This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

14/88 Unsigned by User talk:86.143.169.171 on December 28, 2006 (as if we have to preserve the comment) Americasroof 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article by in large is much better than when I last made contributions last summer. However I was shocked to see the photos almost all deleted along with some biographical information about life and death in Springs. I put photos back. The Galaxy photo (included here) for a long time was the only representation of his work. I'm not real crazy about it since there are more significant works out there. But if that's all that's available you might want to put it back. One other thing, I really, really, really hate the cquotes. I think they are too big, too ugly and shout too loudly "look at me." On an article about an artist where the artists work should dominate the cquotes a very distracting. Americasroof 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand they might work in conjunction with the photos. The might, kind of grow on you in this context...sort of like the work of a certain artist.  ;-) Americasroof 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't see how this guy's work is now the highest selling painting in the world. Abstract artists better watch out for second graders with a mind to sell their artwork...

I agree completely, but see the talkheader this isn't a forum. Quadzilla99 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't expect all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals to understand deeper art -- 80.41.28.81 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess not everyone has the ability to see The Emperor's New Clothes.-- RLent ( talk) 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If those who "understand deeper art" are willing to spend gazillions of bucks for this kind of thing, that's what I call an "equalizer". Wahkeenah 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help to refer to those who don't like his art as "knuckle dragging Neanderthals". In fact, most people would look at his work and make a comparison to kindergarten finger-painting or similar. Quite understandable, and therefore the question as to why anyone would pay millions for some swirly rubbish arises. I'm not sure that we have addressed this view enough in the article. For my part, I love his work, as opposed to most other modern art. You could go through the Tate Modern, keep only the JP painting there (and maybe a Modigliani or two) and the world would be the better for it. If you equate art with music, then Pollock's works are a symphony. And a lot of modern art is some school kid banging on a drum. -- Pete 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

People who pay that kind of money for art aren't necessarily doing so because they really love or appreciate the art, but to display wealth or as an investment. There are some paintings that are claimed to be his, if they can be authenticated, their value will skyrocket. But shouldn't the art stand on its own merits, and not have its value based on who painted it? A piece of art doesn't become better just because you find out it was painted by someone famous.-- RLent ( talk) 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You raise the question that even if it's attractive, how much would you be willing to pay for an original? I'm reminded of the old saying that we knuckle-draggers use: "A fool and his money are soon parted." Wahkeenah 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While that's a simplistic and misleading view - is everything with a high price tag worthless? - There is some validity in it. I regard much of modern art as a waste of space and good canvas, despite the huge amounts invested. However, with a good Pollock, there is clear evidence of the skill and talent invested. If, as the article suggests, one may equate art with dancing, then Pollock is a painted record of ballet, a different type of dancing painting than a Degas, but every bit as masterful. Then there is the place in art history of a seminal Pollock - how great a value can you put on something that helped to change the way we look at art? One could work at it and produce something akin to a Pollock now, but it would just be a "me too". Like Apollo 14. In the end, it comes down to how we regard art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and also in his pocket, perhaps. -- Pete 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. You find it valuable in an artistic sense, because you like it. I saw the illustration and I kind of like it too. But I wouldn't spend much money on it. I recall going to the Chicago Art Institute and being impressed by how many canvases were out in the open. You could get close enough to the detail, to see the brush strokes and get kind of a connection with the artist. And if the guard wasn't looking, you could touch them (no, I didn't, but I could have). All of those kinds of items were "modern art". The classics were behind bulletproof glass. That tells you all you need to know about the relative merits of those objects, in the minds of the museum administrators. Wahkeenah 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it reflects the difference in ease of repair. -- Pete 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. And if they sell painting kits in the souvenir shop, they can save on costs by having kids on field trips do any needed touchups. Wahkeenah 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well he probably thinks that your artwork is crap!!! Ha-ha

Its not trash just not worth as much as people pay for it...

A DISCUSSION BOARD IS NOT A PLACE FOR SPEWING INCIDENTAL PERSONAL VIEWS! However, this is a special case. Are we sure Mr. Pollock was not really using his vomit technique on these canvases (drip mats)? It is popular to call him a fraud, but that is unfair. He was, artistically, nothing but a buffoon. The alcoholism is only natural in context. That anyone attributes talent to this canvas vandal is a monument to the human capacity for self-deception. 74.69.151.88 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde wrote over 100 years ago:

All art is at once surface and symbol / Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril / Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. / It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. / Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex and vital. When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.

