort of technical details? that's the key point. even if the pollock-imitator ITT used more layers, it would still lack the specific features found in Pollock paintings- fractals, zernike polynomials, haralick textures, and chebysheve distribution. These features aren't just something computers can detect, human viewers can also see these features.
case in point:
>>2562847
>>2563052
You do not know that if the pollock imitator made more layers that it would lack features resembling pollock. Pollock had no idea about creating fractals lol. The complex relationships can be caused by anyone flinging enough paint on a canvas such that complexity builds up or arises out of the seeming disorganization or chaos. So it begs the question somewhat about what is truly random and what isn't. It wouldn't be that hard for someone to spend some time painting in the manner pollock did and start to generate the same quality of work. Again, you keep mentioning irrelevant points. And no, people do not recognize fractals when they look at Pollocks drip paintings, but I bet your counter argument to that will sound something like your computer argument which is pointless. There is complexity within all chaotic things, and order begins to arise out random patterns when seen from a certain perspective. That doesn't mean pollock had a special skill that few can accurately imitate. That's just an aspect of nature and perception. You're analyzing the minutia of his work as though he consciously produced it, which he didn't. They're more akin to accidents, a term he often used. Specifically , to deny "the accidents". His work is not an overtly methodical or consciously detailed process. Thats why I believe people have a better chance of producing similar work. It will have all the same adventitious relationships which you're so fond of.
>>2563052
this amount of delusion holy shit.
>>2563116
a lot of guess work in your rant. I assume anon's mustard squirt paintings will lack the mathematical phenomena that are present in a pollock, sure. And you make the much greater assumption that random paint flinging will lead to fractals, or that anyone could make a convincing pollock imitation. I won't even comment on the "conscious" argument because I've already addressed that strawman.
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock
>A skeptic might suggest that the effect is coincidental. But Pollock clearly knew what he was after: The later the painting, the richer and more complex its patterns, and the higher its fractal dimension. Blue Poles, one of Pollock's last drip paintings, now valued at more than $30 million, was painted over a period of six months and boasts the highest fractal dimension of any Pollock painting Taylor tested: 1.72. Pollock was apparently testing the limits of what the human eye would find aesthetically pleasing.
This doesn't imply that he thought "hey I think I'll make a fractal now", rather it's the same sort of intuition that every artist uses to find balance in a composition.
>>2563116
>And no, people do not recognize fractals when they look at Pollocks drip paintings
from the previous link:
>To find out if Pollock's fractals account for his lasting appeal, Taylor next invented a device he calls the Pollockizer. It consists of a container of paint hanging from a string like a pendulum, which can be kicked into motion by electromagnetic coils near the top. As the container moves, a nozzle at the bottom flings paint on a piece of paper on the ground beneath it. By tuning the size and frequency of the kick, Taylor could make the Pollockizer's motions chaotic or regular, thereby creating both fractal and nonfractal patterns.
>When Taylor surveyed 120 people to see which patterns they preferred, 113 chose the fractal patterns. Two recent studies in perceptual psychology had also found that people clearly prefer fractal dimensions similar to those found in nature.
>[later] the team began by dividing fractal patterns into three categories: natural, computer-generated, and man-made—the last category consisting of cropped sections of Pollock's drip paintings. They then asked 50 subjects to evaluate about 40 different patterns each, with each subject having to choose between two patterns at a time. The results, published in Nature last March, were conclusive: Subjects preferred fractal dimensions between 1.3 and 1.5, regardless of their origin, roughly 80 percent of the time.
concluding:
>The Pollockizer proves that generating fractal drip patterns is much harder than it looks, Taylor says. "It's not an inevitable consequence of the process. It was the way Pollock dripped that made it fractal." In a famous 1950 documentary by Hans Namuth, one can see Pollock circling his canvases on the floor, dripping and flinging paint in motions that seem both haphazard and perfectly controlled. He wasn't merely imitating nature, he was adopting its mechanism: chaos dynamics.
>>2563176
>>2563177
You spend more time green texting another persons words than coming up with your own thoughts and words. You're convolutions are not getting us anywhere lol. Pollock was not some secret genius, friend. The only amendment I'll make to what I said is this. Just about any decent artist or average artist can reproduce pollock-like drip paintings if they so desired. I also think many non artists can come close as well. You're injecting all this irrelevant non sense into the discussion. Conscious ability is a major factor, not a straw man. I'm arguing that Pollocks drip paintings are easier to imitate than old master paintings. It's easier for the average person to pull the former off versus the latter. Just because there is unique complexity in the work doesn't mean that it's especially skilled. It's frenetic, but on a large scale. If you follow that impulse long enough, patterns begin to emerge. You just have to experiment and stick with it. Pollock is not some genius for that. Again, I can't keep going in circles with you lol. It does not take a skilled genius to create an aesthetically pleasing drip painting. I don't need to wax scientific to assert this. You're just complicating things, really.
>>2563177
Here dude:
http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2006/11/30/pollock
I'm just an artist, not a scientist or a mathematician but since you're hung up on the whole bullshit fractal fiasco enveloping Pollocks drip paintings, here is research that challenges you. It specifically mentions how Taylor's sample size was too small (under 20 out of 180 drip paintings) and that the samples chooses were themselves too small in size to confirm or support the claim. It's just hype, man. Pollock is not a fractal wizard. Enough time spent flinging paint onto a canvas and similar phenomena will appear.
>>2563213 #
>You spend more time green texting another persons words than coming up with your own thoughts and words.
Because I didn't conduct these scientific studies, and am not relying on emotional and unsupported arguments
>I'm arguing that Pollocks drip paintings are easier to imitate than old master paintings.
No fucking shit. No one has argued otherwise, and this is at least the third time I've had to point this out. Just like no one has argued pollock was consciously making mathematical patterns. Which, by definition, makes these pointless straw man arguments
>>2563237
You don't have to cite scientific studies to make a valid point. Especially not in this context. You agree that what is complex and unique in Pollocks drip paintings were not consciously produced. And there is nothing magical or special about Pollock. So others can unconsciously produce similar work given the right circumstances.
>>2563262
There's nothing special about any artist, no man is magical. Pollock can be imitated. Any artist can be imitated, some more easily than pollock, some less easily. But the claim that anyone can make a pollock is, even after this lengthy and circular thread, still unsubstantiated.
>>2563282
ITT: some one who took "anyone" way too literally. Lol.
