Discussions
Art and pretentiousness
Posted by Lucyvp • 6/16/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
I've been pondering what makes people think something is good art.
There's an example of what I think is crap and pretentious art in my post at
www.wafflelogue.com/node/130
Do you think the art set resemble the townsfolk in the story 'The Emperor's New Clothes'?
User Comments
-
Yes! I agree 100% with you.
I recently wrote an Offensive on this very subject. It is sad when artists are multimillionaires just from using their own body fluids to create "art". Or when blank canvases pass as "art".
Ugh!-
There is a 'painting' at the gallery I wanted to post but I couldn't find a picture of it or remember who 'painted' it, but it is just a huge blank canvas with a small square painted in the middle of it. I wish I'd thought of that first and spent 5 minutes painting that square to sell it for big bucks to idiots in charge of gallery purchases. Maybe it just takes gumption, no conscience, or a huge ego to be able to do that. I can't even imagine being able to think like that.
-
I know! And who buys this stuff? That's my issue. I mean, if I thought I could projectile vomit onto a canvas and make a few hundred grand, I'd be all for that!
OK, no, I wouldn't because that is just wrong.
-
That's the thing isn't it, you have to be either totally without conscience to profit off a vomited on canvas, or totally batshit crazy if you honestly thought that it was a cool piece of art. If you're not either, it's impossible to do palm off a vomit picture. Which says something about these 'artists',doesn't it?!
-
Ya, Chelle..that was a good/funny post of yours. -
I painted a beautiful scene in the snow last year. I called it "Yellow Dawn.' The Met wasn't interested. -
Haha! Oh lord, you make me laugh, old man.
-
well, let me go blow snot on a canvas, and retire early!!! -
well, rtb, was it blown on the canvas with the intent for it to be art, and is the snot compositionally working on the canvas, and how much snot, and is it green snot or grey, hard or soft, and what statement would you be making other than you didn't have a hanky?
-
-
Now if I had set this up as a piece of installation contemporary modern art I could have made a fortune unfortunately it is just a sign near my house. polybore.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-get-to-lost.html-
Haha! Yet another reason I want to visit Scotland.
-
Yeah, I can see that in a gallery. I want to know what the 'special anti-theft measures' are?!
Did you read about the 'artist' who chained a dog as his exhibit at a gallery and let it starve to death day by day as people came to watch, and that was the 'art' - the slow suffering of this poor creature. What planet are these people from to even think that this could be art? -
Yes! Can you believe that poor dog was considered "art"?!
Ugh.
When I was researching for my post about this topic, I was so sickened by what I saw that I couldn't bring myself to post the actual art pieces, just pictures of these so-called artists.
Those alone were offensive enough to qualify, like Terrence Koh naked, draped in a dead sheep. WTF?!!
I wrote that they all needed to be committed to decrepit old asylums with no windows so they could paint the walls of their cells with their body fluids hehe. -
Can you post a link here to your post. Do you mind if I add the link to the end of my blog?
-
www.offendedblogger.com/2008/05/my-offensive-art-collection-offensive.html
I'd be happy if you added it. I'll gladly link your post when I do my second part to this one. I've been wanting to do a part 2 since I posted it.
-
Okay, added a link at the bottom of the post to your article - thanks for that
-
Awesome!
Oh, and do you want to hear something funny? One of my readers submitted that link to her scrapbooking forum and I have gotten TONS of traffic to that post because of her haha!!
I feel sorry for those poor scrapping ladies.
OK, not really.
-
-
Yes, except that the townsfolk in the story 'The Emperor's New Clothes' recognized the foolishness of their behavior, when the young boy pointed out the facts.
This sort of ersatz art has been around for decades now, the 'art set' still applauds and values garbage. Sometimes literally.
There's a philosophical foundation to this, having to do with a new-and-improved view of what 'art' is. Part of it, as I understand it, is the notion that art must be the expression of the artist's inner being. That's why it's only recently that Norman Rockwell is being recognized as an artist, and not some guy who made magazine covers.
Enough.
Short answer: I agree.
On the up side, the current state of affairs gives us gags like this:
"Why would they hang that in an art museum?"
