Why bother when words don't do it justice. When it comes to art and music words will only get you part way there. More doing and feeling. Less talking.
I used to think what the majority of people here in the comments think--"this isn't art, it's just a mess, anyone could make that, this is stupid, yeah yeah yeah blah blah..." But over the years I have found a deep appreciation for abstract expressionism. Most people here seem to think that if something is not visually pleasing, it's not art--that is to say, most people seem to think that the visual form is the only important thing in a work of art. And most people probably prefer to look at things that are recognizable and tangible. I think Pollock is important in that he was attempting to make the intangible a tangible experience. The visual form is a result of so many other things: his use of materials--exploiting properties of paint that no one else thought was significant, and using that as a vehicle for pure expression through physical movement. A lot of his paintings are so richly layered, and I can't help but be hypnotized by the interweaving, intersecting, entangled mess of movements and color. This art does not come about by diligently sitting at a clean desk, wearing an apron, keeping your chin up as you delicately paint something from observation or imagination. This is a different form of painting. This is painting that cares more about reacting in the moment, being able to see something and instinctively make a mark that responds to it. The visual product is a result of this reactionary process and is not a carefully planned construct. I think his paintings are fun to look at--following a line into a cluster of colors, picking out each drip and sudden energetic movement, squinting my eyes and seeing patches of color, following marks that react to each other, and finding beauty within all that.. recognizing something about it that I like and find interesting, and abstracting those ideas into a relevant perception of the world that I can find meaning in.. that beautiful things don't always look beautiful at first, that it's not about instant gratification, that visual elements aren't always the most important, that anything can be art and it's a wonderful thing. I've learned that with artists like Pollock, it's possible to derive meaning from something that seems so chaotic and unrecognizable, and I think that's a beautiful part of the human mind. We have this ability to take in any experience, and ignore or extract or implant any sort of meaning on it we choose. We can choose to think "this Pollock guy is bullshit. his art is bullshit. idontgeddit this is stupid. i could make that," and so be it, that's that. Others might think, "wtf is this? who made this? i don't know why but i really like it." Or "wow, this is truly mesmerizing. the layering and expressiveness of this is striking. i think the colors harmonize well together," and so on. I think the fact that a work of art can produce such polar perspectives strengthens the work even more. There are those who will say "fuck that" and move on. And there are those who will dig deeper and find something that affects them--and no one is to say those experiences are invalid. Art is entirely subjective, and everyone will experience something different. But when you make something that can perhaps produce similar significant feelings in a lot of different people, there is definitely something to be explored there. I'm not saying "omg. jackson paulsblock is a goddamn genius. so expressive. much wow." But his work has given me food for though in reevaluating my perceptions of art. His work has made me realize that there is beauty in the noise. Also, I'd encourage anyone who says they could make a painting like his to please try it. But also, care about it. Put your heart into it. It's like fucking therapy. Pour your guts out on this thing. Get drunk. Get stoned. Get sober. Make some fucking crazy marks on a canvas, and make a lot. Don't give a shit about the end result, be in the Now and react to everything you are doing in the moment. When you don't focus on the end result, you can have more fun, you can play more. Go, explore, be creative. Pollock was a severe alcoholic and a pretty depressed guy, it kind of makes sense that his paintings are what they are. But like I said before, he's using paint as a vehicle for emotions--like he's ridding of his demons through these expressive movements, and I would encourage anyone to try abstract expressionist art for similar reasons.
Explaining “weird” art should be its own literary form. I can’t see the qualities in the works myself, until I hear or read the explanation. Then I wonder how anybody is smart, sensitive, and imaginative enough to see it. Just fascinating.
To all of you that keep citing the exorbitant price as a reason why it is so ridiculous, remember to differentiate between the artist and the art market. They are not the same thing. This is why I can go to the Tate Modern and enjoy the Pollocks while thinking about the destruction of boundaries and their playful expression of the subconscious, and at the same time loath the huge bubble that rich people have created over the art market in order to differentiate themselves from the poor. I think spending millions on any of these works of art is stupid, but that doesn´t keep me from enjoying some of them. To all the haters, I recommend paying a small visit to the Tate Modern, the MOMA, or any kind of equivalent you can find in a city near you. Have a relaxed walk around, open your mind, let yourself free of all preconceived notions, and stop and have a look if there is any painting that draws your attention. You might be impressed with the results
thank you! people likening artists to money hungry salesmen trying to pull a fast one but the reality being that its the art market (bunch of rich assholes) that decided whats worth millions(and it always changes). I enjoy some modern abstract art but I don't think it should sell for ridiculous amounts of money and I definitely don't appreciate the pretentious types that contribute to the snobbish stereotype surrounding the art world. art is supposed to be for everyone
I never understood abstract paintings, until I tried it. It's more like putting your emotions on the canvas in a way that makes sense to you personally.
+Diana Luckman All true artwork is placing your emotions on a canvas. Some abstract paintings are great, don't get me wrong. But stuff like abstract expressionism has no emotion or skill in it at all.
+Phantomhive I get tons wildly conflicting emotions when I stare into a Pollock painting. There is an underlying beauty to them if you look past your biases and your immediate "IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF PAINT WTF" response.
Jackson Pollock was directly influenced by another artist, Janet Sobel. She's the one that started drip painting, and there's a clear progression in her work from figurative to abstract. Pollock saw it and made it big. It was much later in life that he begrudgingly admitted that she directly influenced his style. She could have been as big as Pollock - I personally find her colors and style more aesthetically pleasing. But Pollock had a better PR rep in his wife. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Sobel
While in Venice, my family and I went to an abstract art museum. I remember us all literally crying of laughter at a piece of art titled "uncarved wood" which was exactly that; just two pieces of wood on the ground. My favourite had to be the one called "rose" though, it was a canvas with grid lines on it. Grid lines. I could have got some squared paper from home and called it art xD Some abstract art I admire for their skill and meaning and others I think are just ridiculous.
If you think, you can do art like this, then go ahead and do it. Nobody is holding you back and perhaps you really can. The only difference will be, that they created their stuff back in the days when it was a real change to what people were used to. So they did something no one had done before. Nowadays we are used to this kind of paintings and the "Oh Wow this is New!" - effect has worn off.
+Speireata4 i must disagree, they were just lucky to become famous and get recognized as artists. Don't you think that it's impossible that in the whole history of art, nobody has ever tried painting something in "pollock" style? or that somebody had never tried cutting a canvas before fontana did? im firmly convinced that somebody must have tried it before, but was not lucky enough to be in the right time of history, or to have the right amount of luck (or skills) in being noticed by other people.
+duranfe what you just said is bullshit. youre discreditting someone elses work based on an assumption that you have no evidence to back. you can firmly believe anything you want, doesnt make it right.
+Speireata4 I do believe why this kind of paintings were recognized and would worth thousands or millions in auctions is that people were made to believe THIS is something unique or special. And those who made people think this is WORTH that MUCH are those who overthink things. And please, why would it need to be worth that much? Yes it is beautiful, but it doesn't need to be worth more than buying a house, or even a bicycle. So what if it has history behind it, wasting that much money is kind of pointless.
"only he could make it"..well that can be said to almost everything...your personal signature, your handwriting, your cooking etc...and all these are reflections of the subconscious in one way or the other. so following that definition of art, everyone is an artist : your cat included.
A Deer Well even if I did think that I doubt it would make my life boring. I also think I should mention, because it doesn't seem to be obvious to you at this point for whatever reason, that I did not mention that or imply that. I do feel the language used clearly states the simple idea that I've pointed out so please use logic and take a moment to think before getting upset and making asinine comments.
Cloaked Sniper If the artist makes a beautiful painting they can still be a good salesman. The beauty of the painting adds little to the value when compared with the name that's on that painting.
+Elena Alex true but art developed alot in the past.. expressionism was not accepted by the most people too at its time. It would be boring to just continue the classical art styles ... sometimes we need something new in which we can identify ourselves. If someone would make a classical painting today, nobody would want to see it because we already have the great classical artists. We also cant just stop making art because we already have the greatest paintings of the past
As an art student myself, I respect abstract expressionists but I do not like the idea of 'easy' art. I do not appreciate art that can be 'easily' replicated but that's just my opinion
as an art student i disagree, abstract expressionism and conceptual art never fail to amaze me, anyone who has the chance and the will can become a 'good' artist but not everyone can express ideas through unique mediums/ways
Abstract isn't supposed to be nonsense. It's not about the quality of the work. It's about the meaning of the colours. How the colours make you feel in side.
I used to think the same thing until going to art school. Minimalism is much harder than people realize. It's not just about a single line, its the composition, size, color in relation to the background etc. I recommend the play called RED which is about Mark Rothko.
If one of art's purposes is to inflict emotion inside the viewer, then contemporary and modern art has successfully done that by confusing and angering the hell out of you haha
You can get such a deep level of honesty out of you through expressive strokes and colors that speak to you, it's amazing really. I've been painting like this for a few months now, never new it had a name
Overanalyzed bs. I can take LSD tomorrow and make a Jackshit Bollocks painting and don't give me that "but you didn't" bullshit, I didn't draw the Sistine Chapel and I still fucking admire it.
The question should be: Why some people think that those scribbles are significant art? But it still a subjective question. IMO, it is just a game where people try to convince others that some are important or not.
I see beauty in some of Pollocks works and I enjoy a few of them a lot. I don't really understand why they get criticized. He was the first to do it and his paintings inspire me a great deal more than many other well regarded artists, and inspiration is the only thing I ask from art. It's not Pollocks fault that some people choose to pay hundreds of millions of pounds for his creations. That's the buyers issue.
so... if i take my shoes off and start walking on my keyboard, will i write the first abstract book? and will it make me a famous person? and could i call people who don't get it "ignorant"?
+Nimrod Ben Moshe No, I think you have to take your keyboard and smash your hand on it randomly as your subconscious dictates. =P werthiot4 i03ty0 2394y3i0- 590 'aw3tv;u 235vguil 124up'yboi; ua3tvg ui124gl 12-8s5yb u9sdfhu ;23rvhk; 35b ART!
I love Modern Art and I think this video is a good introduction to all the complexity inside the art of this era, beyond "I could do that" and all kind of disrespectful comentaries of ignorant people that can't connect with abstract forms, color, etc, farther than the representation of a woman following the standarts of beauty (for example). Develope your imagination ;)
Modern art is there to challenge people about what to think of art and how to define it. Artist are not making their work with the intention of creating something beautiful, they want to create something that let's us think about art and its boundaries. Most modern artist don't earn mad money for their works, because the prices only rise when the art created history, and then the art is sold between two owners, and not the original painter. Modern art is also a response to photography; because images could be made in an instant, there was no large need any more for realistic paintings. Thus, painters tried to paint what couldn't be recorded with a camera: ideas, conceptions, expressions, thoughts, etc. You, thinking that modern art isn't art, is the exact reason why modern art exists in the first place.
I'm from a different field/medium of art, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Some commenter don't seem to realise that the rage and disbelief such works inspire in people who deny them is often part of the ethos of the whole art movement in the first place. Sure there might have been some who perhaps "cashed in", and created works wholly uninspiring to you personally. But you have to realise, that through the subjectivity of art, so long as a single person finds meaning in a piece, the work has found its place. Yes, you can toss shit around on a canvas and call it art. The problem is whether you yourself found meaning in it at all, let alone the other categories like intention, effort, and technique. I myself don't understand many modern art pieces, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating all of then. It's sad to see so many people diss this convention simply because of its apparent simplicity.
