I admit I know next to nothing about fine art but I can appreciate the beauty of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa. I could never do that no matter how much training I had but I do however feel I could make a Jackson Pollack mess. Enlighten me.
No what I mean is to me it looks like something a child did. Why is it "amazing"?
?
Favorite Answer
I agree. I think his work sucks. along with de kooning, rauchenberg, potortf, Warhol. They all did art that hadnt been done before..... by an adult that is.... The only thing that made pop art art was
was the elitism generated by the artist and their cronies. Creating value from work by networking, rhetoric, and making statements about other pop artists, and being bold enough to be famous and paint like a 4 year old.
Anonymous
BECAUSE if u actually saw one of his works- like blue poles on display at the national art gallery in canberra, then the sheer size and the amazing textures that he uses are brilliant and incredible. Each of the layers is carefuly planned out, and he only paints when he is "in the zone"" concerquently, his works tak a very long time to create.
Anonymous
No you couldn't. It's as simple as that. He didn't make a mess he put the paint where he wanted it he didn't just throw it on a page randomly and he was a visionary who pushed the boundaries of fine art. His works sell for so much because he is an icon.
Huckleberry Sin
He was the first of his time to create his style of art.
You really need to understand the evolution of art in order to appreciate the styles that are out there- whether you like them or not.
Facts Matter
It's good, and you couldn't
Someone dug up a crate load of "Pollocks" a little while back; I could see they weren't for real because they weren't any good. But the experts took them seriously until someone used fractal analysis to show they didn't really capture his style.