Patrick's New IMHO Series: Installment #1
IMHO...
Try as I may, I just don't respect "abstract" artists very much. I wish I could, because that would prove how smart I am. Usually, it's only innaleckchulz who appreciate such things, generally through the regurgitation of theories they've learned from art books about how you're supposed to feel after viewing stuff like this.
When I learned that someone bought one of Jackson Pollock's paintings for $140 million, I laughed and thought, "Sucker." Take a look at the painting in question, his "No. 5, 1948":
Come on... $140 mil? For that price, you could've had almost TWO Renoirs! This one...
... sold for just $78 million, for example. Now Renoir, IMHO, could MF-ing paint!
Seriously... Contrast, say, Jackson Pollock's 1948 paint splattering (above) with, say, one of Andrew Wyeth's more famous pieces from the same year:
Now, go ahead and tell me which painting has more artistic merit. It's okay if you disagree with me... It's all just opinion, and I won't hold it against you if you're dreadfully wrong. Wyeth is a living American treasure; Pollock was just some creator of noise, which is nothing more than the easy way out. Lazy even. Egotistical. Boring.
Bottom line: I think I could produce paintings just as good as Pollock. Maybe even better. Because, let's face it, they all suck ass. How much talent does it take to splash a bunch of oil paint all over the place? IMHO: Not much. So, how do I "feel" after viewing No. 5, 1948? Insanely jealous; that's how ($140 million!).
[To the two or three of you out there who may think I'm just being ironic: I'm not. I actually don't like Pollock. In fact, I hate him. If he were alive, I'd kill him.]
This concludes Patrick Hillman's New IMHO Series, Installment #1. Stay tuned for more.
--posted by Patrick at Blowing Shit Up With Gas.
6 Comments:
I kind of like Jackson Pollack. He makes it look easy, but in reality its pretty complex. But diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.
I loathe the kind of abstract art that's just a bunch of splatters, or lines, or squares or dots or even just one blue dot on a white background. That's NOT art; that's bullshit. Laziness. A big F-U to real artists. It truly rankles me to hear about stuff like that sellng for so many millions when a real artist can spend hours upon hours upon days,months- years even in some cases- creating something truly outstanding that sells for, maybe, a couple hundred. If they're lucky.
that's the kind of thing that makes me hestitant to try to seriously sell any of my own artwork. I spand serious time doing it; I'd like to see a comparable reward, not an insulting, "Well, I'll give you fifty bucks for it. I fyou sign it."
On aside note- thanks for the info about the raw-food diet and such; I'll check it out.
I love the new series and look forward to being treated to more of your *humble* opinions.
To the point, however -- in this one, I have to agree with you whole-heartedly. That Pollock looks like the inside of my mouth tastes during a hangover. Not the sort of thing I'd pay millions for so I could hang it on my wall and have to hire security guards ... wait. Maybe hunky security guards. But never mind -- no millions. Ce la vie.
Dragon Laugh: Even Pollack's first paintings didn't sell for much. You're REALLY good. Give it a shot -- at least you'd have pizza and beer money. ;o)
I remember going to the Art Institute for a field trip in high school and one of my classmates bagging on an "experimental" piece saying, "Dude, I could do that!"
My teacher responded, "Maybe, but he did it first."
It's interesting how many comments link the value of the art to its monetary value. (As the post did.) That's really not the correct measure.
Patrick, sorry, I'm in 100% disagreement on this. To explain why would take too long. Maybe I'll do another art post on my blog.
chaylene is right on with her story. Typical response.
The other one is, "My 3-year-old could do that!" Really? Execute a 10' x 12' canvas? I'd like to see that.
If you want a good and very funny explanation about modern art, check out Tony Hancock's film "The Rebel".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home