"They couldn't find the artist."-
There is some abstract art that I totally 'get' or can appreciate. The other stuff just makes you wonder why the artist really bothered in the first place, whether they'd heard about the concept of this kind of stuff, thought it was easy to do and could bring them easy money and fame, and just got it wrong, or went to far. I don't think it has anything to do with what art is really all about, and that is expressing yourself.
-
Lucyvp,
A very real problem for serious artists is that (some) serious visual and auditory art needs training to appreciate.
That leaves the field wide open for people with marketing skills and no bothersome ethics to sell bogus "art" to people with more money then sense.
-
-
art is subjective but it is also whether you become the flavor of the month....one city counsellor here blew up his 5 year old sons school finger painting picture and had it expensively framed and placed in city hall....people actually thought it was done by someone famous and he even got offered a ridiculous amount to sell it....I would rather give a picture away to someone who felt a connection to it than have it hanging in a world famous gallery-
Yeah, if it's really an expression of yourself then money doesn't matter, and having someone admire it because they understand or appreciate what you're trying to say or express is what art should be about.
I prefer traditional and realism art because I can really see that there is an actual talent for wielding the brush and materials and manifesting the image of what's in an artist's mind through that talent, but I also appreciate some abstract stuff if you can see the message in it, or get something from it yourself. Sometimes something is just visually appealing and you don't quite know why you like it.
-
-
I can't believe the parochial thinking I'm reading from such liberal bloggers! The exact same thing was said about Jackson Pollock in the '50's (among others), and no other artist's paintings has sold for more.
Then again, there IS a great deal of regurgitated (Lucyvp started it) wallpaper passed off as modern art. And I do believe graffiti, no matter how you define it, is crap. I guess that's why most of my collection is made up of "old" art, but that's only because I can't afford what's considered good in new art. There's a lot of good art available from young artists that beg to be discovered, and a surprising amount of established works that lie hidden awaiting to be rediscovered.
I adore the art that hangs in museums, but owning original art that ignites your senses and causes your mouth to hang open is better than any drug or alcohol I can think of. -
So you are a fan of Terrence Koh then?
-
That's the thing isn't it - you can't afford 'good art' - what is art if it's been priced out of the average person's budget? It just becomes a commodity, which to me isn't what producing art is all about. To have the opinion that 'good art' is that stuff that is expensive just lends yourself to joining the emperor's townsfolk. My senses are ignited and my mouth hangs open when my children bring home one of their paintings, and it doesn't cost me a thing. You can find yourself admiring art in anything. It's categorising it and comparing it so it has a value and becomes a commodity which I find leads to the pretentiousness.
-
I think what we're seeing here is the start of a rebellion against 'junk art:' stuff like throwing paint at a canvas, then selling the result at a tidy profit.
It's hard to shake the impression that wannabe sophisticates are being fleeced.
I realize that artistic innovations take time to be recognized, but honestly: is all of this 'modern art' art, when you take away the sales pitch? -
Is this a 'rebellion' or do you think people really don't care all that much, and just let the people with too much money buy what they like? I don't really care other than when I see something hanging in the art gallery that I could have painted blindfolded in five minutes, bought with hundreds of thousands of tax dollars which could have gone towards providing for a homeless shelter or medical research.
-
-
Great topic, I too would like to know who dictates the garbage that's out there as art. There was a special on some time ago, where they "pro's" couldn't distinguish from masterpieces to a childs art.. loved it!
Great post, left you a comment ! -
I used to work at an art museum. Here is the answer not my opinion but... Art is a matter of expression. The artist created their work of art based on how they feel happy, sad, etc.
I can honestly say I've seen it all. Like a piece of art work floor to ceiling made out of colored male secretions. I don't know how or why. I'm just happy I didn't have to hang it.-
A work like that you don't hang, you smear. -
There were actual images like buildings and stuff. I guess umm he had too much time on his hands?
-
That's not all he had on his hands.
-
Lol! I don't know what would motivate someone to do that but I would rather see the work Lucy showed on her site any day in comparison.
-
-
I am a fan of all sorts of art, although I never did quite get the artwork of Jackson Pollock. As long as there is something to work with where I can ponder what was in the artist's head when he/she created it, I enjoy it.
-
Even the dead-sheep wearing man on Offended Blogger's post?
-
um...no
-
Hey, I am surrounded by sheep herders here. That guy better stay away from Idaho, that's all I know!
