So it seems my recent posts regarding a website that lets you paint like Jackson Pollock has sparked some controversy. If you haven't read the comments on those two posts, but mainly the second, you should. This open letter is primarily for anonymous, referring to the two people who posted under that name (could be one redundant person, but who cares?). Kevin's in there also because he comments on the blog regularly and deserves some recognition.
Dear anonymous,
You mention Pollock's importance in the art world, granting that he is "centrally responsible for freeing the canvas from the easel, the painter from her brush and palette" and the "creat[or] of a new art form." I do not aim to refute the historical impact of Pollock's art, technique, or relationship with his medium. What I would like to suggest, though, is that great art has the ability to impact an audience that has no notion of the context in which the art was made. I think there are countless artists who I would appreciate better if I had the kind of esoteric knowledge found in art history courses (not an attack on art students, I've taken two art courses in as many semesters). If I cannot see what's so special about some work without that knowledge, then, in my opinion, it's not great art. I think this is why museums have blurbs next to paintings; because art is better when you know something about it.
My opinion of Jackson Pollock's drip paintings is just that, an opinion. I wouldn't dare to elevate myself and say, "fact: Pollock's paintings are easy, one dimensional, and short on craftsmanship." Furthermore, many of the paintings of one of my favorite artists, Mark Rothko, are made up of simple bands of color. I would consider these I could do that, except that when you stand face to face with one, they evoke a magnitude of prominence I can't achieve with a simple flash program. All that said, I appreciate you disagreeing, and I appreciate you taking the time to put it down in writing. For now, we can shakes hands, and agree to disagree.
Yours truly and sincerely,
I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the topics you raised in your comments, and to explain where I'm coming from in order to cultivate a better understanding of my opinions on art and Jackson Pollock.
First, the money issue. Yes, one of Pollock's paintings sold for $140 million. I'm not sure (and you acknowledge this to a certain extent), however, that the price of his paintings offers an accurate perspective on the quality of his work. Just to throw a counter example out there, Spider-Man 3 grossed over $890 billion, and aside from being, objectively, the worst film of the series, it's likely one of the worst action-comedies (I say comedy because it was laughably bad) I've seen, ever. Additionally, I'm not sure which painting was sold for that price, but I can guess that if it was the same work by an unknown artist, it wouldn't have sold for a fraction of that dollar value. This has all to do with artist branding.
Once an artist achieves the fame and recognizability of someone like Pollock, owning their art is no longer about owning a great work of art. Instead, it evolves into owning a work of art that is considered great, at least in part, by virtue of the artist who produced it. And I don't mean to say that once an artist becomes famous their art loses its inherent value as art, instead my point is that what someone will pay for a product goes beyond the quality of the product alone. I understand that Jackson Pollock is one of or the most collected artist(s) ever, and I'm sure that exclusivity is another factor in the (unreasonable?) prices his paintings fetch.
You mention Pollock's importance in the art world, granting that he is "centrally responsible for freeing the canvas from the easel, the painter from her brush and palette" and the "creat[or] of a new art form." I do not aim to refute the historical impact of Pollock's art, technique, or relationship with his medium. What I would like to suggest, though, is that great art has the ability to impact an audience that has no notion of the context in which the art was made. I think there are countless artists who I would appreciate better if I had the kind of esoteric knowledge found in art history courses (not an attack on art students, I've taken two art courses in as many semesters). If I cannot see what's so special about some work without that knowledge, then, in my opinion, it's not great art. I think this is why museums have blurbs next to paintings; because art is better when you know something about it.
Forget what you know about Jackson Pollock and take a look at Autumn Rhythm. Do you see a "reflection of the cerebral?" Personally, I don't. I do, however, see the whirlings of the artist, otherwise known as the technical aspects that led to the art, and those technical aspects seem to be lacking, which was my point with my fifteen minute "replication." Not knowing anything about JP, I would probably think his fame was a joke, a hoax even. Somehow he fooled everyone into thinking he was this awesome artist when all he did was spill some paint on a canvas. And this is what I meant, focusing on the execution rather than the creative process, when I referred to I could do that artwork.
