0113addiv says:

AWESOME! The best find, John, in a long while. Nice!

Improbus says:

I know what Art I like and that aint it. When it comes to art I am a Randian. That is, “Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence.”

Ballenger says:

Without getting too deep into the art theory bullshit abyss, the Abstract Expressionist’s whole point wasn’t representational art. Their rule of “almost anything goes”, didn’t come about by accident, it was an acknowledgement that artist like Caravaggio, Rembrandt and VerMeer had scaled that peak and it was time to find another mountain. Most of the Impressionist, Abstract Expressionist and some members schools to follow, (except twiggist and performance artists, they just suck) could produce traditional art, they just chose to try to do something new. Just like other early explorers, some sailed into hurricanes and were lost to history and others end up having a hand held GPS named after them. When Pollock wasn’t on a binge or busy wrapping his car around utility poles he did some works in a style that was original, unique and easily recognized as being in his own. When so much else has already been done, doing what Pollock did, is a good deal harder than just splattering paint. A piece of toy software (like the one linked), even if it is doodleware, that makes something reminiscent of your work, is good evidence you did something of significance. Or maybe this is just an Etch-A-Sketch flashback enabler for nerds.

Max Bell says:

Improbus:

Congradulations! The Romantic Manifesto is the one book I never read (and refuse to read). While I appreciate romanticism, it’s one form of many; I prefer dada, personally. Myself, I appreciate that abstract art is simply very difficult to understand; hairsplitting about whether or not this is anything like Pollack’s technique (given that one can only switch colors by clicking, it seems it should be obvious that it is not) misses the point (as did Ayn) — this is pure whimsey.

++_nifty_find

Max Bell says:

Improbus:

You’ll regret having said that, one day. 😉 As a simple example, though, you’re basically putting Dean Koontz on par with Leo Tolstoy, Usher with Bach. There’s plenty of crap out there, but, to paraphrase Harlan Ellison, what’s remarkable is that there’s so much good art. Any measure of either that stems from a gut reaction has to be either reasonably well informed or extremely lucky, or it risks the possibility of being merely ignorant.

Gregory says:

The genius of Pollock is often missed (or dismissed) by people not placing it in context.

However I also like the visual as well, I can appreciate why some people don’t however.

Angel’s comment however shows a complete lack of understanding.

site admin says:

I like Pollack’s work and most people who appreciate art also do. As a movement gesturism has become part of many artistic styles. He popularized it and those works still epitomize the concept. What is sad is that he often used cheap housepaint and many of his works have deteriorated. Peoplr don’t have to like abstract art. But the good pieces are enjoyable to look at as afar as I’m concerned. And yes kids do cool art too! So? That’s bad?

Anything is better than Thomas Kincaid, that’s what you should be bitching about.

0113addiv says:

#13, i have to concur. Pollocks cannot truly be appreciated by viewing a print in a book or on the web. His paintings were H U G E. You get immersed into it when you stand close and in the center. If you are lucky enough to be in a city that has one of these magnificent paintings on view you will know what I mean. Another is Van Goghs paintings that are unbelievably remarkable up close, especially the ones on view in Amsterdam (? I think that is where I saw them– Europe anyhow). Up close you see the three dimensional aspect of the paint on canvas and the extraordinary colors.