-
-
Offended, my ex has an old school friend who is an established artist in NYC. I looked up some of his art and although most of it is not explicit, there is one of his photos that is extremely explicit and involves him simulating shooting up with heroin since he used to be an addict while...never mind. If you see the photo online, it is usually shown hanging on the wall of a museum being looked at, thus you are not able to make it out in great detail.
-
See, and that probably wouldn't bother me a bit. I am not against art if it has a deep social meaning, but a naked guy wearing a dead sheep and painting self portraits with his own body fluids just somehow doesn't strike me as "art".
It strikes me as worthy of a lifetime of electroshock therapy.
-
Agreed.
-
I'd be happy to administer the electroshock even. I'd charge a fortune and call it performance art.
-
As I said glad I didn't have to touch it. That would require 5 pairs of dish gloves and an Iron Man suit.
-
-
The fact of the matter is Art is a very complex subject.
If you look at the history of art into the modern age then you'll develop an appreciation.
Anybody can learn technique...So to me, a great artist is somebody who can challenge my way of thinking or challenge the very notion of what is - Or else is motivated by the shear sensuality of the medium or driven by emotional neccessity for expression.
I can buy a pretty painting for a fifty dollars but that doesnt make it art.-
I'd be happy if all artists were just like Monet.
He is my very favorite. -
See, I would say that words should make you think and challenge you, but art should appeal to you and resonate with you as you connect to it, which means that you'd have to identify with it somehow, emotionally or visually. I'm no art expert though!
-
I like monet - a little fuzzy but I think he was going blind.
I went to IU's Herron school of art so I'm rather desensitized to controversy - it seems funny that paint on canvass still gets questioned when we have
sh-t in a can. A man who crucified him self. A seven million dollar sculture that has to be kept refrigerated because it is made out of frozen blood. Mummified sharks, and mile wide islands wrapped in plastic. -
Oh yeah the sculpture melted - I just remembered reading about it in Artnews a year or two ago. That poor collector.
-
Ugh, so you are telling me there are bigger fish -er- weirdos to fry??
Haha, get it, electroshock as performance art?
Meh. Nevermind. -
absolutely - you want names?
-
check these people out for greater inspirations
Tracy emin
Damien hirst
Christo and Jeanne-Claude
Charles Ray
Cindy Sherman
Christopher Wool
Rebecca Horn
Mark Quinn
Piero Manzoni
Stuart Brisley -
I don't think anybody has to be an art expert to state what they feel resonates or why they like or don't like something. What I respectfully disagree with is the shoulds placed on how or what an artist creates. Many artists don't create FOR the public, they create from an inner need to express themselves visually. That they are able or lucky enough to support themselves with their art is the icing on the cake. Much of the more abstract work, conceptual work is misunderstood and dismissed but the fact that they created it with intent for it to be art and make a personal statement that is of value.
Some people don't connect to the same art, but does that mean their work is any less valid? Some people hate my work, some people love it (I have no problem with people NOT liking my work), but in the end irregardless of what the world thinks I HAVE to create. -
I didn’t take the post as a serious cultural critique. It was light hearted even if honest – but any position that’s against something invites reaction. My reaction is to educate and demonstrate that the academic world and the art world sanction a much controversial concept of art than abstractions. I’m sure Manzoni will be laughing in his grave while ChelleB complains how his canned poop is selling for 80,000 dollars a can.
-
yea! I hear you Kevin. My that is a lot of dosh for a bit of poop in a can huh!. I was thinking of covering a poo with diamonds a la Hirst, but I couldn't afford the diamonds, the poo was free though.
-
-
I find that painting kind of interesting. His style looks like he may have been influenced by artist Paul Klee. I'd rather have something like that than a photo-realistic painting. -
Great article, I love it :-D
I have a commssion to do at the moment, it would probably knock about 20 hours off it if I went for something like that though, LOL...do you think I could convince the owner that "it really is your dog" hahaha - I don't think so somehow...
Another good one is go and have a read at what some of the "art critiques" write...some of that can be quite humourous ;-)-
Chrissy, I can just imagine what the art critiques write. We have two movie critics who consider themselves arty farty, and the tripe they go on about when they're critiquing a movie is so over the top and pretentious.
-
Well I can't stand artsy fartsy types, or elitist snots who decide how artists should and shouldn't express themselves and dismiss those who don't do the kind of work they like.
