If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsday)   $5 painting may turn out to be a Jackson Pollock, which is worth more than $5. Owner still thinks it's ugly   (newsday.com) divider line 61
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

9936 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jul 2003 at 7:43 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-18 05:59:30 PM  
Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for tongue-in-cheek jokes about finding a Pollock in a thrift store.
 
2003-07-18 06:58:24 PM  
If she thinks it's ugly, I'll be happy to give her $10 for it--instant 100% profit!
 
2003-07-18 07:03:10 PM  
Didn't someone find an original Declaration of Independence hidden behind a painting not too long ago? Man I gotta go to yard sales more often. Seems people have better luck buying junk than playing the lottery.
 
2003-07-18 07:41:53 PM  
Van Gogh used to keep his paintings rolled up sometimes one on top of another in tubes under his bed. Pollack is one of the better abstract expressionists. American art really took a turn for the worse with pop art. Well, I just don't like pop art. I'm more of an old school art fan.
 
2003-07-18 07:49:45 PM  
Holy fishfry, Batman!

One of my more punny dialogues with a friend:

Laura: "I need to make a salad."
Me: "Oh?"
Laura: "For the potluck dinner tonight."
Me: "If you made the salad and threw it on an empty table, would it be a Jackson potluck?"
 
2003-07-18 07:53:11 PM  
You know, if I were the one that sold one of these treasures, I'd kill myself. Seriously.
 
2003-07-18 07:53:14 PM  
If you are an old school at fan, how can you like Pollock? Pollock was not that fond of Pollack - he was largely an invention of Sydney Greenfield, the critic who dominated the "soho" art scene of the late 1940s - 50s. If it ia a Pollock, and mind - it will have to be authenticated through materials because God only knows you cannot tell one from the other, it is likely not worth one million either. The gargantuan Pollocks, such as "Blue Poles" which is currently on display at the Australian national museum in Canberra, Aus., was sold for a "record" 7 million, about 20 years ago. This painting is monstrous - comprised of multiple panels and apprx. 30 or 40 feet long. The dodgy little masterpiece this person found no doubt is somewhat smaller. So yes it has value, just not that much.
 
2003-07-18 07:54:10 PM  
Give me a fifth of Ta-kill-ya and I'll make you a Jackson Pollock
 
2003-07-18 07:54:39 PM  
Anyone ever watch The Antiques Roadshow?

It's always fun to watch some yokel bring in what he thinks is a priceless hierloom that's been in the family for generations, expecting it to be worth $10,000 or more, and it turns out to be a cheap forgery worth, maybe $50.00.

The look of disappointment on their faces, that's priceless!
 
udo
2003-07-18 07:55:07 PM  


«Horton says either way, she still thinks it's ugly.
»
 
udo
2003-07-18 07:55:42 PM  
Not that that is necessarily the painting in question....
 
2003-07-18 07:57:44 PM  
Oh how wonderful. Clearly, Jackson Pollock represents the highest form of expression a human can hope to achieve. So why does it look like someone sneezed acrylic across canvass someone was keeping for a tent.
 
2003-07-18 07:59:23 PM  
udo:
Not that that is necessarily the painting in question....

How can you tell?
 
2003-07-18 08:02:59 PM  
I bought a painting at a yard sale once, looked mexican. Gave it to my friend who liked such things. She found out that it was a Diego Rivera original, about the same time she also found out that I was farking her husband. Needless to say, I didn't get any of the money.
 
2003-07-18 08:03:38 PM  
And faethe - Yes. exactly. Those that can do, those that can't do contemporary art.
 
2003-07-18 08:05:49 PM  
I imagine that most of the value of Pollock's paintings come because he was a painter who helped usher in a new era of painting style, for better or worse. That is probably what makes his work valuable as opposed to the aesthetic value which the work has, which is near to none.
 
2003-07-18 08:12:08 PM  
I've got some cans of soup in the pantry that I suspect are hidden treasures by Andy Warhol. I'd better get 'em up on eBay ASAP.
 
2003-07-18 08:21:16 PM  
I saw a Pollock painting one time at a gallery in LA. LACMA i think. It was the coolest painting there by far. Mind you, I had seen the movie Pollock. Still a great painting.
 
2003-07-18 08:31:34 PM  
Pollock. Man, and people wonder why contemporary art is put down. Crap. Pure and utter crap. But if some moron wants to pay a few hunfred grand for crap, I'd be selling.
 
2003-07-18 08:31:49 PM  
I saw a Pollack in Poland.
 