+Chris okay sure might be true. still anyone could have made those paintings, whereas there are only very few people who are able to make paintings like van gogh, rembrandt, etc. im not going to tell you what you can and cannot like or what is and isnt beautiful. fact is anyone can make some lines and dots and call it art and for that reason i will not personally accept these paintings as works of art.
TED-Ed dropped the ball on this one, but the TED-Ed viewers didn't! Seeing the majority of commenters calling a spade a spade (or calling bullshit bullshit, in this case) has restored my faith in humanity.
I hate most modern art. It's a complete insult to the hours I spend on my drawings, and all the other artists spending their lives on genuinely beautiful pieces. When I see the scribbles, I sigh and roll my eyes, and look for something more deserving of everybody's time and recognition.
+TheNellehFox Then by your logic, someone who creates even more "genuinely beautiful" (somehow there's a metric in your head that can measure this) pieces than yourself must think your work is complete garbage. When they see your drawings, they sigh and roll their eyes, and look for someone more deserving of everybody's time and recognition.
Funny thing is, I don't have any recognition, sooooo.... If I'm not getting paid ridiculous amounts for my work, then I kinda don't fit your point. I'm completely okay with people not thinking my stuff is good enough to afford that... because it isn't. Which only makes the blank emptiness that most modern art is, even less deserving. Ta-da.
Your logic is faulty. There is a big difference between attempting to create a recognizable motif and just dropping paint on a canvas. Humans have an inherent ability to recognize paintings that require effort and comprehension of artistic technique, and to recognize utter bullshit.
TheNellehFox I completely agree with you! the viewer should give as much attention to the art as the artist did, so if it took 1 minute to paint it, oh, and worse, no focus, then the audience shouldn't focus on it either.
Funny to see this video in my sub box when we just discussed this in one of my classes a couple days ago. Now I don't personally like the paintings myself, but I can appreciate them. It makes me sad to see all the comments and dislikes on this video. I know it won't convince you of anything, but I do want to throw in my two cents; and also just some stuff I've leaned about Pollock. The painting is not actually the art, it is an artifact of the art. The actual art here is the action of painting (hence the term action painting.) The painting itself is just a record of his movements and the actual canvas is inconsequential. Because of this he painted with house paints that would later flake, walked on top of the wet paint, and put his cigarette butts out on it. Pollock had a therapist who encouraged him to express his negative emotions through painting and Pollock himself was inspired by Navajo sand painting where a healer would drip the sand around the person to be healed. By dripping the paint and walking around the top of the painting he is putting himself in the position of both healer and patient (basically art therapy.) So while the pieces itself may not be appealing to some you can at least appreciate the story and the philosophy behind it. Personally I blame Greenberg for many of the preconceived notions about his work. ;)
+wolfdefender01 That many people, in 2016, disliking that much abstract art, only makes me think that those artists made a very good job pushing people out of their comfort zone, making an "error 404" in peoples minds.
I studied history of art, aesthetics and ontology of art, I have read many books on the subject and I still think that Pollock was a lazy artist at best and a scammer at worse. I would kinda get it if he did only a few of those seemingly random splattery paintings and then moved on to do something else (you know, like Picasso did: he never stuck to just one formula, he experimented and renewed his style), but instead that's pretty much everything he ever did. It's like if Monet did nothing but water lilies or if Leonardo did nothing but portraits of ladies staring at the observer with an enigmatic smile or if Van Gogh did nothing but self portraits. I still wouldn't like Pollock, abstract expressionism is mostly not my thing, but I would understand him more, at least.
+Broderick Siz Modern art is there to challenge people about what to think of art and how to define it. Artist are not making their work with the intention of creating something beautiful, they want to create something that let's us think about art and its boundaries. Most modern artist don't earn mad money for their works, because the prices only rise when the art created history, and then the art is sold between two owners, and not the original painter. Modern art is also a response to photography; because images could be made in an instant, there was no large need any more for realistic paintings. Thus, painters tried to paint what couldn't be recorded with a camera: ideas, conceptions, expressions, thoughts, etc. You, thinking that modern art isn't art, is the exact reason why modern art exists in the first place.
If you've studied the history of art, then you should know that's not all Pollock painted. His style changed completely, he only did his number series or "splatter" paintings towards the end of his life. And even they are not all the same. The lines and colours, change in the different series of paintings. I think however, a lot of people are quick to discredit him because they've only seen bits and you could say "dashes" of his work. It's not everybody's thing, but it's inventive and it has its own charm, which is why people buy it. To be honest, I have no clue why people like Picasso, but there you go. Different people enjoy different art.
+Chris Ward don't get me wrong, I don't really like Picasso, I just understand him more as an artist than Pollock or Fontana. I don't dislike them because their work isn't beautiful, I know full well that that is not the point of modern art, the real reason I don't like them is that I don't understand how a creative person could enjoy producing pretty much the same stuff over and over. Changing colours and patterns in the splatters isn't enough to make it significantly different as an experience for the observer, even for a fairly educated one. I know they have done other stuff, but that is pretty much all they're famous for. I understand that their work is supposed to be a statement about art, but that statement doesn't need to be done in more than a few variations of the theme to be clear. Also, I don't like how those paintings look, but that is entirely a matter of taste.
Art is not merely defined whether it can be done with great skill or not. as art evolves, skill becomes variant, opposite to the classical age where it is invariant. Abstract expressionism has opened various levels and stages of art as imaginary numbers opened more solutions to algebraic problems. it has showed that an artist need not to have great experience and great skill to have the sum of great art, but it has showed that the vital part of making art is conceptualization. pollock introduced a new concept of making art, new symbols, new ways of painting, a new language, permanently deviating from the old masters view where realism and great artisan skill are constants. now, isn't that great? still not satisfied? take the Penrose triangle for instance. some of you would say, pah! a child could've drawn that! yes, it can. but the abstraction of it is what made it great. it is very hard to come up with a concept that no one has thought before. Pollock did just that. it might be easier to replicate but to come up with that requires greatness.
The thing is, not ALL abstract art is bad, some people work hard on their paintings and they look good, even if not realistic, HOWEVER some people will just throw random scraps of metal together and say "This represents the mind of..." blah blah blah, when really it's just scrap metal. Other will just throw paint onto a canvas and call it modern art, saying the same things. See, the people who do modern art, or at least the kind I don't like, tend to think that they are being 'original', but the thing is, since it's slowly becoming more common, it looses originality and just becomes random shapes called 'art'. In other words, the style ITSELF isn't always bad, it's the people who simply want attention for being "Original" that are the problem.
Yeah, I agree. I have been to a couple art museums with modern art and while I hated most of it (I really prefer non-abstract art in general anyways), I saw some really amazing abstract art. You could tell which people really put in an effort to make the image visually pleasing and unique they were drastically different from the scam artists who just slabbed a ton of garbage together.
Unfortunately a lot of the emperors new robes bullshit gets into actual art museums. I went to the Vancouver art gallery for their mashup exhibit and was depressed at how much of the "art" was bullshit. Some of it was really cool. A lot of it was bullshit. But people want to feel special because they "get it" just like the wine tasters. It's a shame.
Actually I think the reason he became famous was because it was the first kind of painting like that in that time period. Kinda like Vincent Van Gogh made a painting different from all others at that time but if you make one like that now, you won't become famous.
Modern/Abstract art is cool, but don't try and give it a bullshit meaning and get mad when people dont want to go along with it. Also, I'm tired of people wanting to sell their shitty "modern" artwork for hundreds and thousands of dollars. it's so ridiculous :/
+Danielle Howard Most people don't WANT to sell their work for a lot of money, their movement often makes the art have its price. Even when the art is being sold for ridiculous prices, it's between the owners and not the original painter (who thus doesn't profit from it).
Appreciating Pollock is mostly a matter of exposure and education. If you don't really understand the art, the artist and the time in which it was made, it's impossible to really appreciate it. If you stand in front of MOMA's Pollock's "One: Number 31, 1950," which is a colossal 10x17 feet, you get a strong sense of the sheer physical effort required to pull off a gestural abstraction on this scale. It's the epitome of all-over mark-making and incredibly balanced, nuanced and full of almost balletic movement. Pollock's work holds a very special place in the history of modern art and no other artist can do this same style and be called original. That's a feat in and of itself. He was the first to make this exact type of drip abstraction and the last. That's one of the reasons his work fetches such high prices, not to mention the fact he died early and his output was relatively small. The "scribbles" you refer to are not just that; they are highly controlled marks that come from an experienced and dedicated person who had the audacity to do something new.
It's weird art that doesn't represent anything can still bring out so much emotion. A drip painting doesn't just bring out confusion: it brings out delight, amusement, scorn, apathy. Duchamp would have been delighted by all the negative reactions he has gotten.
I love this ans never thought of that. If you're mad at a piece of art... their effort worked - it brought out an emotion in you, as the viewer. Insulting the artist would be walking by it because it didn't grab you in any way whatsoever
@@catherinearredondo2092 But are people mad because the piece itself conveys a sense of anger, or are people mad because there are rich people that treat some of these pieces as highly valuable speculative investments?
Pollock was not the first to paint scribbles on a canvas. Just the first to con everyone into thinking scribbles on a canvas are actually worth something.
Don't defend these art. Their value is due the artist's name was attached to it. The artist's name has value due to unnecessary crowd hype and underhanded marketing techniques by their affiliates. The "spirit" that the artist claims are what they experience when they paint. Which has already passed. Long ago. To put it into an understandable context, it's like someone told you about some amazing food that they ate and tells you to look at the shit that they made after eating it to know how amazing the food must be. The "experience" has passed. We weren't there. Even if we were there at the time, we aren't in your head, experiencing your experience. So all that's left is the shit of the artist's experience.
+ElectricFan91 We've all got to drop this idea that price = importance. Powerful art elicits a response and it doesn't have to be a good one; being pissed off by a piece of art still means it moved you. Besides - what you're critiquing is the art market, not the art itself. Many of the greatest artists, writers and composers in history die penniless and unrecognized with their work being celebrated long after they're dead. There's also the concept of "death of the author," which states you don't even need to know an author's background to interpret their work. Even if "zeitgeist" or spirit of the times/important at the time is what you meant, Pollock's work survived the test of time and is still considered interesting. When will you ever one-to-one be inside another person's head? Never. And I find it hard to believe good art requires you to be emotionless while creating it. The only art in which you can share the simultaneous "spirit" of creation is performance art, and even then you aren't sharing the days, months, or years the artist might have taken to come up with one dance or one song. By your metaphor, you're just loving one piece of "shit" over another.
Price=importance seems to be the right view, people who would appreciate something would put a higher price on it. I never said good art requires no emotion. It's one half of the driving force of art. Way to go on forcing words there. And to my methaphor, the shit is shit, conventional art has already gone past the crop harvest.
Art has more importance than its price tag; it isn't purely a commodity like a pair of jeans. Folk art is often sold at dirt cheap prices, despite how it keeps a tradition alive or ties a community together. And like i said, some art isn't priced until its discovered by a critic. It is true that high art and low art is decided purely by market worth, but why would someone decide a piece of graffiti is now worth thousands of dollars in the first place? Only to scam you? Or because it took a while to discover its artistic significance?
The value of art is dependent on the appreciation of the people who sees it, hence the price tag. Sometimes, a critic would appreciate the art and people just blindly follow. If you think the price is right for the art, that's your opinion and you rate the art as reasonably priced. I don't mind people appreciating abstract art, but I draw the line before someone calling out for people to blindly follow and accept.
