Posted by Cathy on May 27, 2000 at 01:36:07:
if you didn't notice my post down there...i'm reposting it here for easier ascess..:)
His paintings are important... to the art world. But what about to you, Cathy? What makes any art good to you? Does Pollock's work have an effect on you, besides the history of it? Do you appreciate his technique? What else? I mean, what do you feel and think when you look at his paintings?
>>>>>I've gotten the lucky chance twice to veiw his art, once at MOMA for a whole huge exibit on him..and once at the MET..they had 2 of his paintings there. I think personaly they are AMAZEING to look at.. and very overwhelming..its like your being engulfed by the confusion and the web....I used to stare at them for awhile..and i also liked to pick out the objects he dropped in. I loved to watch the videos on him and his technique and i loved the dances he did and movement...the paint being an extention from his hand...diffrent with each color. The internal dynamics reflect onto his canvas...the viscosity of the paint..speed and direction opon hitting the canvas, and interation with the other paint already on it. He aims the paint...instead of carrying it on with a brush as most painters do..he realeases the forces, giving it it's own momentum. He is the source of energy for his paintings...a frenzied psychophysical action. TOTAL COMMITMENT TO THE ACT OF PAINTING.using his whole body. His art was ULTRA emotional...more so than most realistic paintings. this resulted in paintings so ALIVE and sensuously rich...so much so that earlier painting looks pathetic to compare. It shows the continued expansiveness of the creative process.
> Sorry about all the questions, but I want to understand.
> I just don't 'get' what makes good art good. Why is the Mona Lisa so great? To me it is boring. Did the artist ever paint anything else? I mean, is it more the artist's lifestyle than his actual work? (like with Warhol?) It just seems to me that if an important art critic says something is worthy, then it is. Is it really like that?
>>>>>>>>>I chould write you an essay on what makes good art good...since i spend a week learning about it. I think i made a post of the fourboard once about it. DaVinchi did do alot besides the Mona Lisa (the reason why it is so famous is because its one of the most recognized) This painting has been singled out for being so mysterious...idealized features. The smile is an echo of momentary moods, and a timeless symbolical expression..maternalness essence of woman...and I love all his work too. You have to take into consideration the times people lived in and also advances being made in art. I mean now compared to all this interesting high tech stuff we do now the Mona Lisa seems pretty lame...but then your not puting it into perspective with the time. ANYWAY...Andy Warhol's work meaning to shock people went more further than the meaning of his work though there is some there (for instance..his "Gold Marilyn Monroe" she represents the modernday maddona. The color of her...and the relationship to as being like a sleazy magizine reproduction, shows how she has been reduced to to a cheap commodity). I particularly don't like his work...(yes i don't like some art). And Art Critics do hate things...sometimes that fuels the fire. Sometimes the lifestyle does come into great effect with the artist. Like i have said with DaDa...to most people it may seem pointless...i mean.."you call buying an object and placing it in a museum art??" or "what is the deal with the huge spoon and cherry?"
point being is for questioning the role of art...Pollock had done that..and represented the time he lived in as well. Stuart Davis's work is with relation and meaning...the epitome of america and the jazz he loved. Marc Chagall's work (god i love him)is bringing out his Jewish culture that he loved and was raised on. And Maplethorpe's photo's are sometimes in relation to his lifestyle..which is him being gay. Picasso's work much of the time is chock full of political messages. O'Keefe's sometimes pertaining to womanhood and sexuality. Gorky's work...though his life was short..developed a personal mythology..forms representing private symbols...and his own pain weaved inside. Kiefer's work confronts moral issues from Nazism..though he was born in 1945! alot of his work show ths catostraphy of WW2 ("To the Unknown Painter payed homage to all the artists whose works of art were destroyed by the Nazis)George Segal's work showed the patheticness of humans as ghost like faceless figures..often as they appear everyday anyway metaphoricaly. Nevelson's work branched from her childhood days collecting junk on the beach with her father...her sculptures dream like and asthetically perfect... in itself a metapor of thought and experience...orginazation was logically done but in it's entirey her works remain as a monument to her imagination.
I can go on and on but i'll stop myself
> By the way, are you a Sensor?
though some people like changing my MBTI type for me...*AHEM...you know who you are...(glares) I prefer to think of myself as a sensor and intuitive...and in accordance with art...the asthetic veiwpoint is just as important (if not less so) than the meaning (hidden or not) behind everything