Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This kind of proliferation of these abstract or pop art. Like any monkey can do. Don't bull**** people with this inferior trash. Jackson Pollock? Andy Bunghole? Damien Hurst? Etc. Any monkey can do that heap of trash.
This is an old argument. Yes, looking at the work today, some people have the same opinion as you do
however at the time artists such as Van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec, George Seurat, Matisse, Cezanne
(considered the father of modern art), Magritte, Kadinsky, Warhol, Lichtenstein.....were modern artists.
The paintings by Impressionists were rejected by the art critics and the public who thought their work
was too radical, iow, most people thought they were trash.
Same for modern, abstract and pop art. It is easy to say that anyone can do these works however they
created work that was never done before. One could say that Picasso was the last true artist
who was inspired by other artists but again he was probably the last true artist in the sense of
creating something that was never done before.
when you think something is simple try to reproduce it. the op doesn't have a shot at painting like Pollack or anyone else. it takes decades to make something look effortless.
This kind of proliferation of these abstract or pop art. Like any monkey can do. Don't bull**** people with this inferior trash. Jackson Pollock? Andy Bunghole? Damien Hurst? Etc. Any monkey can do that heap of trash.
I doubt a monkey could do what Hurst does. However I have seen elephants paint other elephants and flowers.
One aspect of art that most do not see is the process. The process has a lot to do with the piece of work. Another aspect of art is the purpose of stimulating a reaction...does not matter what that reaction is. These artists' work got a reaction out of you....good job!
While Pollocks work appears to be random splatterings, it's not. Here we go back to the process. A big important 'tool' in art is color, and composition. Pollock did not just randomly start flicking colors, he thought about what specific colors would be used. One out of place color among many can make something less appealing. He also thought about from what direction and angles he would flick the paint.
He most likely did a lot of 'playing around' with different methods is application, such as brushes/tools, canvas on a wall, or canvas on the floor- to flick the paint and see how it looks.
You may not like the stuff, but it's not garbage. A lot of thought, time and effort went into each piece.
This kind of proliferation of these abstract or pop art. Like any monkey can do. Don't bull**** people with this inferior trash. Jackson Pollock? Andy Bunghole? Damien Hurst? Etc. Any monkey can do that heap of trash.
You're wrong. And what do you care? Like what you want. Look at what you like. That's what I do.
This kind of proliferation of these abstract or pop art. Like any monkey can do. Don't bull**** people with this inferior trash. Jackson Pollock? Andy Bunghole? Damien Hurst? Etc. Any monkey can do that heap of trash.
So?
What do you want? What's the purpose of this rant?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