A critic deciphers meaning, not value - that's a reviewer. A critic deciphers significance, not price point - that's a dealer. I apologize if I used terms interchangeably before but there's a distinction that needs to be made here. If you don't know why a critic says something is good or bad or even just disagree with them, thats fine, but the uneducated can't really argue to the educated the significance of something effectively (beyond personal importance, which you can't really price anyway). If one can't divorce the meaning of art from its price, that's their own insecurity as a consumerist, and they can argue with their actions by buying or not buying. I'm saying there is more importance to art than the price tag (like this conversation we're having) and that you don't have to blindly accept it- just try and understand why,.
Not sure if such art can be described by analyzing techniques. What about Malevich's "Black Square"? I think explanation lies within painter's name and his previous works. Malevich had some good paintings before, then he started to draw in suprematism style, his paintings became more and more abstract, and resulted in final form - black square. If you look this way, it doesn't look so stupid why people pay millions of dollars for a peace of black canvas.
I dont understand why everyone is so hateful with this paintings, stop being so close minded , all type of art just wants to deliver a message, from a great painting to a drawing from a kid, i think this kinds of paintings deliver a powerfull message and that is the point. Stop looking at it from a closed perspective and open your mind people, stop being so hateful, it will help you to become a better person trust me in this one. Im sorry for the bad english
I do a bit of realism painting and tried abstract art. I just kept my thoughts empty and let my hand guide my brush. But the more I painted, the more frustrated I got coz my painting made no freaking sense. I guess I can't do art. But I always wonder how these artists feel when they see their finished products.
+Joakim D It's like, someone was instructed to create a spanish classical guitar piece; but instead invented the metal genre. It seems randomly put together and that anyone could do, the same thing. Although, neither is.
+Joakim D The problem with this kind of art is that it does not "break the barrier" between what is art and what is not, it completely destroys it, and completely disrespects and notion of art. "Ohh look a rock!" "eh... rock=art" "Ohh look smoke" "eh... smoke=content that is not content=art"
These sorts of scribbles paved the way for talentless snobs to throw whatever shit they want together and claim it as modern art. I can't exactly replicate my five year old's scribbles either, but that doesn't mean they belong on some high street gallery to be sold for millions.
+Kaniner Flagg My thought exactly. Instruct any 3-5 year old to fill a sheet with different colours of paint, and I'm pretty sure they'd come up with the same thing.
Abstract expressionism is really the expression of a state of mind, many times this is expressed through large blocks of colour or action painting techniques as seen by Jackson pollock. Abstract expressionism is not intended to have narrative and very seldom contains any figurative form. It is intended to evoke basic and or complex emotion. Think about it.... if you have a massive canvas that is painted a lovely rusty orange colour and it also has blocks of deep reds aswell... How would that make you feel seeing this on a large scale? Generally speaking it would make you feel peaceful and relaxed as these colours typically have this affect, especially if there are on a massive canvas. If it was a tangled mess of these colours like Jackson pollock, it would probably be interpreted as more chaotic than relaxing. Abstract expressionism appears to be simplistic in its construction and can easily recreated by just about anybody, but in the 1940s this was a huge deal because we had literally hundreds of years of portrait and landscape painters. Art was either eclisiastical, general realist styles or it had some kind of figurative representation or narrative. These artists paved the way to encourage freedom of expression and without it, we wouldn't have these very modern fantastical/ abstract narrative works which blend traditional painting with abstract expressionism. Artworks that are now in the realism realm of things but have abstract expressive qualities are amazing and more and more people are beginning to open up to abstract work because its construction is more familiar and understandable to the average person, which is great. But the credit for this surge in popular abstraction in 21st century art styles goes to the likes of the artists in this video. Have a look at some of the works done by artists in sky arts portrait artist of the year and you can see that some have made use of abstract expressionism in subtle ways in their portraits, which are increadible! This is one of many examples on how modern art has been shaped by the abstract expressionists.
So Pollock is a genius because he was the first artist to convince people that a random disorganized mess is in fact hidden brilliance? Was the paint he used snake-oil based? Seriously this hack is why art is considered a joke by so many people today. He destroyed the credibility of artists because what people valued most shifted from technique and creativity to how good your sales pitch was for your talentless scribbles. R.I.P. art, savagely murdered by Pollack.
I find that the main reason modern art was/is so popular is because of the fact that it was different from what is normally considered "art". However, modern artists today seem to be putting less and less effort into their work. Some modern art is absolutely gorgeous, and you can tell a lot of time and work was put into what colors would go where and how it would communicate its message. Some however just looks mindless scribbles.
Allison Koester You can have abstract art that looks beautiful as long as some thought get s put into it. I don't find that the case with Pollack's work. It all looks like a mess.
+Stan V I totally agree. Lots of artists put some hard work and effort into studying how to utilize different artistic tools, how to draw the human body, mastering perspective, how to make colors visually pleasing, and then utilize these skills to illustrate the modern world and attempt to send messages by challenging social norms with their artwork. Then, Pollack and other "abstract expressionists" and other "simplistic modern artists" come along and say that the work they put minimal effort into was art, making up bullshit about why this is so to get people to buy it for a lot of money. It really ruined the world of art and brought around greed and corruption in the art world in massive numbers.
The thing is, you actually do have to see a Pollock paint up close and inperson to understand what makes them so unique. Watching all the different stands intermingle and spread out really is an experience; one that not many people can replicate.
It's just the uniqueness of each painting that makes it so special. No one can replicate it unless you're his clone. I'd like to see one of his paintings one day.
+TheMightyWill I have seen a Pollock painting in person and did this, as people recommended I do so. While I agree that it did seem to look endless when viewed that way, I wouldn't describe it as an "experience". The only thing I experienced was rage. I felt like my years of hard work as an artist were being laughed at in that painting, treated as useless because he became famous with minimal effort, easily illustrated artwork.
The significance of breaking convention is lost on the person who is still mired in convention. If "amount of detail" and "realism" are your only standards for visual interest then of course you'll hate a Pollock. Not to mention if you aren't aware of method or historical context, info impossible to get from just the piece itself. The end of the video even states that Pollock's work unfortunately imposes an academic elitism because to "get" it you have to know why it's good, i.e. years of schooling and looking at art. What art do you look at all the time? Challenging, unconventional pieces that make you wonder why they're appreciated? The same Renaissance and western school art that everyone tells you is the best? One genre over and over again? I'm not going to deny that some people will try to scam you by saying a piece is more minimalist than lazy or more sensibility-testing than exploitative, but try and make any piece of art that gets art critics talking, scholars studying, and dealers buying. If anyone could do it, the art market would be exploding with geniuses and we'd buy art all the time. The majority of career artists do grunt work, behind-the-scenes work and commissions instead of serial masterworks out of their own interest. We do indeed buy art all the time, but it's usually product packaging or special effects in films or neutral, inoffensive Pottery Barn stuff. The same stuff you've seen before, the same stuff that pleases a majority with limited art education. Call artists snobs if you like, but at least have a better argument prepared for why a piece is or isn't interesting than, "it looks like a scribble."
I kinda get the point of minimalism tho, it's basically an experimental study on what combinations of different basic shapes and color and their relative ratio to each other can be most appealing to human eyes, which have practical uses in industrial design. Abstract expressionism? All I can say is that it really shows its messiness in a minimalistic immaculate looking rich people's luxury yacht, mansion or whatever, I guess the contrast would be pretty eye popping, that's about the only practical use I can think for it.
First, I don't think one needs to argue the practicality of art because art's purpose is so broad and subjective anyway - self expression, communicating ideas, representation, beautification, celebration - take your pick. Artistic practicality in real-world application and maximizing effectiveness is the realm of "design," specifically, not painting or much less art as a whole. Abstraction exists because artists were tired of depicting things as they were (cameras had some help with this; you can't get more real than a photo). I agree that a pristine classical or minimalist interior would offset abstract expressionist work the best, but we already know about how exclusive it is as a style. If people weren't so snobby about classical art, abstract expressionism wouldn't have been such a big middle finger to art in the first place. The rich snob with space for pretentious art is a stereotype, and obviously not everyone likes looking at abstract expressionist work - but what about making it?
+Unified Minds Like I said, have a better argument. "Good" art, believe it or not, doesn't necessarily require skill. The Japanese concept of "heta-uma" says you can be a "good-good," "good-bad," "bad-good," or "bad-bad" artist. A good-good artist is skilled and makes interesting work (Michelangelo). A good-bad artist makes skilled but boring, meaningless work (Michael Bay). A bad-good artist is not skilled in a traditional sense, but a trained eye will recognize its greatness (Pollock). And a bad-bad artist has neither traditional skill nor the ability to create interest. And before you say a cat is a bad-bad artist, try and ask an animal even knows what art is.
Walk through the mashup exhibit in the Vancouver art gallery right now and tell me that all of it has something of value that I just don't "get" Around 30% of it I got and it was good. I am willing to accept that another 30% I just didn't "get". But the last 40% was a load of bullshit. No one is gonna tell me that I don't "get" a urinal turned on it's side. Maybe I don't "get" old wonder woman tv shows being put on obnoxious loops, but even if I did "get it" I doubt I would consider it art. It's something to laugh at, not appreciate. It looked like the shit people call "youtube poop" made out of wonder woman. And it was taking up an entire room of a major art gallery.
The autor really tried to convince that there is, in fact, some special technique or intrinsic value on those paintings. But he will need a lot more to explain that this is not a way to create new forms of investiment, to secure rich people's money.
Let me get this straight: entire genres of art are dedicated to questioning what can be considered art, and pushing these boundaries to the breaking point. Millions of people totally miss this point and angrily rant that it's not art. When this is simply explained to them, they cover their ears and shout "muh shit scribbles, muh cat" even louder, refusing to believe that art means anything other than "pictures they like." Is that about right?
+Yabeen Sees Well, I guess humanity remains the same. The germans had an exposition of "degenerate art" that many people here in this comment section would agree.
LagiNaLangAko23 You're not giving me any specific examples to work with. But yes, if an artist tells me something they've made is art, it's probably art regardless of whether I like it or not. Even if I don't understand it, or I do understand but hate it, or even if I think it's completely worthless. Personally, I don't even like Pollock's work. It doesn't do much for me; I'm not impacted emotionally by it or impressed with his technical skill. But I can at least appreciate its value as an artifact. Pollock was influential, an important figure in art history. He has his place, and I'll grudgingly admit his stuff belongs in a museum even if it doesn't appeal to my own sensibilities.
Personally, I agree with most people that modern art is crap. I suggest the video "Why is modern art so bad?" by Prager U. That said, a piece of art's value is derived solely from what someone is willing to pay for it. That is a fact, so subsequently, Pollock's art IS very valuable even if it is crap.
'A piece of art's value is derived solely from what someone is willing to pay for it'. Umm maybe commercial value, but definitely not general or primary value! To accept your point is to believe all artists simply strive to be rich. Have a look at the history of artists and what they stand for before you start claiming what the value of their art is.
+A Deer Please define "general or primary value" because I'm pretty sure those are subjective things. How much someone pays for it is an actual objective measurement and the only true way to evaluate art. Therefore, when governments tender large contracts for art, they are trying to value something that cannot be estimated till it is actually created.
you can't really objectify art since it's based completely in subjective things even it's monetary value can be subjective based on who's viewing and buying the piece.
