Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Beelzebubba
His art would have no meaning if some didn't think it sucked.

His art has no intrinsic meaning, anyway. That's one of the reasons it sucks as art.

Art, at it's basis, is a means of communication, a transfer of message and evoked emotion from the artist to the viewer. Pollack and the rest if the trendy of his time strove to remove all message from their art, and leave it up to the viewer to get whatever he could out of it.

Pollock's works are art at about the level of a teenager screaming "You just don't understand me!!!!" is a conversation. Trite, shallow, repetitive, unproductive, masturbatory and one-sided.

But the hostility is less directed at Pollack than at the waste of time and dead end pursuits it has sent the "Fine Art" world off in for 70 years.

261 posted on 03/07/2006 8:09:16 AM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]


To: LexBaird

Then you definitely should not buy any of his pieces. Problem solved.


264 posted on 03/07/2006 8:14:37 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson