Post best art
Post best art
>pollock
How did this ever come to be considered art?
Let alone quality
i can't choose one
Post good art then
She needs to wipe her mouth
Let her eat in peace.
Manners maketh woMAN
literally all of the real art on my HDD is over 2mb
A pity
lmao where does this hail from?
>cot
can you appreciate the palette choices of van gogh? the way secondary and tertiary colors make the focal points pop?
yes? okay... POLLOCK USED COMPLIMENTARIES AND TERTIARIES IN SPECIFIC ORDERS TO LAYER THEM IN A WAY TO CREATE THE SAME EFFECT VAN GOGH USED ONLY FOR THE ENTIRE PAINTING INSTEAD OF ONE OR TWO FOCAL POINTS
fucking pseud
>degending pollock with sophistry
Yikes
*defending
>t. doesn’t understand colors, layers, or any level of meta involved in painting or visual art
There is literally nothing to pollock's work
No defined subject or meaning.
Layers of colour in itself is not enough to do credit to a work of art as it is not a commendable accomplishment nor a skillful undertaking.
You're looking for purpose where there is none
Here are some of my favorites
This piece is shit compared to pollock
>no subject or meaning
guess you shouldn’t like dali either
it’s actually more commendable for you to admit to your lack of experience in the medium than it is to double you know
see but dali has skill, i've seen people 12 years old do the same style, maybe not as well, but you have to admit the style doesn't take years to master
What's the point in art that elicits limited reaction from only a small proportion of self-purported experts?
Art should impact everyone
And it's not just pollock
The entire school of abstract expressionism is a product of a nihilistic view on meaning in art brought about by decades of war that has so withered and destroyed creative talent in the minds of so many such that it persists today
Gone are the days of enlightened rationalism and classical order seen in art that so strongly demonstrate the capability of man to make order of the world.
pollock was traditionally trained. his splatter series took years to develop. can you imitate it and pass it off to someone who doesn’t know any better? yes. is that kind of the point? yeah
>all art should be understood by everyone
then art wouldn’t fucking exist holy shit please die
you art school fags are such fart sniffing pretentious cunts, I've seen some outsider art done by crazy people better than most modern and post-modern that's more visually appealing and has more emotional weight
Please die
couldn't agree more, art has become the most insular of all the humanities
You are part of the problem nigger
Letting literal chimps near the canvass was never a good idea and look what it's produced.
Why do you think it gets so much criticism?
did i do anything other than provide context to better understand what pollock was doing? did i tell anyone what to think? no i didn’t.
who fucking made arbitrary lines in the sand about what was art and what objectively elicited emotional responses?
your age right now faggot
>inb4 you won’t because you’d be b&
You implied pollock was greater than Van Gogh, but that's irrelevant, you literally defended pollock.
You're looking for meaning where there is none. Over-analysing.
why would you ask for people age, that's just weird but its 23
Didn't you say
>then art wouldn’t fucking exist holy shit please die
In response to
>all art should impact everyone
That's pretension in the flesh, that some art is "too deep" or "too complex" for the layman
and so what if he was traditionally trained, chimpanzees have made just as good
Nice
>insular
>circlejerks about his own opinion
>implied pollock was greater than Van Gogh
i drew a parallel for you to better understand what pollock was doing
>that some art is "too deep" or "too complex" for the layman
you realize that there are deaf and blind people who can’t percieve art the way you do right? you realize that making art a purely subjective experience makes it as least pretentious as possible right? you understand what pretention is right?
Found it in a fine art thread on /wg/
yeah I do realize that blind people cannot experience art the same way I do, but what does that have to do with jackson pollock, if someone told me they were deeply moved by a jackson pollock painting I'd think they were retarded
also yes I do know what pretension means, and I specifically meant pretentiousness which when you say that if everyone was impacted than art would not exist is pretentious and elitist. I never said everyone should be able to create art, but GREAT art should have an impact on everyone who sees it
>what does that have to do with jackson pollock
in a world where art is purely subjective, many artists will only appeal to an in group. pollock is one of those artists
>should have an impact on everyone who sees it
name one piece that doesn’t have detractors
my kindergarten finger paints have no detractors, but isn't a negative impact still an impact?
also I just find art that appeals strictly to an in group elitist shit. To me a true entertainer or artist would hope to make art that everyone would like, not only his close group of friends
now you’re just being contrarian for its own sake. bye
lol okay, see you around bud
Artist?
sorry i don't know, but its good right
nice
lol did my shitpost about pollack cause an agruement, absolutely fantastic
nice
Have that for my phone wallpaper.