+mceric (see star and fox's comment) to analysis art purely on objective terms is a mistake and undermines the purpose of the arts. It is like analysing a scientific theory purely on subjective terms - the analysis misses the point!
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. It's all about preying on the egos of stupid people and convincing them that something cheap and meaningless has some kind of prestige and deeper value.
+The Fearmoths This is exactly what I was thinking. It is very disappointing to see work like this considered masterpieces. A lot of art is created by truly amazing artist that took true talent. This does not belong among their works of art.
+The Fearmoths And does a hyper-realistic painting have more inherent 'meaning' and 'value' than an abstract one? (I know you said nothing about that kind, just asking)
Irina V Well such paintings depict an accumulation of time, effort and passion learning the craft. Even if it has no deeper interpretation, the fact that an artist is willing to invest so much of himself into his work speaks volumes. Most people will look at this kind of work as a great feat of human potential knowing that it's beyond their own reach. That's just my personal opinion and an aspect of art I've always appreciated.
so you're telling me that these guys became important and famous doing on a canvas the exact same thing i do on a piece of paper everyday at school when i forget my drawing tools at home
Scrolled down the comment section. Immediately regretted it. A thought: How about watching this well-produced, informative video and opening up to actually learning something rather than writing a comment that clearly indicates you didn't pay attention? Also, it really doesn't make sense to argue angrily how one type of art is better than the other. No art form is more sophisticated than another, art is about expressing yourself. Sending some good vibes to this negative comment section, peace out :)
Everyone in this comment section is just saying "modern art is dumb" without saying anything about the actual video. It makes some pretty good points, if you'd actually watch it.
Jackson Pollock's drip paintings contain fractals, the basis for Chaos Theory. Fractals are patterns found in nature; things like coastlines, clouds and snowflakes are all natural fractals. The fractals found in his drip paintings, particularly his most popular paintings, are mathematically equivalent to these fractals found in nature which is what makes them so pleasing to view. When Hans Hoffman asked Pollock if he worked from nature, he said, "I am nature." To suggest that a cat could do what he did is wrong.
Q: why is Pallok's mind imprint so special if even i can do that? A: .....because he did it....... no seriously, that was the answer to that questions X________X
Wow, people have some seriously deep-seeded hatred for this kind of art, which I'm sure helped with it's popularity. If you don't understand or enjoy it, why do you feel the need to try and ruin it for others? Let people enjoy things! I've had some great joys exploring the world of abstract expressionism, and as an artist and musician it has really inspired me and shown me what is possible, and how to find my own voice and style. This video was amazing, hopefully it makes this artform more accessable
Why would anyone want to paint like Pollack? His painting call to mine the story of the Emperor's New Clothes and the question, "Who is fooling who?" And the use of "great" and "impressive" as adjectives to describe Pollack's rubbish is a very free use of those terms.
I was in the Tate Britain (Not to be confused with the Tate Modern) I was looking at paintings by the pre raphaelites artists like Waterhouse, Rossetti and Holman Hunt and then at paintings by William Blake and Turner. I then walked into the modern art section and it was like seeing something fantastic and beautiful dying, not just dying but losing everything and going insane and mentally retarded as it died it was pure horror...
hey guys from ted-ed :) i just recently discovered this channel and im loving it .. and i was wondering if you guys could make an episode/video about deduction (i dont know if thats the right word for it, but i mean this sherlock holmes analyzing style, that you can like see what a person is feeling, what relation he has to certain people,... and so on just from the outer look from a person) this would make my day :) thanks in advance :)
I don't like eating food at a restaurant that I could easily make at home with my limited ability and I sure as shit don't like looking at art that I (or my 2 year old son) could create
Modern day society has such a deep distrust towards art that seems like it had been thrown together in seconds without any thought behind it or underlying agenda. I agree that there are some "artists" out there who want to just get as much money for the least amount of effort, but they are in the music, literary and film industries as well as the art industry. You have to look past it to find the good stuff. Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed looks like something anyone could come up with, but it has an effect on some people, like me. And if art is causing an effect in you in some way, it's doing a pretty good job.
. . . . . . . . . . Maybe this new modern groundbreaking in the art world but here in the regular world, the general populous would never buy or hang this type of art in their house. Only rich people with money who want to show off their money will buy this sort of thing. This type of art feels more like the rich is trying to find a new way to differentiate themselves from the normal average day people. I mean seriously, if I want to look at a scrabbled mess of lines, I can go to a nursery and give a child a bunch of colored markers and let him or her "express" their mot inner thoughts.
+Lone Wolf I'm a regular person and I would hang that kind of art on my walls, because it's beautiful. Expressionism can only be appreciated on a deeply emotional level, I love the colors, I love the tangled lines, I love the feeling when you touch that kind of painting (with that many layers of paint, it creates a very special texture). I totally understand why you don't like abstract art, but I don't think it's only for the riches. People think they have to "get" these paintings. to understand them, which very few people can do, but no, they only have to be "feeled", "experienced". It's like experimental jazz, it's not meant to be as powerful as a Beethoven symphony, it's not meant to be truly listened, it's meant to be feeled, like an electric pulse.
DrNanard That is true, but it does not refute my point that rich people spend *way* to much on this stuff. Not that you denied that point, but.. whatever.
To me, abstract expressionism is art in the same way a child’s deliberate scribbles are art. They may mean something; they may not. They may be aesthetically pleasing; they may not. The artist created it for the sake of creation, which is fine. What *isn’t* fine is revering these works as being on par with works that actually mean something, convey skill, and deserve to be respected and acknowledged. I may pay $20 for an abstract print from Hobby Lobby just to have something pretty on my wall. But that print may initially have had the same motivation - or more - than Pollock’s. Abstract art, imo, is very seldom worth the hype *or* the price tag.
A year into watching this video, I'm still not convinced. Been to an art gallery earlier today and the abstract expressionism paintings are still, well, random scribbles to me. I don't know why they are worth millions. I think it's harder to draw anime, and they are more aesthetically pleasing. Just me though.
It might be art, but it is crap. No excuses for a his low quality, or the snobbish worthness people give it. Not worth the money spend on the materials used.
+Cthulhu, King of Lunacy Or we honestly spent time looking at his "art" and decided that it isn't something we like, nor is it something we consider either art or something that requires even a tiny bit of talent. We're allowed our opinions too.
Not convinced they said. Art is food. Everyone has a different taste. Art is also intention. What the artist wanted to paint. That’s the point. It ain’t just the output. If it’s oil or acrylic or watercolor. If you haven’t understood that yet- then you have in fact missed the point.
Oh my goodness, where are all the haters in the comments coming from? This video does a very good job of explaining a genre of art that not many people understand... It's as if these comments come from people who haven't even watched the video...
Im NOT saying there isnt any thought behind it. Im saying that its so random that i can draw literally anything and let others interpret my thought, regardless of wheather or not i put any into it. In the end thses pictures are famous for their story and their artist, NOT for whats on them
Forget religion or politics, if you want polarized heated arguments, bring up modern contemporary art.
modern art was political tho lol
Hahaha good one
Why bother when words don't do it justice. When it comes to art and music words will only get you part way there. More doing and feeling. Less talking.
@Steve Ogle you should consider that discussion and discourse is an expression of feeling
In TH-cam world, Pollock was that guy who said "First!"
+Kevin John Melencion how about second? lol
LOL, True dat (as the kids would say)
I used to think what the majority of people here in the comments think--"this isn't art, it's just a mess, anyone could make that, this is stupid, yeah yeah yeah blah blah..." But over the years I have found a deep appreciation for abstract expressionism. Most people here seem to think that if something is not visually pleasing, it's not art--that is to say, most people seem to think that the visual form is the only important thing in a work of art. And most people probably prefer to look at things that are recognizable and tangible.
I think Pollock is important in that he was attempting to make the intangible a tangible experience. The visual form is a result of so many other things: his use of materials--exploiting properties of paint that no one else thought was significant, and using that as a vehicle for pure expression through physical movement. A lot of his paintings are so richly layered, and I can't help but be hypnotized by the interweaving, intersecting, entangled mess of movements and color. This art does not come about by diligently sitting at a clean desk, wearing an apron, keeping your chin up as you delicately paint something from observation or imagination. This is a different form of painting. This is painting that cares more about reacting in the moment, being able to see something and instinctively make a mark that responds to it. The visual product is a result of this reactionary process and is not a carefully planned construct.
I think his paintings are fun to look at--following a line into a cluster of colors, picking out each drip and sudden energetic movement, squinting my eyes and seeing patches of color, following marks that react to each other, and finding beauty within all that.. recognizing something about it that I like and find interesting, and abstracting those ideas into a relevant perception of the world that I can find meaning in.. that beautiful things don't always look beautiful at first, that it's not about instant gratification, that visual elements aren't always the most important, that anything can be art and it's a wonderful thing. I've learned that with artists like Pollock, it's possible to derive meaning from something that seems so chaotic and unrecognizable, and I think that's a beautiful part of the human mind. We have this ability to take in any experience, and ignore or extract or implant any sort of meaning on it we choose. We can choose to think "this Pollock guy is bullshit. his art is bullshit. idontgeddit this is stupid. i could make that," and so be it, that's that. Others might think, "wtf is this? who made this? i don't know why but i really like it." Or "wow, this is truly mesmerizing. the layering and expressiveness of this is striking. i think the colors harmonize well together," and so on.
I think the fact that a work of art can produce such polar perspectives strengthens the work even more. There are those who will say "fuck that" and move on. And there are those who will dig deeper and find something that affects them--and no one is to say those experiences are invalid. Art is entirely subjective, and everyone will experience something different. But when you make something that can perhaps produce similar significant feelings in a lot of different people, there is definitely something to be explored there. I'm not saying "omg. jackson paulsblock is a goddamn genius. so expressive. much wow." But his work has given me food for though in reevaluating my perceptions of art. His work has made me realize that there is beauty in the noise.
Also, I'd encourage anyone who says they could make a painting like his to please try it. But also, care about it. Put your heart into it. It's like fucking therapy. Pour your guts out on this thing. Get drunk. Get stoned. Get sober. Make some fucking crazy marks on a canvas, and make a lot. Don't give a shit about the end result, be in the Now and react to everything you are doing in the moment. When you don't focus on the end result, you can have more fun, you can play more. Go, explore, be creative. Pollock was a severe alcoholic and a pretty depressed guy, it kind of makes sense that his paintings are what they are. But like I said before, he's using paint as a vehicle for emotions--like he's ridding of his demons through these expressive movements, and I would encourage anyone to try abstract expressionist art for similar reasons.
This is the comment I was looking for
Amazing! this inspired me ALOT
Explaining “weird” art should be its own literary form. I can’t see the qualities in the works myself, until I hear or read the explanation. Then I wonder how anybody is smart, sensitive, and imaginative enough to see it. Just fascinating.
Can I get what you're smoking PLEASE
I aint reading all that, but im for you tho, or sorry that happened
To all of you that keep citing the exorbitant price as a reason why it is so ridiculous, remember to differentiate between the artist and the art market. They are not the same thing. This is why I can go to the Tate Modern and enjoy the Pollocks while thinking about the destruction of boundaries and their playful expression of the subconscious, and at the same time loath the huge bubble that rich people have created over the art market in order to differentiate themselves from the poor.
I think spending millions on any of these works of art is stupid, but that doesn´t keep me from enjoying some of them. To all the haters, I recommend paying a small visit to the Tate Modern, the MOMA, or any kind of equivalent you can find in a city near you. Have a relaxed walk around, open your mind, let yourself free of all preconceived notions, and stop and have a look if there is any painting that draws your attention. You might be impressed with the results
+madafakaa Thanks for the comment, it was meaningful to me at least.