My opinion of Jackson Pollock's drip paintings is just that, an opinion. I wouldn't dare to elevate myself and say, "fact: Pollock's paintings are easy, one dimensional, and short on craftsmanship." Furthermore, many of the paintings of one of my favorite artists, Mark Rothko, are made up of simple bands of color. I would consider these I could do that, except that when you stand face to face with one, they evoke a magnitude of prominence I can't achieve with a simple flash program. All that said, I appreciate you disagreeing, and I appreciate you taking the time to put it down in writing. For now, we can shakes hands, and agree to disagree.
Ezra Salzman-Gubbay
I definitely want to encourage readers of Danger: Diversion to respond. If there's something you don't like about my ideas, attitude, or taste in youtube clips, tell me, tell the community. I think our everyday lives are too void of discourse. I probably won't be able to give everyone's comments as much attention as I have given anonymous, but I'll do my best.
@ KPG
Guess I couldn't best the Duchamp iPod.
Ezra I want you to know that Kevin and I were talking about your posts not five hours before we read this. You said verbatim my point, eloquently. I am on your side on this one buddy. It has nothing to do with art or not and without knowing the history there are a lot of pieces that evoke that "I can do that" feel. Especially everything in the New Museum.
ReplyDeleteEzzy,
ReplyDeleteit's rare to hear people back up statements that in the art world are considered ignorant with such eloquence and intelligence. Be proud, if more people did there would be a greater footing in the art world of people who don't think that Pollock should have as much street cred as he does.
I want to say a few things though: don't apologize, you did nothing wrong. In fact, I loved those last two posts as they sparked a great conversation between me and Carlos.
I totally see what you are saying about historical context and the viewing of art. However, as someone who makes a great effort to educate himself on the former to more appreciate works he might not otherwise enjoy, I must say it doesn't argue against something being "good" or "bad" art.
There are plenty of things in life that we wouldn't appreciate without historical context but do anyway. I think music and even scientific innovations are prime examples. Without Elvis playing pretty standard and basic blues chord progressions, rock as we know it wouldn't have her footing. Without computers taking up rooms in the 1970's to calculate basic math, we wouldn't be arguing about art on our laptops.
More importantly, Art should be fun. It should be personal. Museums and Christie's Auctions have made a financial industry out of it (which I think is wonderful too) and maybe makes us take it too seriously. That has it's rose and it's thorn.
Finally, sometimes the artist impact takes place after looking at a canvas. Maybe the art form Pollock brought to life isn't in his paint drips but instead the arguments that it provoked that still occur 60 years later.
Finally, and most importantly: don't talk shit about the "Fountain iPod". Duchamp would have looooooved that.
Love you
KPG
Also:
ReplyDeleteeven a "po-mo" fanboy like me must admit: The New Museum sucks.
Your points are well taken, both substantively as well as their articulate expression. For me the most salient comment was the quality of "great art". For it to be great, it must have a profound impact without any context or explanation. Not that it must have immediate appeal. For example, a piece of music or sculpture or dance may require repeated viewings before it is fully appreciated, but its appreciation does not hinge on explanation or context. This is a valid point, but it has repercussions. Shakespeare wrote for the masses and was appreciated by both intellectuals and the uneducated. His poetry, with its multiple allusions to mythology, its clever puns and double entendres, his slapstick and bawdy humor had something for everyone. His greatness is undeniable. But knowledge of those historical and mythological references is necessary to appreciating not only the beauty of the poetry, but its meaning as well. Perhaps this is a poor analogy - visual art compared to literary art. I think it is, and while the text above is food for thought, its really irrelevant to your argument.
ReplyDeleteLet's consider this, because of the enormous subjective nature of art appreciation, is any criticism valid? Is beauty purely in the eye of the beholder? If Pollock moves one as deeply and emotionally as Rothko another - without context, hype, or explanation - can any objective comparison in terms of one being "greater" than the other be valid?
Finally, on a personal level, Pollock's art does nothing for me, I simply am unable to appreciate it. Others, are wild for it, and I would like to believe, they feel this way on a gut level, a non-contextual level. Rothko's work may be more accessible, easier to appreciate because of its color, its emotional power, its soothing effect. Do I find it beautiful because its easy?