-
Good thing we're all allowed our own opinion eh Even us elitist snobs!
-
I wasn't really referring to you Lucy, I was speaking in general. I am like you in that I am glad we are free to express our opinion, like or dislike as we see fit, and create what we want
-
-
I did an art post about a month ago. It compared 2 works. One by my starving artist friend, and the other by my goofy friend who made a parody copy of her work.
It's pretty funny.
crotchety-old-man-yells-at-cars.blogspot.com/2008/05/art-of-parody.html-
Wow, that drawing by Artistic is amazing, and the parody is brilliant - so simple after the intricacy of the drawing.
-
I'll let her know you liked it. She won a bunch of awards for it. It's based upon a famous photo, and is nearly impossible to tell one from the other without seeing them in person.
The parody never won anything, but it does make everyone laugh, especially Arti.
-
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and while some may think it crap others enjoy it, love it. The Fauves (impressionists) work was spit on and claimed as crap, so was Caravaggio's paintings and many others whose work is now appreciated. Sure a kid can do a lovely scribble but those are often happy accidents and it still takes a discerning eye to showcase it as a work of art. Some of you may not like what an artist has done but that doesn't mean it is not a piece of art, just not YOUR kind of art.
I would challenge anyone who thinks they can just do an abstract to come up with an original of their own that works aesthetically, and compositionally.
Thank heavens though that artists are not limited on how they choose to express themselves, otherwise we would all be stuck painting pretty little chocolate box pictures, or so called acceptable subjects and images. YIKES!-
Absolutely -
My favorite contemporary is an artist named caio fonseca.
Most people look at his work and say there is nothing to it. But I can't help being taken by it's absolute simplicity and sensuality. -
Whoa -- strawman! I wouldn't object if my tax dollars weren't funding it.
Truly "courageous" artists wouldn't be working on the dole. -
yep. sometimes I wonder about the funding, but if we got to pick and choose what it should be spent on what sort of art would we actually have? Would it be limited to what is comfortable, what is accepted, what! People's tastes are so subjective. Are we supporting innovation, exploration, the arts or just the comfortable academic arts?
-
-
My favorite example of the art world snobbery has to be Piero Manzoni's work Merde d'artiste arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2101617,00.html. Basically it comes down to Manzoni's thought that once he became a rich and well-known artist that there were people(snobs) in the Art World that would buy any sh*t he made as long as it had his name on it as the artist. So he did and people _actually bought them_. I think his canned artist's poop series proved his point very nicely.-
well, and I can't resist this, you and I may think his art is shite, but it's his crap and he created his crap with the intent for it to be art. If others think his crap is art, and want to buy it, so be it, it's art, just not good art (to you or me or several others). Unfortunately art snobs exist in many genre's and groups and are a big pain in the bum.
As Eleanor Roosevelt Said
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway." -
Jafabrit-- that's a great quote, and can be applied to so much in life. -
And those cans of pooh are a much better investment than you'r typical mutual fund or investment stock.
Hell Charles Saatchi became richer as an art broker than he was as the CEO of the worlds top global ad agency. -
ha ha, you are right about that Kevin.
-
-
Very good. Here's my take on some "artists."
pungeon.blogspot.com/2008/01/081387-les-transgressions-obligatoires.html -
"The Triumph of Gesture over actual meaning, like Saussure gone on a bender, reduces the spectacle to two dimensions [the ontic end-all Self, and the content-less dada Act].
The Heroics of Self are fêted as mere obnoxiousness is touted as a Courageous Act.
Hollow pantomimes replicate like anti-spores drifting off a bandwagon driving in circles."
pungeon.blogspot.com/2006/03/passport-to-infinity-self-revoked.html -
Thank you for this. I claim that I am ignorant to certain types of modern art because I can't appreciate the talent that created it.
Recently, I visited the High Museum of Art in Atlanta; While there I asked a guide, what made the big red spot on the large white canvas art. She replied something like art means different things to different people.
I've got to admit, I don't get it. I feel like once you have more money than you know what to do with -- you can by some modern art, sip wine, and admire the balance, texture, and inspiration of a big dot, but I think it's kind of like the emperor wears no clothes. -
Rob, I saw a painting that was an orange square on a black canvas. If the artist's goal was to make me say WTH, then it was brilliant.