+madafakaa Exactly my thought! What a great comment!
I have visited a abstract art museum. No it should never sell for millions.
I went and I hated most of it, I though "no matter what bullshit you tell me inspired this, it can be replicated in a mere hour"
thank you! people likening artists to money hungry salesmen trying to pull a fast one but the reality being that its the art market (bunch of rich assholes) that decided whats worth millions(and it always changes). I enjoy some modern abstract art but I don't think it should sell for ridiculous amounts of money and I definitely don't appreciate the pretentious types that contribute to the snobbish stereotype surrounding the art world. art is supposed to be for everyone
its actually harder to make an abstract empressionism peice look finished and put together. if you've never tried then you won't understand.
it never looks finished, it just looks finished for pretentious shitheads lmao
I think you are just smoking crack here with this take
I never understood abstract paintings, until I tried it. It's more like putting your emotions on the canvas in a way that makes sense to you personally.
+Diana Luckman That's what art is supposed to be.
I did that when I was five. It was fun.
+btpbtpbtp Same
+Diana Luckman All true artwork is placing your emotions on a canvas.
Some abstract paintings are great, don't get me wrong. But stuff like abstract expressionism has no emotion or skill in it at all.
+Phantomhive I get tons wildly conflicting emotions when I stare into a Pollock painting. There is an underlying beauty to them if you look past your biases and your immediate "IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF PAINT WTF" response.
That didn't really explain anything beyond they're scribbles of the mind and they're famous simply because they did it first.
Read the title question. The answer is yes.
+Vincent Jack Modern art is like wine tasting. Bullshit.
Do you feel special because you are in on it? Do you see something we don't? Lmao
Vincent Jack I just summarized the video, idk how I'm triggering you instead of the video.
Jackson Pollock was directly influenced by another artist, Janet Sobel. She's the one that started drip painting, and there's a clear progression in her work from figurative to abstract. Pollock saw it and made it big. It was much later in life that he begrudgingly admitted that she directly influenced his style.
She could have been as big as Pollock - I personally find her colors and style more aesthetically pleasing. But Pollock had a better PR rep in his wife. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Sobel
While in Venice, my family and I went to an abstract art museum. I remember us all literally crying of laughter at a piece of art titled "uncarved wood" which was exactly that; just two pieces of wood on the ground. My favourite had to be the one called "rose" though, it was a canvas with grid lines on it. Grid lines. I could have got some squared paper from home and called it art xD
Some abstract art I admire for their skill and meaning and others I think are just ridiculous.
+_soph.x when i visited Moma gallery in New York i remember an exhibition which was literally an apple on a stand, i dont get modern art
+Matthew Leicester I went to MOMA at 13 to find a gallery of pictures of naked women... IN BLACK AND WHITE
#ART
Otávio Do Not Look Here Google they have some weird stuff there
+_soph.x The thing you COULD have hot some squared paper from home and called it art. But you didn't. That's what TedEx is trying to say.
Yeah back at MoMa I also saw big portrait of a photo of a guy flipping off the White House and a place in China and its apparently called art.
If you think, you can do art like this, then go ahead and do it. Nobody is holding you back and perhaps you really can. The only difference will be, that they created their stuff back in the days when it was a real change to what people were used to. So they did something no one had done before. Nowadays we are used to this kind of paintings and the "Oh Wow this is New!" - effect has worn off.
Exactly
+Speireata4 i must disagree, they were just lucky to become famous and get recognized as artists. Don't you think that it's impossible that in the whole history of art, nobody has ever tried painting something in "pollock" style? or that somebody had never tried cutting a canvas before fontana did? im firmly convinced that somebody must have tried it before, but was not lucky enough to be in the right time of history, or to have the right amount of luck (or skills) in being noticed by other people.
+duranfe what you just said is bullshit. youre discreditting someone elses work based on an assumption that you have no evidence to back. you can firmly believe anything you want, doesnt make it right.
+Speireata4 I do believe why this kind of paintings were recognized and would worth thousands or millions in auctions is that people were made to believe THIS is something unique or special. And those who made people think this is WORTH that MUCH are those who overthink things. And please, why would it need to be worth that much? Yes it is beautiful, but it doesn't need to be worth more than buying a house, or even a bicycle. So what if it has history behind it, wasting that much money is kind of pointless.
+Speireata4 "they did something no one had done before." - you mean no one has ever dropped paint on the floor ? Pollock invented paint and gravity ?
"only he could make it"..well that can be said to almost everything...your personal signature, your handwriting, your cooking etc...and all these are reflections of the subconscious in one way or the other. so following that definition of art, everyone is an artist : your cat included.
Yes. Exactly.
Painters are the world's best salespeople
+jayfulf god your life must be pretty boring thinking creative people are just money centred
I think you mean 'abstract' painters. There are many painters and artists who make real beautiful paintings
A Deer Well even if I did think that I doubt it would make my life boring. I also think I should mention, because it doesn't seem to be obvious to you at this point for whatever reason, that I did not mention that or imply that. I do feel the language used clearly states the simple idea that I've pointed out so please use logic and take a moment to think before getting upset and making asinine comments.
Cloaked Sniper If the artist makes a beautiful painting they can still be a good salesman. The beauty of the painting adds little to the value when compared with the name that's on that painting.
No, Politicians are the world's best sales people.
Wow, there is a lot of hate on this video. I think you all need to bring it down a couple abstract notches, please.
"If I had a blacklight, this would look like a Jackson Pollock painting".
Brilliant
"I understood that reference"
Sorry Pollok, but classical art is the true wonder of the human history so far
Damn right!
+Elena Alex true but art developed alot in the past.. expressionism was not accepted by the most people too at its time. It would be boring to just continue the classical art styles ... sometimes we need something new in which we can identify ourselves. If someone would make a classical painting today, nobody would want to see it because we already have the great classical artists. We also cant just stop making art because we already have the greatest paintings of the past
VanoArts You act like talentless trash made with no technique is the only way forward.
Wow! The "scribbles" when magnified are amazing!
As an art student myself, I respect abstract expressionists but I do not like the idea of 'easy' art. I do not appreciate art that can be 'easily' replicated but that's just my opinion
+Chryzzle How about 'easy' music or poetry? To me things *can be* _'easily' replicated_ and still be expressive and interesting.
Bad for photography haha
as an art student i disagree, abstract expressionism and conceptual art never fail to amaze me, anyone who has the chance and the will can become a 'good' artist but not everyone can express ideas through unique mediums/ways
Hold up. Since when is abstract expressionism easy to replicate? Maybe this is the case for geometric abstraction.
easy but the idea is not
Abstract isn't supposed to be nonsense. It's not about the quality of the work. It's about the meaning of the colours. How the colours make you feel in side.
Have you ever heard of this story? "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
Some abstract is alright, but the ones that are literally a single green line on a blue and red background? Really?
I used to think the same thing until going to art school. Minimalism is much harder than people realize. It's not just about a single line, its the composition, size, color in relation to the background etc. I recommend the play called RED which is about Mark Rothko.
The video itself is more interesting than any of Pollock's paintings.
+Brandon Hall What isn't?
+soslothful Watching paint dry, maybe? Then again, it could be the paint of something more interesting.
desu38 Well said.
If one of art's purposes is to inflict emotion inside the viewer, then contemporary and modern art has successfully done that by confusing and angering the hell out of you haha
You can get such a deep level of honesty out of you through expressive strokes and colors that speak to you, it's amazing really. I've been painting like this for a few months now, never new it had a name
Overanalyzed bs. I can take LSD tomorrow and make a Jackshit Bollocks painting and don't give me that "but you didn't" bullshit, I didn't draw the Sistine Chapel and I still fucking admire it.
Ted getting so much hate for this video it's fantastic
The question should be: Why some people think that those scribbles are significant art?
But it still a subjective question.
IMO, it is just a game where people try to convince others that some are important or not.
now my understanding of this so called "art" went from "bullshit" to "complicated "bullshit.
Same...I can take LSD and draw these 😂😂😂hell even without "imprimint of his mind"... I'm like:"Fuck off with that bullshit"😂😂😂
I see beauty in some of Pollocks works and I enjoy a few of them a lot. I don't really understand why they get criticized. He was the first to do it and his paintings inspire me a great deal more than many other well regarded artists, and inspiration is the only thing I ask from art. It's not Pollocks fault that some people choose to pay hundreds of millions of pounds for his creations. That's the buyers issue.
I hate that argument, anyone could have done it but they were tho ones who actually did, maybe no ones done it cause it's stupid or pretentious.
so... if i take my shoes off and start walking on my keyboard, will i write the first abstract book? and will it make me a famous person? and could i call people who don't get it "ignorant"?
Do it. I will buy it
+Nimrod Ben Moshe no, modern art doesn't work like that.
+Nimrod Ben Moshe do you mind if i rip off that idea? I need something to get rich of
+Chris
To the average person it definitely does work that way.
+Nimrod Ben Moshe No, I think you have to take your keyboard and smash your hand on it randomly as your subconscious dictates. =P
werthiot4
i03ty0 2394y3i0-
590 'aw3tv;u 235vguil 124up'yboi; ua3tvg ui124gl 12-8s5yb u9sdfhu ;23rvhk; 35b
ART!
I love Modern Art and I think this video is a good introduction to all the complexity inside the art of this era, beyond "I could do that" and all kind of disrespectful comentaries of ignorant people that can't connect with abstract forms, color, etc, farther than the representation of a woman following the standarts of beauty (for example). Develope your imagination ;)
Modern art is there to challenge people about what to think of art and how to define it. Artist are not making their work with the intention of creating something beautiful, they want to create something that let's us think about art and its boundaries.
Most modern artist don't earn mad money for their works, because the prices only rise when the art created history, and then the art is sold between two owners, and not the original painter.
Modern art is also a response to photography; because images could be made in an instant, there was no large need any more for realistic paintings. Thus, painters tried to paint what couldn't be recorded with a camera: ideas, conceptions, expressions, thoughts, etc.
You, thinking that modern art isn't art, is the exact reason why modern art exists in the first place.
Found the modern arts major.
Oh, yeah, yeah...
Bullshit
+Elias Jordan Cmn, dont be rude
I'm from a different field/medium of art, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Some commenter don't seem to realise that the rage and disbelief such works inspire in people who deny them is often part of the ethos of the whole art movement in the first place.
Sure there might have been some who perhaps "cashed in", and created works wholly uninspiring to you personally. But you have to realise, that through the subjectivity of art, so long as a single person finds meaning in a piece, the work has found its place. Yes, you can toss shit around on a canvas and call it art. The problem is whether you yourself found meaning in it at all, let alone the other categories like intention, effort, and technique.
I myself don't understand many modern art pieces, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating all of then. It's sad to see so many people diss this convention simply because of its apparent simplicity.
+Chris okay sure might be true. still anyone could have made those paintings, whereas there are only very few people who are able to make paintings like van gogh, rembrandt, etc. im not going to tell you what you can and cannot like or what is and isnt beautiful. fact is anyone can make some lines and dots and call it art and for that reason i will not personally accept these paintings as works of art.
People who like this kind of art need to hear the story about the emperor's new robes.
Pollock couldn't make a painting made by my cat, because he's not a cat. The cat wins!