2003-07-18 08:32:52 PM  
You wanna see some awesome shiat?

www.AlexGrey.com

I have all his books and some of his posters... Very beautiful shiat.

- Matt
 
2003-07-18 08:38:52 PM  
Modern Art is to the world of art as ITT TECH is to Colleges everywhere
 
2003-07-18 08:40:56 PM  
2003-07-18 07:03:10 PM CrazyCurt
Didn't someone find an original Declaration of Independence hidden behind a painting not too long ago?


You are correct, sir.

"Today there are only 25 of these broadsides that are known to exist. The original Declaration of Independence that was signed by John Hancock and Charles Thomson after the delegates voted on July 4, 1776 is lost. One of these unsigned "Dunlap Broadsides", as it is known, sold for $8.14 million in a August 2000 New York City Auction. This copy was discovered in 1989 by a man browsing in a flea market who purchased a painting for four dollars because he was interested in the frame. Concealed in the backing of the frame was an Original Dunlap Broadside of the Declaration of Independence."

http://www.thedeclarationofindependence.org/
 
2003-07-18 08:51:07 PM  
Pollock was great.

Please.... if you know nothing about art, don't post... some people have already given me the brain pain on this thread.

And remember. If you paint fruit, trees, landscapes etc... you are not an artist.. Bob ross is not an artist... He was a painter.... Anyone can paint.
 
2003-07-18 08:56:37 PM  
What art is to me...

I know that each person determines what art is to them, but I don't want confusion and blurs and crap. I want peace in my art. I have enough crap in my real life.
 
2003-07-18 08:57:37 PM  
and seabass, I've been an artist for 40 years. Fruit, trees, landscapes ARE the FIRST art. Pollack just took it somewhere else. Those who make fun of other's taste suck.
 
2003-07-18 08:59:26 PM  
More art.
 
2003-07-18 09:00:15 PM  
 
2003-07-18 09:00:49 PM  
bradbrad My niece is going to ITT in Arlington, TX. The other day she sent me an e-mail asking some advice on how to size a UPS for a class assignment. She indicated her lab partner was of no use. He thought he could just go to the UPS web site and order one up. If they don't graduate soon, she may have to kill him.
 
2003-07-18 09:08:44 PM  
Though I doubt most people here will appreciate it, Pollock's work wasn't just random dribblings of paint on a canvas, it is actually a highly reasoned, mathematically complex representation of natural phenomena, in particular, fractals. Math, nature, and art geeks will get it.

For the uninitiated: http://www.discover.com/nov_01/featpollock.html
 
2003-07-18 09:16:56 PM  
I wouldn't pay a nickel for all the art in the world.
 
2003-07-18 09:17:44 PM  
I'd love to see some of your work, seabass.

Of course, from your words I expect it to look like my 2 year old randomly threw paint at a canvas.

It's going to sell for a lot someday, you know. There's a sucker born every minute.
 
2003-07-18 09:18:14 PM  
Boy oh boy, I can't wait for all the "art experts" to come out of the woodwork on this one.
 
2003-07-18 09:19:17 PM  
Ah, the defenders of Modern Art come out at last.

Come on, admit it. It's just a bunch of crap that only qualifies as art because of the recursive principle of "an artist is someone who makes art" and art is "that which is made by an artist."

I'm saying it, okay? The Emperor has no clothes. It's junk.

/prepares to be called an inbred redneck hick
 
2003-07-18 09:27:51 PM  
gromky: You're absolutely right. It's junk. To you.

That's what's cool about art. If you like it, you like it. If you hate it, you're free to hate it. If you think it's shiat (Yasimina Reza fans will understand), then to you, it's shiat; don't buy it, don't look at it, don't support it. Share your opinion. Tell the world: "this is a piece of shiat."

Art is not meant to be universal. Art is a personal experience. If you find meaning a bunch of pipes welded together, more power to you. If you prefer the more classical oil-painted landscapes on canvas, go for it. Saying that something must be beautiful to everyone does a disservice to both the art itself and to the rest of the world.
 
2003-07-18 09:28:40 PM  
AHHHHHHHHH I love it - someone else who says "The Emperor has no clothes. That's how I've always felt about most of the contemporary stuff. HAH!
 
2003-07-18 09:30:18 PM  
Even if they are based on fractals, which is cool, no painting is worth that kind of money. Even if I had ten billion dollars, I would not pay 30 million for some paint on a canvas.
 