"I’m not an abstractionist. I’m not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I’m interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on." - Mark Rothko
Thank you for your thoughtful and gracious response. Cheers.
@ Carlos
ReplyDeleteGlad we're together on this one.
@ KPG
I especially liked your closing thought about Pollock provoking this conversation 60 years later. It does indeed seem his art has impacted us, whether through acceptance or resistance.
@ anonymous
Wonderful hearing back from you, Anon. Might I ask, just so I have some historical context (zing), whether you are anonymous 1, 2, or both? If you'd like to take it one step further and identify yourself privately, you can reach me by email at ezra.salzman@gmail.com
I found your Shakespeare analogy to be a delicious course (some gourmet food for thought, if you will), and I think it is perfectly relevant to our discussion. As we continue our back and forth, I'm finding that we agree more than we disagree.
It's possible that due to the subjective nature of art appreciation, criticism is a moot practice, but I do think that critical analysis of art can, as Kevin mentions above, open a world that would otherwise limit art to visual impressions.
Glad we've kept this ball rolling; I hope my future posts will inspire as much dialogue.
Interesting points brought up in this conversation. It seems to me like Ezra and Anonymous have more similar viewpoints than they might have thought after the first exchange or two.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, when considering "I could do that" art - especially abstract art such as Pollock, Rothko, or Mondrian - you must also take into account that you didn't actually do it, and they did. Sure, anyone can throw paint on a canvas, that goes without saying. The real question here is how many people, before Pollock, had that idea? Pollock must be respected for his originality, not the technical complexity (or lack thereof) of his style. He had the inspiration to paint in his certain style, and therein lies his true artistic merit. While we can still judge his art subjectively - I appear to be in agreement with most of you when I state that Pollock's work isn't especially moving or aesthetically appealing to me - we still ought to give the man his due for at least being original.
Rothko lies in a similar vein - most of us could reproduce fairly accurate reproductions of many of his paintings if we really tried. So what? Like Pollock, Rothko the first one to paint in his particular style, and that's what we must respect him for. I agree that many of Rothko's paintings are much more visually appealing and emotionally stimulating than Pollock's, and so we must also give him his due for his ability to connect with the viewer so profoundly with such seemingly simple artwork.
Similarly, anyone with a ruler and four colors of paint could probably produce an indistinguishable forgery of a Mondrian painting. Congratulations. Chances are really really really high that you never would have been able to paint something like his artwork if you had never seen one of his canvasses. Again, we must give credit for originality here, rather than admiring the difficulty of reproducing any given painting. On a personal level, I enjoy Mondrian's paintings both visually and mentally - it's easy to be captivated by one of his works and think about why he chose the particular colors, the arrangement of lines and blocks, etc.
In essence, to me, the basic difference between abstract art and most previous styles boils down to the purpose of that art. The primary goal of most art is to be aesthetically appealing - many works also have deeper meanings, but the main purpose is to look good. I'm sure plenty of people painted water lilies and night skies before Monet and Van Gogh, but their paintings had a unique visual appeal for which we admire and respect them. Abstract art, on the other hand, is more about originality and the process than the aesthetics of the final product. Pollock's art lies in his method. Rothko and Mondrian produced artwork that can be easily reproduced, but the true value of their work lies in the originality and emotionally stimulating aspects of their work. For me, it's important to respect and appreciate the artistic method, even if one doesn't find the final product particularly appealing. Even though I'm not a big Pollock fan, I'll be damned if I don't find his work at the least very interesting and very recognizable. A Pollock painting may be worth $140 mil to someone with a massive bankroll who recognizes Pollock for the artistic entrepreneur he was, and appreciates the true value of that, regardless of how beautiful he actually thinks the painting is.
Just my 2 cents.
Ez, Anon, and others, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this.
This is an important discussion because it explores the definitions and boundaries of art and tries to identify who can legitimately lay claim to the title, "artist".