Hard to argue with that logic lol
TED-Ed dropped the ball on this one, but the TED-Ed viewers didn't! Seeing the majority of commenters calling a spade a spade (or calling bullshit bullshit, in this case) has restored my faith in humanity.
I hate most modern art. It's a complete insult to the hours I spend on my drawings, and all the other artists spending their lives on genuinely beautiful pieces. When I see the scribbles, I sigh and roll my eyes, and look for something more deserving of everybody's time and recognition.
+TheNellehFox Then by your logic, someone who creates even more "genuinely beautiful" (somehow there's a metric in your head that can measure this) pieces than yourself must think your work is complete garbage. When they see your drawings, they sigh and roll their eyes, and look for someone more deserving of everybody's time and recognition.
Funny thing is, I don't have any recognition, sooooo.... If I'm not getting paid ridiculous amounts for my work, then I kinda don't fit your point. I'm completely okay with people not thinking my stuff is good enough to afford that... because it isn't. Which only makes the blank emptiness that most modern art is, even less deserving.
Ta-da.
+TheNellehFox I agree!!!
Your logic is faulty. There is a big difference between attempting to create a recognizable motif and just dropping paint on a canvas. Humans have an inherent ability to recognize paintings that require effort and comprehension of artistic technique, and to recognize utter bullshit.
TheNellehFox I completely agree with you! the viewer should give as much attention to the art as the artist did, so if it took 1 minute to paint it, oh, and worse, no focus, then the audience shouldn't focus on it either.
Funny to see this video in my sub box when we just discussed this in one of my classes a couple days ago. Now I don't personally like the paintings myself, but I can appreciate them. It makes me sad to see all the comments and dislikes on this video. I know it won't convince you of anything, but I do want to throw in my two cents; and also just some stuff I've leaned about Pollock. The painting is not actually the art, it is an artifact of the art. The actual art here is the action of painting (hence the term action painting.) The painting itself is just a record of his movements and the actual canvas is inconsequential. Because of this he painted with house paints that would later flake, walked on top of the wet paint, and put his cigarette butts out on it. Pollock had a therapist who encouraged him to express his negative emotions through painting and Pollock himself was inspired by Navajo sand painting where a healer would drip the sand around the person to be healed. By dripping the paint and walking around the top of the painting he is putting himself in the position of both healer and patient (basically art therapy.) So while the pieces itself may not be appealing to some you can at least appreciate the story and the philosophy behind it. Personally I blame Greenberg for many of the preconceived notions about his work. ;)
+wolfdefender01 That many people, in 2016, disliking that much abstract art, only makes me think that those artists made a very good job pushing people out of their comfort zone, making an "error 404" in peoples minds.
+Jane Sarayevo hah, seriously I can picture these people like those 'cat has frozen' gifs.
+wolfdefender01 Wow that's so interesting!! I had no idea about that Navajo thing.
Could anyone make these paintings? Yes. But did they? No. And that's the difference.
Conclusion : The cat could make a Jackson Pollock painting.
i would react to it if it wasn't commented 7 years ago.
I studied history of art, aesthetics and ontology of art, I have read many books on the subject and I still think that Pollock was a lazy artist at best and a scammer at worse. I would kinda get it if he did only a few of those seemingly random splattery paintings and then moved on to do something else (you know, like Picasso did: he never stuck to just one formula, he experimented and renewed his style), but instead that's pretty much everything he ever did. It's like if Monet did nothing but water lilies or if Leonardo did nothing but portraits of ladies staring at the observer with an enigmatic smile or if Van Gogh did nothing but self portraits. I still wouldn't like Pollock, abstract expressionism is mostly not my thing, but I would understand him more, at least.
+Broderick Siz Modern art is there to challenge people about what to think of art and how to define it. Artist are not making their work with the intention of creating something beautiful, they want to create something that let's us think about art and its boundaries.
Most modern artist don't earn mad money for their works, because the prices only rise when the art created history, and then the art is sold between two owners, and not the original painter.
Modern art is also a response to photography; because images could be made in an instant, there was no large need any more for realistic paintings. Thus, painters tried to paint what couldn't be recorded with a camera: ideas, conceptions, expressions, thoughts, etc.
You, thinking that modern art isn't art, is the exact reason why modern art exists in the first place.
If you've studied the history of art, then you should know that's not all Pollock painted. His style changed completely, he only did his number series or "splatter" paintings towards the end of his life. And even they are not all the same. The lines and colours, change in the different series of paintings.
I think however, a lot of people are quick to discredit him because they've only seen bits and you could say "dashes" of his work. It's not everybody's thing, but it's inventive and it has its own charm, which is why people buy it. To be honest, I have no clue why people like Picasso, but there you go. Different people enjoy different art.
+Chris Ward don't get me wrong, I don't really like Picasso, I just understand him more as an artist than Pollock or Fontana. I don't dislike them because their work isn't beautiful, I know full well that that is not the point of modern art, the real reason I don't like them is that I don't understand how a creative person could enjoy producing pretty much the same stuff over and over. Changing colours and patterns in the splatters isn't enough to make it significantly different as an experience for the observer, even for a fairly educated one. I know they have done other stuff, but that is pretty much all they're famous for. I understand that their work is supposed to be a statement about art, but that statement doesn't need to be done in more than a few variations of the theme to be clear. Also, I don't like how those paintings look, but that is entirely a matter of taste.
Art is not merely defined whether it can be done with great skill or not. as art evolves, skill becomes variant, opposite to the classical age where it is invariant. Abstract expressionism has opened various levels and stages of art as imaginary numbers opened more solutions to algebraic problems. it has showed that an artist need not to have great experience and great skill to have the sum of great art, but it has showed that the vital part of making art is conceptualization. pollock introduced a new concept of making art, new symbols, new ways of painting, a new language, permanently deviating from the old masters view where realism and great artisan skill are constants. now, isn't that great? still not satisfied? take the Penrose triangle for instance. some of you would say, pah! a child could've drawn that! yes, it can. but the abstraction of it is what made it great. it is very hard to come up with a concept that no one has thought before. Pollock did just that. it might be easier to replicate but to come up with that requires greatness.
The thing is, not ALL abstract art is bad, some people work hard on their paintings and they look good, even if not realistic, HOWEVER some people will just throw random scraps of metal together and say "This represents the mind of..." blah blah blah, when really it's just scrap metal. Other will just throw paint onto a canvas and call it modern art, saying the same things. See, the people who do modern art, or at least the kind I don't like, tend to think that they are being 'original', but the thing is, since it's slowly becoming more common, it looses originality and just becomes random shapes called 'art'. In other words, the style ITSELF isn't always bad, it's the people who simply want attention for being "Original" that are the problem.
Totally agree... someone finally said it...I can draw "an imprimint of my mind" ,but no one would give a jizz about it...
Yeah, I agree. I have been to a couple art museums with modern art and while I hated most of it (I really prefer non-abstract art in general anyways), I saw some really amazing abstract art. You could tell which people really put in an effort to make the image visually pleasing and unique
they were drastically different from the scam artists who just slabbed a ton of garbage together.
Unfortunately a lot of the emperors new robes bullshit gets into actual art museums. I went to the Vancouver art gallery for their mashup exhibit and was depressed at how much of the "art" was bullshit. Some of it was really cool. A lot of it was bullshit.
But people want to feel special because they "get it" just like the wine tasters. It's a shame.
TL;DW
He made a bunch of random lanes and became world famous, but you can't do it because you aren't him.
+Anomen Or maybe others just don't want to embarrass their self.
Actually I think the reason he became famous was because it was the first kind of painting like that in that time period. Kinda like Vincent Van Gogh made a painting different from all others at that time but if you make one like that now, you won't become famous.
Modern/Abstract art is cool, but don't try and give it a bullshit meaning and get mad when people dont want to go along with it. Also, I'm tired of people wanting to sell their shitty "modern" artwork for hundreds and thousands of dollars. it's so ridiculous :/
+Danielle Howard
Most people don't WANT to sell their work for a lot of money, their movement often makes the art have its price. Even when the art is being sold for ridiculous prices, it's between the owners and not the original painter (who thus doesn't profit from it).
Appreciating Pollock is mostly a matter of exposure and education. If you don't really understand the art, the artist and the time in which it was made, it's impossible to really appreciate it. If you stand in front of MOMA's Pollock's "One: Number 31, 1950," which is a colossal 10x17 feet, you get a strong sense of the sheer physical effort required to pull off a gestural abstraction on this scale. It's the epitome of all-over mark-making and incredibly balanced, nuanced and full of almost balletic movement. Pollock's work holds a very special place in the history of modern art and no other artist can do this same style and be called original. That's a feat in and of itself. He was the first to make this exact type of drip abstraction and the last. That's one of the reasons his work fetches such high prices, not to mention the fact he died early and his output was relatively small. The "scribbles" you refer to are not just that; they are highly controlled marks that come from an experienced and dedicated person who had the audacity to do something new.
I'll stick to Dali's masterpieces, thank you.
It's weird art that doesn't represent anything can still bring out so much emotion. A drip painting doesn't just bring out confusion: it brings out delight, amusement, scorn, apathy. Duchamp would have been delighted by all the negative reactions he has gotten.
I love this ans never thought of that. If you're mad at a piece of art... their effort worked - it brought out an emotion in you, as the viewer. Insulting the artist would be walking by it because it didn't grab you in any way whatsoever
@@catherinearredondo2092 But are people mad because the piece itself conveys a sense of anger, or are people mad because there are rich people that treat some of these pieces as highly valuable speculative investments?
Pollock was not the first to paint scribbles on a canvas. Just the first to con everyone into thinking scribbles on a canvas are actually worth something.
Don't defend these art. Their value is due the artist's name was attached to it. The artist's name has value due to unnecessary crowd hype and underhanded marketing techniques by their affiliates. The "spirit" that the artist claims are what they experience when they paint. Which has already passed. Long ago. To put it into an understandable context, it's like someone told you about some amazing food that they ate and tells you to look at the shit that they made after eating it to know how amazing the food must be. The "experience" has passed. We weren't there. Even if we were there at the time, we aren't in your head, experiencing your experience. So all that's left is the shit of the artist's experience.
+ElectricFan91 We've all got to drop this idea that price = importance. Powerful art elicits a response and it doesn't have to be a good one; being pissed off by a piece of art still means it moved you. Besides - what you're critiquing is the art market, not the art itself. Many of the greatest artists, writers and composers in history die penniless and unrecognized with their work being celebrated long after they're dead. There's also the concept of "death of the author," which states you don't even need to know an author's background to interpret their work. Even if "zeitgeist" or spirit of the times/important at the time is what you meant, Pollock's work survived the test of time and is still considered interesting.
When will you ever one-to-one be inside another person's head? Never. And I find it hard to believe good art requires you to be emotionless while creating it. The only art in which you can share the simultaneous "spirit" of creation is performance art, and even then you aren't sharing the days, months, or years the artist might have taken to come up with one dance or one song. By your metaphor, you're just loving one piece of "shit" over another.
Price=importance seems to be the right view, people who would appreciate something would put a higher price on it.
I never said good art requires no emotion. It's one half of the driving force of art. Way to go on forcing words there. And to my methaphor, the shit is shit, conventional art has already gone past the crop harvest.
Art has more importance than its price tag; it isn't purely a commodity like a pair of jeans. Folk art is often sold at dirt cheap prices, despite how it keeps a tradition alive or ties a community together. And like i said, some art isn't priced until its discovered by a critic. It is true that high art and low art is decided purely by market worth, but why would someone decide a piece of graffiti is now worth thousands of dollars in the first place? Only to scam you? Or because it took a while to discover its artistic significance?