2003-07-18 09:31:20 PM  
It wasn't necessarily Pollack alone who helped usher a new sort, his drip paintings were an extension of ideas. Pollack, DeKoonig, and others in the area owe more to cubists and the 921 gallery run by Alfred Stieglitz to showcase New York art as well as others such as Picasso (who incidentally had his first showing in the states at the 921 gallery). While Stieglitz was a photographer (and responsible for photography gaining respect as an actual art form rather than a hobby) he was married to Georgia O'Keefe and had a group called the Stieglitz circle.

Among the people in the circle were:
Arthur Dove, Marsden Hartley, John Marin, Max Weber, Abraham Walkowitz, Georgia O'Keefe (of course), Charles Demuth, Marcel Duchamp and others. They were responsible for abstract expressionism becoming important in the art world. And pretty much before the Armory show of (I believe) 1913 American art was sneered at as being mainly inferior to European art. After all, where did most of the Americans go to study? Europe. It wasn't until the early - mid 1900s that America did not represent a creative force in the art world.
 
2003-07-18 09:35:46 PM  
Anybody who trashes the validity of Pollock's art should try dripping paint on a canvas and see what they come up with: you will almost immediately realize that it ain't anywhere near as easy as it looks to get the same results.
 
2003-07-18 09:38:39 PM  
Pollock wasn't great. He was a talentless hack. I have an art degree. His drip paintings were accidents of no merit.
 
2003-07-18 09:41:03 PM  
While i dont really like Pollock enough to purchase one of his paintings or really even look at it, from what i've seen, I think its great, the art really represents his shiatty life, i respect the man, but to die in a car full of prostitutes wasn't really fare for him, but anyways...thats just my opinion, take it or leave it, or wipe your ass with it, whatever floats your boat,

anyone that hasn't been to erowid's art/culture vault should go, i recomend it...some nice art there

here's the url, i'm to lazy to make a link...
http://www.erowid.org/culture/art/

/meh
 
2003-07-18 09:44:11 PM  
Most anything can be counted as art... There's good art, bad art, good bad art and bad bad art.... and it is all subjective.

We generally think of art as intentional but art can be unintentional. Accidental creations can be visually instriguing and thus become a kind of art. Objects in nature are considered artful sometimes... because of how we see them or "arrange" or seeing them.

Good and bad become obscured by differing cultural and personal definitions of beauty... indifference to process, media or point of view... ignorance of more refined forms of representation... unwillingness to see in new ways or sympathize in the slightest with someone else's vision.

Some art is rejected by some viewers for its immediacy and/or popularity... other art is celebrated for its approachable nature or even its blandness.

You must accept others' opinions on art as relativistically correct... Or your opinion is more worthless as you believe theirs to be.

Art derives from a varied mix of process, presentation, subject matter and philosophy, the levels of which can be at all extremes.

Don't like "modern art?" Fine. That doesn't make it crap.
Don't like impressionism? Fine. That doesn't make it crap.
Don't like DeKoonig pieces? Fine. That doesn't make them crap.
Don't like black velvet Elvis paintings? Fine. That doesn't make them crap.

It's all art, baby.
 
2003-07-18 10:19:29 PM  
Jackson Pollock was not a genius, he was just a drunk guy who liked to get drunk and throw paint at canvasses.


/nothing to see here people, move on.
 
2003-07-18 10:23:57 PM  
wasn't this in Wired Magazine a couple months ago?
 
2003-07-18 10:30:59 PM  
Artine


Though I doubt most people here will appreciate it, Pollock's work wasn't just random dribblings of paint on a canvas, it is actually a highly reasoned, mathematically complex representation of natural phenomena, in particular, fractals. Math, nature, and art geeks will get it.

Yessss...and no doubt the person who either fed that to Pollack, or just spread it around in high brow circles of academia was a well paid individual with a dawning understanding how to seperate individual from cash. What you are saying and what this article reflects is the accepted line of reasoning for viewing many works of abstract impressionism. The gist of all this is "do not pay attention to what you are looking at - this is unimportant. It is what is behind what you are looking at that is important". This segways nicely into "buy what I tell you to, because I have an expensive degree and much enthusiasm for things you know nothing about".

It wasn't necessarily Pollack alone who helped usher a new sort, his drip paintings were an extension of ideas. Pollack, DeKoonig, and others in the area owe more to cubists and the 921 gallery run by Alfred Stieglitz to showcase New York art as well as others such as Picasso (who incidentally had his first showing in the states at the 921 gallery). While Stieglitz was a photographer (and responsible for photography gaining respect as an actual art form rather than a hobby) he was married to Georgia O'Keefe and had a group called the Stieglitz circle.