ReplyDeleteAs a footnote, the early photographers who laid claim to the mantle of "artist" were strongly criticized by the artistic establishment. Photography was embroiled in the "I can do that" debate as well. Once black and white photography was accepted as a legitimate art form, color photography's emergence ran to the top of the hit list. In our own time, we see digital photography enduring similar criticism. If you take 500 photos of a particular subject (an unheard of proposition before the digital age), surely one will be great.
Turning to J Boogie's illuminating response, I am in full agreement except for a couple of points. I feel without knowing enough about Rothko and Pollock, and Mondrian, I am on shaky ground criticizing their work. Where did they study, who were their influences, what was their earliest work like? Finally, just how easy would it be to reproduce what they did? I disagree with JB on on one point, I do not think Rothko's work is readily replicated, I think his color choices, the way they are blended, his technique for laying them on the canvas, the way the hues vary along the canvas' territory, I actually think this is quite complex and difficult technically. But I do appreciate that this is not JB's point. JB argues, that the value and wonder of these artists and their work is their originality, their break from the past, their revolutionary impact. Frankly, and I appear to be coming full circle here, I wonder how derivative Rothko's art is? [Not that its copy cat art (see: George Harrison/My Sweet Lord/ He's So Fine/The Chiffons), but we all appreciate how great art is often the result of others' influences. JayZ loops the Beatles, Sondheim borrows from Puccini, great film maker steal from Chaplin (see Woody Allen), Welles (I just saw Kubrick's Lolita and its style is pure Welles), Hitchcock (every thriller ever made is indebted to this master), it goes on and on.]
Rothko is apparently tied to the Northern Romantics, particularly Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840).
Look at this painting by Friedrich titled Monk by the Sea.
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/8/10281-monk-by-the-sea-caspar-david-friedrich.jpg
Friedrich's rendition of the sky is similar to Rothko's "fields of color".
In 2008, a museum in Hamburg did a retrospective of Rothko's work and included comparative works of Friedrich.
Moreover, the works of the French Impressionist, Pierre Bonnard, whose work Rothko was familiar with, also may have been strongly influential, see this link and enlarge the painting.
http://www.christies.com/Lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?sid=&intObjectID=4381237
Notice the upper left panel of two rectilinear fields of pink and orange. Look familiar?
Also this wonderful essay by Hilton Kramer, the art critic for the NYT from 1965-1982 is worth reading if you have the time. http://www.observer.com/node/48838
The above comment continues but had to be broken in to because of space limitations.
ReplyDeleteNow ESG rightly argues, if the work is great, its greatness must be appreciated without this sort of knowledge. Valid point. But consider this, you are walking in a museum you see a painting, viscerally its beautiful and moves you deeply. At the same time you recognize the image. The painting is of a sculptor and his sculpture, a beautiful woman who has come to life. You connect the painting to the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea, to Gepetto and Pinnochio, to the painter in his painting commenting on the artistic process, to George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion based on the centuries old greek myth where a stuck up English professor of linguistics, who believes that one's accent determinies destiny bets he can turn a cockney flower seller into a princess, and then a tune comes into your head, "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face", written by Lerner and Lowe for the musical "My Fair Lady", based on Pygmalion, based on a 3000 year old myth and recently recorded on Diana Krall's new album, yes Diana, the Roman goddess of the hunt.
It makes the mind spin. Hats off to ESG for taking us on this journey.
Finally, I saw an exhibit of the conceptual artist Sol Lewitt. Here is where things REALLY come full circle.
Here are 2 links to the images.
http://slowmuse.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/img_0148.jpg
http://slowmuse.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/img_0139.jpg
These were painted by art students. Lewitt believes that art should be democratized. Each of these works were created according to meticulous blueprints created by the artist just so his work could be reproduced. Like the composer's score, or the choreographers careful notations. Only, here, there was no room for interpretation. The exhibit had a documentary film of the students working on recreating these works. Painstaking, masking and remasking, layer on layer. Other works included huge wall paintings composed of hundreds and hundreds of blue string chalk lines, again reproduced using compass and ruler and sometimes projected images according to the artists' plans. ESG's theories are wholly validated in Lewitt's concept. "You Can Do That!"