The value of art is dependent on the appreciation of the people who sees it, hence the price tag. Sometimes, a critic would appreciate the art and people just blindly follow. If you think the price is right for the art, that's your opinion and you rate the art as reasonably priced. I don't mind people appreciating abstract art, but I draw the line before someone calling out for people to blindly follow and accept.
A critic deciphers meaning, not value - that's a reviewer. A critic deciphers significance, not price point - that's a dealer. I apologize if I used terms interchangeably before but there's a distinction that needs to be made here.
If you don't know why a critic says something is good or bad or even just disagree with them, thats fine, but the uneducated can't really argue to the educated the significance of something effectively (beyond personal importance, which you can't really price anyway). If one can't divorce the meaning of art from its price, that's their own insecurity as a consumerist, and they can argue with their actions by buying or not buying. I'm saying there is more importance to art than the price tag (like this conversation we're having) and that you don't have to blindly accept it- just try and understand why,.
Not sure if such art can be described by analyzing techniques. What about Malevich's "Black Square"? I think explanation lies within painter's name and his previous works. Malevich had some good paintings before, then he started to draw in suprematism style, his paintings became more and more abstract, and resulted in final form - black square. If you look this way, it doesn't look so stupid why people pay millions of dollars for a peace of black canvas.
so if i start throwing shit around it will be art?
+Grandpa Stalin "anyone could do it - but they actually did it"
+Grandpa Stalin Someone will think so
+Grandpa Stalin yes, and that's not a bad thing
+Grandpa Stalin only if you do it subconsciously
+YouDontSay Jon So did every child with access to paint.
I'm still not sold. You know that Pollack is a terrible painting when the most logical explanation for his fame is a conspiracy theory.
I dont understand why everyone is so hateful with this paintings, stop being so close minded , all type of art just wants to deliver a message, from a great painting to a drawing from a kid, i think this kinds of paintings deliver a powerfull message and that is the point. Stop looking at it from a closed perspective and open your mind people, stop being so hateful, it will help you to become a better person trust me in this one. Im sorry for the bad english
I do a bit of realism painting and tried abstract art. I just kept my thoughts empty and let my hand guide my brush. But the more I painted, the more frustrated I got coz my painting made no freaking sense. I guess I can't do art. But I always wonder how these artists feel when they see their finished products.
Everyone has a different preferences, so I can basically say that anything is pretty right?
+Rainbow203 yes.
+Chris or everything is horrible :D
I love this video. To be honest it's hard create both structured art and abstract art. Props to all artist !
I used to hate, or thought I hated, “modern “, “ abstract” or”expressionist” ( or combinations of all 3), but then I got it. It’s great when you do.
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced.
ikr
+Joakim D It's like, someone was instructed to create a spanish classical guitar piece; but instead invented the metal genre.
It seems randomly put together and that anyone could do, the same thing.
Although, neither is.
+Joakim D I think he was just crazy and got lucky by some spectacular marketing.
+Joakim D The problem with this kind of art is that it does not "break the barrier" between what is art and what is not, it completely destroys it, and completely disrespects and notion of art.
"Ohh look a rock!" "eh... rock=art"
"Ohh look smoke" "eh... smoke=content that is not content=art"
+Fronz Clownz metal musicians are some of the most talented tho and not everyone could do it
These sorts of scribbles paved the way for talentless snobs to throw whatever shit they want together and claim it as modern art.
I can't exactly replicate my five year old's scribbles either, but that doesn't mean they belong on some high street gallery to be sold for millions.
👌
+Kaniner Flagg Exactly!
+Kaniner Flagg Agreed!
+Kaniner Flagg My thought exactly. Instruct any 3-5 year old to fill a sheet with different colours of paint, and I'm pretty sure they'd come up with the same thing.
I think this art could be cool... if the most expensive piece costed 1000 dollars.
More a piece of history than a piece of art
Abstract expressionism is really the expression of a state of mind, many times this is expressed through large blocks of colour or action painting techniques as seen by Jackson pollock. Abstract expressionism is not intended to have narrative and very seldom contains any figurative form. It is intended to evoke basic and or complex emotion.
Think about it.... if you have a massive canvas that is painted a lovely rusty orange colour and it also has blocks of deep reds aswell... How would that make you feel seeing this on a large scale? Generally speaking it would make you feel peaceful and relaxed as these colours typically have this affect, especially if there are on a massive canvas. If it was a tangled mess of these colours like Jackson pollock, it would probably be interpreted as more chaotic than relaxing.
Abstract expressionism appears to be simplistic in its construction and can easily recreated by just about anybody, but in the 1940s this was a huge deal because we had literally hundreds of years of portrait and landscape painters. Art was either eclisiastical, general realist styles or it had some kind of figurative representation or narrative. These artists paved the way to encourage freedom of expression and without it, we wouldn't have these very modern fantastical/ abstract narrative works which blend traditional painting with abstract expressionism. Artworks that are now in the realism realm of things but have abstract expressive qualities are amazing and more and more people are beginning to open up to abstract work because its construction is more familiar and understandable to the average person, which is great. But the credit for this surge in popular abstraction in 21st century art styles goes to the likes of the artists in this video.
Have a look at some of the works done by artists in sky arts portrait artist of the year and you can see that some have made use of abstract expressionism in subtle ways in their portraits, which are increadible! This is one of many examples on how modern art has been shaped by the abstract expressionists.
Never thought I would actually dislike a TED-Ed video...
so you are saying the cat is soulless and cannot innovate?
So Pollock is a genius because he was the first artist to convince people that a random disorganized mess is in fact hidden brilliance?
Was the paint he used snake-oil based? Seriously this hack is why art is considered a joke by so many people today. He destroyed the credibility of artists because what people valued most shifted from technique and creativity to how good your sales pitch was for your talentless scribbles.
R.I.P. art, savagely murdered by Pollack.
I find that the main reason modern art was/is so popular is because of the fact that it was different from what is normally considered "art". However, modern artists today seem to be putting less and less effort into their work. Some modern art is absolutely gorgeous, and you can tell a lot of time and work was put into what colors would go where and how it would communicate its message. Some however just looks mindless scribbles.
Allison Koester You can have abstract art that looks beautiful as long as some thought get s put into it. I don't find that the case with Pollack's work. It all looks like a mess.
Stan V Meh, I don't really have any preference on Pollock's art. :\
+Stan V I totally agree. Lots of artists put some hard work and effort into studying how to utilize different artistic tools, how to draw the human body, mastering perspective, how to make colors visually pleasing, and then utilize these skills to illustrate the modern world and attempt to send messages by challenging social norms with their artwork.
Then, Pollack and other "abstract expressionists" and other "simplistic modern artists" come along and say that the work they put minimal effort into was art, making up bullshit about why this is so to get people to buy it for a lot of money. It really ruined the world of art and brought around greed and corruption in the art world in massive numbers.
They can taste the wine and see the emperors new robes so they feel special.
The thing is, you actually do have to see a Pollock paint up close and inperson to understand what makes them so unique. Watching all the different stands intermingle and spread out really is an experience; one that not many people can replicate.
+TheMightyWill I've heard the same for Rothko
It's just the uniqueness of each painting that makes it so special. No one can replicate it unless you're his clone. I'd like to see one of his paintings one day.
+TheMightyWill I have seen a Pollock painting in person and did this, as people recommended I do so.
While I agree that it did seem to look endless when viewed that way, I wouldn't describe it as an "experience". The only thing I experienced was rage. I felt like my years of hard work as an artist were being laughed at in that painting, treated as useless because he became famous with minimal effort, easily illustrated artwork.
+Phantomhive If it's easy to illustrate, why is it so hard to create the exact same painting by hand
2:02 that's exactly what I do when doodling in class. lol I should become an abstract expressionist.
The significance of breaking convention is lost on the person who is still mired in convention. If "amount of detail" and "realism" are your only standards for visual interest then of course you'll hate a Pollock. Not to mention if you aren't aware of method or historical context, info impossible to get from just the piece itself. The end of the video even states that Pollock's work unfortunately imposes an academic elitism because to "get" it you have to know why it's good, i.e. years of schooling and looking at art.
What art do you look at all the time? Challenging, unconventional pieces that make you wonder why they're appreciated? The same Renaissance and western school art that everyone tells you is the best? One genre over and over again? I'm not going to deny that some people will try to scam you by saying a piece is more minimalist than lazy or more sensibility-testing than exploitative, but try and make any piece of art that gets art critics talking, scholars studying, and dealers buying. If anyone could do it, the art market would be exploding with geniuses and we'd buy art all the time. The majority of career artists do grunt work, behind-the-scenes work and commissions instead of serial masterworks out of their own interest.
We do indeed buy art all the time, but it's usually product packaging or special effects in films or neutral, inoffensive Pottery Barn stuff. The same stuff you've seen before, the same stuff that pleases a majority with limited art education. Call artists snobs if you like, but at least have a better argument prepared for why a piece is or isn't interesting than, "it looks like a scribble."
I kinda get the point of minimalism tho, it's basically an experimental study on what combinations of different basic shapes and color and their relative ratio to each other can be most appealing to human eyes, which have practical uses in industrial design.
Abstract expressionism? All I can say is that it really shows its messiness in a minimalistic immaculate looking rich people's luxury yacht, mansion or whatever, I guess the contrast would be pretty eye popping, that's about the only practical use I can think for it.
First, I don't think one needs to argue the practicality of art because art's purpose is so broad and subjective anyway - self expression, communicating ideas, representation, beautification, celebration - take your pick. Artistic practicality in real-world application and maximizing effectiveness is the realm of "design," specifically, not painting or much less art as a whole.
Abstraction exists because artists were tired of depicting things as they were (cameras had some help with this; you can't get more real than a photo). I agree that a pristine classical or minimalist interior would offset abstract expressionist work the best, but we already know about how exclusive it is as a style. If people weren't so snobby about classical art, abstract expressionism wouldn't have been such a big middle finger to art in the first place. The rich snob with space for pretentious art is a stereotype, and obviously not everyone likes looking at abstract expressionist work - but what about making it?
+Karsonist No, it's all about the amount of skill.
+Unified Minds Like I said, have a better argument. "Good" art, believe it or not, doesn't necessarily require skill. The Japanese concept of "heta-uma" says you can be a "good-good," "good-bad," "bad-good," or "bad-bad" artist. A good-good artist is skilled and makes interesting work (Michelangelo). A good-bad artist makes skilled but boring, meaningless work (Michael Bay). A bad-good artist is not skilled in a traditional sense, but a trained eye will recognize its greatness (Pollock). And a bad-bad artist has neither traditional skill nor the ability to create interest. And before you say a cat is a bad-bad artist, try and ask an animal even knows what art is.
Walk through the mashup exhibit in the Vancouver art gallery right now and tell me that all of it has something of value that I just don't "get"
Around 30% of it I got and it was good. I am willing to accept that another 30% I just didn't "get". But the last 40% was a load of bullshit. No one is gonna tell me that I don't "get" a urinal turned on it's side. Maybe I don't "get" old wonder woman tv shows being put on obnoxious loops, but even if I did "get it" I doubt I would consider it art. It's something to laugh at, not appreciate. It looked like the shit people call "youtube poop" made out of wonder woman. And it was taking up an entire room of a major art gallery.