All the vitriol here fits this well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.132.30 ( talk) 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but sometime in the mid 1970's weren't a group of Pollack's 'splatter' paintings displayed with a group of similar paintings done by a chimpanzee and then presented to a group of 'notable' art critics and none of whom could accurately differentiate which were Pollack's and which were the chimpanzees?? I seem to recall reading about that in a contemporary issue of Time or Newsweek.. CanadianMist 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, it seems there's a lot of vandalism on this page. Thoughts? dm 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that it (the vandalism) would be a tribute to the achievement of his work. Bus stop 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the word "tribute", concerning vandals.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So the whole section on the connection between Pollock's work and Native American art, while somewhat interesting, smacks of original research, or at least poorly-written encyclopedic content. I don't know if it should be here at all, and at the very least it should be cleaned up and sourced better, ideas? Personman 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I included one "need for citation", but it actually needs much more. On the question of psychological terms, I'm not sure if the incorrect use of "subconscious" is related to the source of the article, in which case it should remain. Otherwise, both Jungians and Freudians use the term "unconscious". In the same vein, the technique pioneered by Freud is called "psychoanalysis", whereas Jung's is "analytical psychology." Hence the change I made from Pollock's "psychoanalysts" to "analysts." I also changed some spelling from British to American (shows how I am able to overcome my own prejudices) seeing that the article is about an American. Peashy 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, I put some more "need citations in", but am thinking it's time for a bold edit dm 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree and would like to add or request that the first sentence be clarified. First, Indians are from India, and if Pollock received inspiration from N. American Aboriginal Art I would like to know which band. (Oct 7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.16.150 ( talk) 14:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How can people say this man's artwork is crap?! Pollock help Revolutionize abstract art! Just appreciate it!

Well the communists "revolutionized" government in 1917, but 74 years later it failed and now there are few that defend communism with a straight face. Maybe after Pollock's been dead for 74 years his work will be looked at the same way... at any rate, art criticism is by definition completely subjective. One can not dispute Pollock had a major impact on modern abstract art, but whether that impact was positive or negative is purely a matter of opinion. 75.70.123.215 09:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The biography section is crap. Really, it is. One of the most basic things to include, a cause of death with some sort of surrounding details (hell, besides the info box, his YEAR of death isn't even mentioned), is entirely omitted -- as are his parents' names, and his adolescence and young-adult life. The rest of the article needs tons of work too: there are a whole mess of un-sourced statements, four of the five sources used suck (none are easily verifiable as there are no online sources; instead, there are two books by the same author (neither specifically about Pollock), a physics magazine article about fractals, and an exhibition catalog), there is a whole bunch of detail missing about his technique, about critical reception both during and after his lifetime (from BOTH sides of the argument); there is almost nothing said whatsoever about his personal life (remember, the article is about HIM, not just his work), the sections are illogical and disproportionate (i.e. an entire section devoted to his switching from naming his paintings to numbering his paintings -- which, by the way, contains an UTTERLY unrelated and irrelevant statement regarding a movie about a trucker who may have bought a Pollock at a thrift store for $5). Also, there are no pictures of Pollock; and there are very few (2) of his work, which is a severely lacking representation of him and what he created and is notable for. Personally, I know nothing about Jackson Pollock (which is why I looked for this article in the first place), otherwise I'd do my best to contribute. As it is, this is one piss-poor excuse for an article about a very remarkable 20th century painter (the 20th century distinction is important, because it means that unlike a 3rd century painter there is PLENTY of information readily available about him and his work and his life). It would be wonderful if this could be brought up to Featured Article quality. So is there any person, knowledgeable about Pollock, who is willing to take responsibility for this article? That would be super. Piercetheorganist 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right: this needs to be made a priority project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. I'll get it listed there and see if I can get some editors involved. Freshacconci | Talk 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The first image in the article has the following caption: Controversy swirls over the alleged sale of No. 5, 1948 in 2006 for a reported $140 million That statement should be referenced, or a different caption written -- Seaphoto ^Talk 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pollack's supposed influence by Native American sand painting is insubstantial and misleading. While Pollack was exposed to Native American art, he nevertheless denied it had any influence on his work. The only similarity is that they both were painted flat on the ground, beyond that there is no further similarity. My argument is that Pollack's association to Native American sand painting is so insignificant that it should not be mentioned as a serious influence. And it is somewhat misleading in that it implies Pollack understood the deeper and sacred meaning of Native American Indian rituals and brought them forward into his art. But neither his art, nor his life appeared to support that assumption. Patrick Howe ( talk) 01:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.