Otherwise--WTH?-
I wonder if that is a rothko you are talking about?
Dang, you know the sad thing is I have looked at something I have done and said WTH! and would you believe others scream and tell me off for wanting to rip it up or throw it away. Ah! such is life! -
I was having fun pretending to be snobby and waxing philosphic about the emptiness the single shape created in me. Some lady leaned over and said she didn't think my sarcasm was funny. There's goes my stand-up career.
-
-
Good topic I agree, a lot of what I see in galleries I just don't get. I took a class on abstract art and gained a bit more insight, and appreciation. But I think it's very subjective. I do like some abstract art thouhgh, usually depending on the colours used. The one you have on your page is kinda cool ... but not to my liking.
I guess for some artists, replicating what they see isn't enough of a challenge, they're trying to paint a feeling, which isn't always pretty, I guess. To be honest, I don't really know, LOL. -
well I have to go and don my beret and waltz to my studio with pontificating pirouettes and get some art work done, so toodle pip for now. Thanks for starting an interesting thread Lucy, it was fun to chat and explore the different points of view.
-
Art is about expression. Expression of the self. As such it is extremely personal and therefore can never be considered NOT ART. One mans crap on canvas is another man's monet!
"THERE ARE NO WRONG ANSWERS IN ART" My old art teacher use to say.
She's dead now. -
I used to agree until I entered into art school, and had to take intensive art history and art studies courses.
What you are responding to is a matter of aesthetics - what you like or don't like, what you would buy or not buy, what you would hang on your wall or toss in the trash. That is all a matter of opinion and has little to do with curation efforts of a museum.
Artists throughout different time periods have used different techniques to make similar points. From the ultra realistic Grecko-Roman periods (mirrored by the renaissance, and neo-classical periods) to the very flat out of proportion styles of the Christian mosaics - to the "primitive" art forms of prehistoric civilizations to impressionists, and modernists, minimalists etc...
Every generation has used different techniques to convey different ideas. From the multi-angled and multi dimensional (including time) representations of Picasso, to the "action" paintings of Pollock etc...
Each modern artist who used these techniques were highly skilled artists and draftsmen in any time period. Able to paint or sculpt in the manner of the masters, they sought to do something different and make people look at artwork differently - as well as looking at everyday objects differently (Warhol).
What you deem "crap" is an accurate representations of a social force and observations of a particular time period. What you deem as "childish" is precisely placed paint or clay or plaster or mixed media by a skilled hand. These splatters (save for "action" paintings) are not happy accidents. The modernist painter or sculptor knows where every drop of paint belongs, and places them with skill and intent, to draw a reaction.
These paintings speak to some people more than realistic works speak to them, just as realistic works speak to others more than modernist works do.
Although the artwork itself deems a bit of academia that does not make it pretentious or pompous.
What you deem a waste of money will only increase it's value over time, and makes the owner of it happy (lest they would not have bought it) whereas other people pay $30K for a junk car that will die in five to ten years and it's value depreciates by half as soon as it rolls of the lot, and often causes more pain than pleasure.
Art is in the eye of the beholder.-
See that is why I claim ignorance. I can accept Anok's eloquent explanantion. I managed to get through my Ph.D. without Art History. I think it's time for me to learn a little more.
-
I would definitely recommend art history and not art appreciation. You'll learn so much more!
Like the fact that representational art make sup a mere fraction of actual artwork styles over the period of recorded history! -
Thanks, I get to audit a class. I think I'll do Art History. I appreciate the advice.
-
I can vouch for Anok. I learned a lot about world cultures from art history classes, much more than regular history classes, which tend to bog down into political and scientific topics (though not as much as political).
As far as questioning the value of a painting, it is really leveraged on the artist's reputation. Which sometimes creates an unfair bias against other artists. When Marcel Duchamp's Fountain was on display and some critics didn't know who it came from, they dismissed the work. When they later learned it was by Duchamp, they started praising it. This sheep-like behavior causes some critics to not even question established artists, and this is what a lot of people don't like about the fine art scene. -
cc I agree that brand name anything tends to run away with praise even if it is crap
There is no doubt in my mind that there is an elitist attitude in the art world, and that bothers me too - but the labeling of an entire body of work (regardless of who the artists are) is just as elitist.