The autor really tried to convince that there is, in fact, some special technique or intrinsic value on those paintings. But he will need a lot more to explain that this is not a way to create new forms of investiment, to secure rich people's money.
This is how I approach this, "Wow, this painting is bad, but I couldn't paint it." because HE painted it and even if it sucks it is unique.
Let me get this straight: entire genres of art are dedicated to questioning what can be considered art, and pushing these boundaries to the breaking point. Millions of people totally miss this point and angrily rant that it's not art. When this is simply explained to them, they cover their ears and shout "muh shit scribbles, muh cat" even louder, refusing to believe that art means anything other than "pictures they like." Is that about right?
+Yabeen Sees Well, I guess humanity remains the same. The germans had an exposition of "degenerate art" that many people here in this comment section would agree.
art has to be pretty, interesting, or skillful, this shit looks piss strains with colors
exactly. Society seems to think they know art better that artists do.
Crimson Eon Your qualifications are incredibly subjective. Again, "it's not art unless *I* like it!"
LagiNaLangAko23 You're not giving me any specific examples to work with. But yes, if an artist tells me something they've made is art, it's probably art regardless of whether I like it or not. Even if I don't understand it, or I do understand but hate it, or even if I think it's completely worthless.
Personally, I don't even like Pollock's work. It doesn't do much for me; I'm not impacted emotionally by it or impressed with his technical skill. But I can at least appreciate its value as an artifact. Pollock was influential, an important figure in art history. He has his place, and I'll grudgingly admit his stuff belongs in a museum even if it doesn't appeal to my own sensibilities.
Nice video, but the art is still laughably terrible.
just the worst field of work
modern art*
+Trung Tran contemporary art actually.
typhuslouzir Terminal Cancer actually.
+typhuslouzir tks!
I did one of his paintings in an art show and won third place
Personally, I agree with most people that modern art is crap. I suggest the video "Why is modern art so bad?" by Prager U. That said, a piece of art's value is derived solely from what someone is willing to pay for it. That is a fact, so subsequently, Pollock's art IS very valuable even if it is crap.
'A piece of art's value is derived solely from what someone is willing to pay for it'. Umm maybe commercial value, but definitely not general or primary value! To accept your point is to believe all artists simply strive to be rich. Have a look at the history of artists and what they stand for before you start claiming what the value of their art is.
+A Deer Please define "general or primary value" because I'm pretty sure those are subjective things. How much someone pays for it is an actual objective measurement and the only true way to evaluate art. Therefore, when governments tender large contracts for art, they are trying to value something that cannot be estimated till it is actually created.
+mceric I think your issue is with modern art being treated as a commodity. Modern art isn't inherently bad.
you can't really objectify art since it's based completely in subjective things even it's monetary value can be subjective based on who's viewing and buying the piece.
+mceric (see star and fox's comment) to analysis art purely on objective terms is a mistake and undermines the purpose of the arts. It is like analysing a scientific theory purely on subjective terms - the analysis misses the point!
More art history videos like this please ^_^ x
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. It's all about preying on the egos of stupid people and convincing them that something cheap and meaningless has some kind of prestige and deeper value.
Hero's always get remembered. But you know legends never die!
+The Fearmoths This is exactly what I was thinking. It is very disappointing to see work like this considered masterpieces. A lot of art is created by truly amazing artist that took true talent. This does not belong among their works of art.
+The Fearmoths Why your comment not on top.
+The Fearmoths And does a hyper-realistic painting have more inherent 'meaning' and 'value' than an abstract one? (I know you said nothing about that kind, just asking)
Irina V Well such paintings depict an accumulation of time, effort and passion learning the craft. Even if it has no deeper interpretation, the fact that an artist is willing to invest so much of himself into his work speaks volumes. Most people will look at this kind of work as a great feat of human potential knowing that it's beyond their own reach.
That's just my personal opinion and an aspect of art I've always appreciated.
so you're telling me that these guys became important and famous doing on a canvas the exact same thing i do on a piece of paper everyday at school when i forget my drawing tools at home
The people disliking this video just because they don't like the art bothers me. The video has nothing to do with one's view of the art.
when I was about 5 or 6 years old I would paint randomly just beacause I thought it was kinda relaxing, never thought on selling that shit thou
Good day, I'm a huge fan of your videos and I would love to hear you address the issue of skincare and ways to reduce oily skin
Beautiful animation! I feel like Pollocks paintings look much better in motion like this
Scrolled down the comment section. Immediately regretted it. A thought: How about watching this well-produced, informative video and opening up to actually learning something rather than writing a comment that clearly indicates you didn't pay attention? Also, it really doesn't make sense to argue angrily how one type of art is better than the other. No art form is more sophisticated than another, art is about expressing yourself. Sending some good vibes to this negative comment section, peace out :)
Everyone in this comment section is just saying "modern art is dumb" without saying anything about the actual video. It makes some pretty good points, if you'd actually watch it.
+Wall Staples
Apparently the subject is controversial.
Jackson Pollock's drip paintings contain fractals, the basis for Chaos Theory. Fractals are patterns found in nature; things like coastlines, clouds and snowflakes are all natural fractals. The fractals found in his drip paintings, particularly his most popular paintings, are mathematically equivalent to these fractals found in nature which is what makes them so pleasing to view. When Hans Hoffman asked Pollock if he worked from nature, he said, "I am nature." To suggest that a cat could do what he did is wrong.
Q: why is Pallok's mind imprint so special if even i can do that?
A: .....because he did it.......
no seriously, that was the answer to that questions X________X
Boriss Vassiljev Great answer. He did it. You did not. That is the only difference.
@@danie7kovacs So you're telling me that all that makes a painting expensive is that it is painted? Wow.
😒😒😒
@@danie7kovacs i did it and it wasn't that special
@@mattwiebe9711 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wow, people have some seriously deep-seeded hatred for this kind of art, which I'm sure helped with it's popularity.
If you don't understand or enjoy it, why do you feel the need to try and ruin it for others? Let people enjoy things!
I've had some great joys exploring the world of abstract expressionism, and as an artist and musician it has really inspired me and shown me what is possible, and how to find my own voice and style. This video was amazing, hopefully it makes this artform more accessable
Thank you Sarah for trying to educate us. Think its going to take more than a 4 minute video....
Why would anyone want to paint like Pollack? His painting call to mine the story of the Emperor's New Clothes and the question, "Who is fooling who?" And the use of "great" and "impressive" as adjectives to describe Pollack's rubbish is a very free use of those terms.
it must be so easy to make abstract art
yes
I was in the Tate Britain (Not to be confused with the Tate Modern) I was looking at paintings by the pre raphaelites artists like Waterhouse, Rossetti and Holman Hunt and then at paintings by William Blake and Turner.
I then walked into the modern art section and it was like seeing something fantastic and beautiful dying, not just dying but losing everything and going insane and mentally retarded as it died it was pure horror...
This comment section is saltier then the dead sea.
hey guys from ted-ed :)
i just recently discovered this channel and im loving it .. and i was wondering if you guys could make an episode/video about deduction (i dont know if thats the right word for it, but i mean this sherlock holmes analyzing style, that you can like see what a person is feeling, what relation he has to certain people,... and so on just from the outer look from a person)
this would make my day :)
thanks in advance :)
I don't like eating food at a restaurant that I could easily make at home with my limited ability and I sure as shit don't like looking at art that I (or my 2 year old son) could create
Modern day society has such a deep distrust towards art that seems like it had been thrown together in seconds without any thought behind it or underlying agenda. I agree that there are some "artists" out there who want to just get as much money for the least amount of effort, but they are in the music, literary and film industries as well as the art industry. You have to look past it to find the good stuff. Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed looks like something anyone could come up with, but it has an effect on some people, like me. And if art is causing an effect in you in some way, it's doing a pretty good job.
. . . . . . . . . . Maybe this new modern groundbreaking in the art world but here in the regular world, the general populous would never buy or hang this type of art in their house. Only rich people with money who want to show off their money will buy this sort of thing. This type of art feels more like the rich is trying to find a new way to differentiate themselves from the normal average day people. I mean seriously, if I want to look at a scrabbled mess of lines, I can go to a nursery and give a child a bunch of colored markers and let him or her "express" their mot inner thoughts.
Modern paintings go well with modern buildings as the simplistic structure, clahses well against that chaotic colours and patterns
+SilicalNZ That is true, but that alone shouldn't make modern paintings worth millions of dollars.
The art world is the core of corruption, most art gallery's are created as an outlet for bad business's
+Lone Wolf I'm a regular person and I would hang that kind of art on my walls, because it's beautiful. Expressionism can only be appreciated on a deeply emotional level, I love the colors, I love the tangled lines, I love the feeling when you touch that kind of painting (with that many layers of paint, it creates a very special texture). I totally understand why you don't like abstract art, but I don't think it's only for the riches. People think they have to "get" these paintings. to understand them, which very few people can do, but no, they only have to be "feeled", "experienced". It's like experimental jazz, it's not meant to be as powerful as a Beethoven symphony, it's not meant to be truly listened, it's meant to be feeled, like an electric pulse.
DrNanard That is true, but it does not refute my point that rich people spend *way* to much on this stuff. Not that you denied that point, but.. whatever.
To me, abstract expressionism is art in the same way a child’s deliberate scribbles are art. They may mean something; they may not. They may be aesthetically pleasing; they may not. The artist created it for the sake of creation, which is fine. What *isn’t* fine is revering these works as being on par with works that actually mean something, convey skill, and deserve to be respected and acknowledged. I may pay $20 for an abstract print from Hobby Lobby just to have something pretty on my wall. But that print may initially have had the same motivation - or more - than Pollock’s. Abstract art, imo, is very seldom worth the hype *or* the price tag.
A year into watching this video, I'm still not convinced. Been to an art gallery earlier today and the abstract expressionism paintings are still, well, random scribbles to me. I don't know why they are worth millions. I think it's harder to draw anime, and they are more aesthetically pleasing. Just me though.
This whole video was an abstract art
It might be art, but it is crap. No excuses for a his low quality, or the snobbish worthness people give it. Not worth the money spend on the materials used.
"The web of his lines can create the illusion of an infinite layered depth"
Jesus, art people talk a lot of silly horseshit sometimes.
+Johnny Threefour just anyhow scribbled and draw, there u go...u got some suckers paying for this piece of shit. That is art. lol
+Johnny Threefour Exept this is EXACTLY what his pictures do
+S.T. Funken +Cthulhu, King of Lunacy Here we have two fuckwits who had a little too many mocha chai lattes. Better calm down there fedora warriors.
+Cthulhu, King of Lunacy Or we honestly spent time looking at his "art" and decided that it isn't something we like, nor is it something we consider either art or something that requires even a tiny bit of talent. We're allowed our opinions too.
Kevin Fox I don't think Cthulhu, King of Lunacy should be allowed an opinion tbh
The infinite power of the placebo effect...
Not convinced they said.
Art is food. Everyone has a different taste. Art is also intention. What the artist wanted to paint.
That’s the point. It ain’t just the output. If it’s oil or acrylic or watercolor.
If you haven’t understood that yet- then you have in fact missed the point.
Oh my goodness, where are all the haters in the comments coming from? This video does a very good job of explaining a genre of art that not many people understand... It's as if these comments come from people who haven't even watched the video...
Im NOT saying there isnt any thought behind it. Im saying that its so random that i can draw literally anything and let others interpret my thought, regardless of wheather or not i put any into it. In the end thses pictures are famous for their story and their artist, NOT for whats on them