Comments on: But is it art?

By: Mordaxus

Mordaxus — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:58:01 +0000

It looks Jackson Pollock as implemented by someone whose never actually seen a Pollock, but has heard of them.

By: Iang

Iang — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:11:06 +0000

Adam,
(yes, I followed it through.) The answer is, no it’s not. The reason however is not obvious: it is defined by who the creator was.

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:23:43 +0000

Nicko, you need to go visit the site. It will help you understand if the artist is trying to convey emotions.
(Is “snark” an emotion?)

By: Chria

Chria — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:37:06 +0000

I need further data. How much does it cost? :^)

By: Nicko

Nicko — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:37:50 +0000

Art can be any medium by which an artist intends to convey emotion to an audience. If Jackson Pollock intended to convey emotion with this work then it’s art. That said, if it fails to convey the emotions he intended then it’s not good art; personally I’ve not the slightest idea what Pollock was feeling when he created this work…

By: Christofer Hoff

Christofer Hoff — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:57:51 +0000

Personally, I like Pollock’s work. It reminds me of my brain.
Comparatively speaking, I prefer Pollock’s “drizzle and splatter” much more than I do Rothko’s “go back and forth until the brush runs out of paint” method.
But that’s just me.
;)

By: becn

becn — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:13:16 +0000

i’ve seen more complex network diagrams.
And it’s tidier than the “structured wiring” on our rack.
But no. It is NOT art, never was, never will be.