Oh and then I would have you read "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe - which nicely exposes what a complete racket that whole group concocted to impress persons with famous names at varying art institutions throughout New York and Washington DC. Picasso was a unhealthy little whore with a bad attitude who would dress up in tie and tails and paint just about anything any critic fancied.

I have not seen any movie on Pollack - read a review about it and just decided it was not worth my time. The real story behind many artists, most especially those involved in the above mentioned cheery little circle, is much simpler than any movie has portrayed.

If you want to know something closer to the truth of what it was to become a popular artists in the time of Pollack, I highly suggest reading Andy Warhol's diaries, as well as books that go into depth about his personal experiences as an artist. Andy understood what was really going on, and he hated it, tried to master it, and I would argue that he did. Andy was a very angry, hatelful individual, and I believe that knowing much of the truth about what constitutes masterwork from hack affected him this way.
 
2003-07-18 10:35:39 PM  
Being "just a drunk guy who liked to get drunk and..." does not mean he was not a genius... nor does it mean his creations weren't art (good or bad). The two endeavors/terms are not logically exclusive of each other and the perceived lack of quality or enjoyment of art does always negate the creator's status of genius.

Genius is a term that is very, very over used unfortunately. It should apply to the innovative but not necessarily simply the daring. People often confuse their positive fervor for a piece with an unobtainable objective knowing that its creator is a "genius."

A common, widespread appreciation for an artist's work and recognition of an artist's ability to combine skill, daring, innovation, creativity, efficiency and style are generally the best measures for the application of the label "genius."

Pollock a genius? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on who you talk to. But his inebreation and perhaps "messy" method do not exempt him from being worthy of the genius title. That is for sure.
---
/runs off to dollar store looking for discarded codex of Da Vinci.
 
2003-07-18 10:38:09 PM  
Article on Pollack's Fractals.
The best article I've seen on it was in an issue of Scientific American, so if you subscribe to their site or have access to some issues from the past year (it was between November and January), I suggest you look it up.
 
2003-07-18 10:41:10 PM  
Kevbo

Don't like "modern art?" Fine. That doesn't make it crap.
Don't like impressionism? Fine. That doesn't make it crap.
Don't like DeKoonig pieces? Fine. That doesn't make them crap.
Don't like black velvet Elvis paintings? Fine. That doesn't make them crap


I understand what you are saying and while I do agree with it, I find Pollock and company and exception to your rule. Pollock and friends were mostly creations of critics and institutions - what they were sincerely trying to convey I believe is yet undiscovered, because it was not "deemed" relevant, or attractive to the dealers of that time. Pollock, from what I understand, had a "private" reserve of sorts that was destroyed at one point, because it was incongruient to his image. He was not permitted to espouse what it was he truly wanted to, because it had no value to the persons evaluating it.

So yes, art is exactly what you make of it. Unfortuntuley, the art that fetches the highest prices often has nothing to do with expression at all, and everything to do with marketing.
 
2003-07-18 10:47:17 PM  
This is exactly why I'm always checking for artwork when I go to thrift shops. If I knew I found a Jackson Pollock, though, I'd sell it real quick. Don't like his stuff.
 
2003-07-18 10:55:29 PM  
one last comment before getting back to work... sorry I can't continue here for a couple hours... damn job.

faethe, not to completely disagree with you... but you act as though you/others are victimized by the artificial tastes of others, be they gallery owners, aesthetes, critics, art students or mere fans. It's always a choice to like or dislike something... you can decide not to follow the crowds' or critics' fancies or you can let your tastes be dominated by those of others... which is arguably just fine either way. No one is robbing anyone else of their own freedom to like what they like or hate what they hate.

In the world of art you really have to have big huge crap filter in your own brain... to use constantly as you make your own evolving decisions about what is good and what is not. Sometimes their is indeed puffery and fluffery thrown at pieces and schools of art and it sticks. Some artists do become slaves to commerce, critics, their social cliques and their own dysfunctions but you are always free to view the work in whatever context you choose.

If you want to become part of the commercial "art machine" you will hear commentary and ensuing work that makes the whole process seem like a dog chasing its tail.

I think you're right about Andy. I know people who knew him and said he could indeed be very angry against the machinations of "the art world" and "hack" artists but channeled that into a scathing critique and simultaneous embrace of the fame, industrialization and compartmentalization that came from it. The best criticisms often come from within a group. Irony was Andy's sword and art was his dragon.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report