I'm not arguing your point, just throwing in another 2 cents
-
-
You know..the more I learn about you the less the word ANARCHIST seems apt.
-
Er, why?
-
-
Never mind.
-
*confused*
-
-
I guess over here we have a different idea of what an Anarchist is and what Anarchy is.
-
OK. Perhaps explaining on a different thread would be good? (As to not hijack this one). it would be interesting to see what the differences are.
-
-
Anarchy mainly. That'd be the big difference.
-
There are all kinds of Anarchists though. I don't see how offering an opinion on a thread about art has anything to do with Anarchism?
-
-
Some interesting comments by Anok and I do tend to agree most of it. I have spent a considerable amount of time explaining to people as to why I view "impressionism" as being so wonderful...
But, perhaps it all went wrong after that because I bypassed any education in modernism and to this day, it is not my thing. But, there again perhaps no matter how educated you become, you will still have preferences.
So if you go and study art history Robert, I think you should tell us if your tastes change -
@Anok
lol. -
Right back atchya kid
-
-
I think its personal. One person's idea of a masterpiece could be someone else's idea of crap. For me, art is something that displays a talent on the artist's part, although modern art may be as simple as knowing how to place objects and colors in such a way that there is a harmony to them. -
hello sir .............all are nice to know about you and your works for art development..........In India we are also trying to develop high quality tribal and folk art since 1988.......Sanding you a link to see our art works............working as N.G.O we love to share our art with you please tell us about you terms and others How we can do some thing with you.........Thanks a lot
Yogesh
fineartamerica.com/profiles/banaras-art-gallery.html -
hello sir .............all are nice to know about you and your works for art development..........In India we are also trying to develop high quality tribal and folk art since 1988.......Sanding you a link to see our art works............working as N.G.O we love to share our art with you please tell us about you terms and others How we can do some thing with you.........Thanks a lot
Yogesh
fineartamerica.com/profiles/banaras-art-gallery.html -
I agree with ginahomolka, art is an expression of oneself. Critiques of art are intersting to read and sometimes very thought-provoking. But on my part, I appreciate all art, because it's something someone contributed with their own thoughts and feelings. Some art may not be my style, maybe it wouldn't be something I would purchase, I may not even agree with some types of art, but it's still an expression and I can't say someone's expression is unworthy of atleast some kind of praise, if anything just for the acknowledgement that they expressed themselves. -
Art and the way is perceived is always subjective.
Figurative art by D.Peci
danielpeci.blogspot.com/ -
What is pleasing to my eyes, I will consider art. It has to have a certain charm to it, an x factor I guess. And i agree that not everything labeled as 'art' is art. I've seen what some consider 'art' & it looks like plain rubbish to me (excuse my language....).
But that is the liberty every artist takes anyway, they interpret an object however they like. -
Good point... seems to me what is the determining element in a work of art is the idea of the artist. If you don't understand that, then you don't really get it's meaning. Aristotle has this nice phrase "if all realities were works of art, substance (which answers the question what is being as being?) would be the idea of the artist".:P-
Yeah, i agree 100%. And a lot of people get disgruntled because the term itself is used for things that aren't really 'artsy'...they sell/promote everything from nudity to blackboard sketches under the guise of art.
Reminded me of a Murphy Brown episode where a group of people went to an art gallery, they walked into a room (painted white & plain, no decors at all) and when they see nothing, they looked at each other and exclaimed that the white room was the art itself! and they started to applaud...
Ha,ha,ha...that cracked me up real good -
w place
-
-
This is an old thread from last year. It's been dead since November.
-
Fun to read though. I forgot I said that.
-
Is it? oh, well...am just killing my time cause I can't sleep
care to visit my new blog?
fullcircle-kl.blogspot.com
nyt!
-
-
don't mind quality threads being resurrected
lol Kath -
As someone with a minor in Art History and a degree in Architecture, I find most of the comments on this thread to be a little misinformed about modern art.
The blank canvas with a little black square in one corner (mentioned earlier in the thread) is a minimalist work that challenges the notion of positive versus negative space and how our brains work to create objects 3 dimensional objects where there is none.
Jackson Pollock's work (also mentioned earlier) is abstract expressionism that is as much performance art (in the creation of it) as it a painting. For a simplistic introduction to Jackson Pollack, rent the movie. -
Should have said quality subject matter
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
