Four major art projects for new KCI terminal revealed

[Chieftain]

Nevertheless, his paintings are rubbish art because they don't convey any meaning. You will have some so-called art expert tell you "but you have to look deeper to truly understand". That's the typical smokescreen argument you get from a Pollock apologist. What is there to understand when looking at a sheet covered in tiny paint splashes? There is no symmetry, no continuity, no structural shapes of any kind. Just paint splashes using a select group of colors. If an average minded person can't grasp the meaning of any of his paintings, maybe it's because they are meaningless paintings??

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Chieftain

Nevertheless, his paintings are rubbish art because they don't convey any meaning. You will have some so-called art expert tell you "but you have to look deeper to truly understand". That's the typical smokescreen argument you get from a Pollock apologist. What is there to understand when looking at a sheet covered in tiny paint splashes? There is no symmetry, no continuity, no structural shapes of any kind. Just paint splashes using a select group of colors. If an average minded person can't grasp the meaning of any of his paintings, maybe it's because they are meaningless paintings??

You can't marginalize that. It's dishonest.

He created a new medium using gravity. It's not splashes. And there is some symmetry to his work, it wouldn't appeal at all if it didn't. You mentioned Picasso, both he and Pollack were established artists, they were just thinking outside of the box..prolly for their own desires to create.

I've "reproduced" Bierstadt, Michelangelo, Parrish and Vallejo among others. All amazing artists. All with their own techniques and approaches.

I'm not a fan of abstract at all, but Pollack deserves the recognition he receives.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by Chieftain

Nevertheless, his paintings are rubbish art because they don't convey any meaning. You will have some so-called art expert tell you "but you have to look deeper to truly understand". That's the typical smokescreen argument you get from a Pollock apologist. What is there to understand when looking at a sheet covered in tiny paint splashes? There is no symmetry, no continuity, no structural shapes of any kind. Just paint splashes using a select group of colors. If an average minded person can't grasp the meaning of any of his paintings, maybe it's because they are meaningless paintings??

Alternatively, what meaningfulness is the average person getting from Mona Lisa, or really any portrait artist? Why should a person have to have an art history background just to know how and why anyone cares about Rembrandt.

Art is about emotion, inspiration. Applying rules about what is and isn't art is missing the whole point and is subjectively meaningless.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

Alternatively, what meaningfulness is the average person getting from Mona Lisa, or really any portrait artist? Why should a person have to have an art history background just to know how and why anyone cares about Rembrandt.

Art is about emotion, inspiration. Applying rules about what is and isn't art is missing the whole point and is subjectively meaningless.

The average person isn't smart enough to "get" something from art.