How do you appreciate expressionist art?

[Bonehelm]

The following painting called No.5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, is a work of the abstract expressionism movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance. It might just be a sheet of whatever paper it is painted on...but ladies and gents, this is the most expensive painting ever sold in human history. According to The New York Times, the painting was sold in an auction on november 2nd 2006,to David Martinez, a member of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million USD. Without further delay, let's look at this mesmerizing masterpiece:




I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt 


What do you think?

[Lady Chatterley]

Hey,my four year old grandaughter painted this same picture just yesterday!Except there was more pink!

[Joan]

I don't think reproductions can do justice to his work. A painting this big has a physical presence when experienced in real life. I love the sense of depth in this work. It helps to unfocus your eyes and really lose yourself in it. But I guess it's a "love it or loathe it" kind of thing.
I recall some remark of his, regarding how he derived inspiration from the natural beauty around his home in the Hamptons: "I don't paint how nature looks, I paint how nature makes me feel."

But the price? Omigod, insane.

[Kullervo]

I really dislike Pollock's work. His paintings are ugly dribbles with no regard for form or color. The only reason we are talking about him today is because he rose to fame through succès de scandale, whereas other talented non-objective artists are largely unknown to the public. Take Philip Guston for example. He was an adept draftsman and, in my opinion, struck a balance between form and concept.

[bwv 1080]

I have no clue how to "appreciate" Pollock, but I sure like his painting. 

The form and composition of these paintings is outstanding.  Pollock actually had a very fine control of his technique 



This picture gives an idea of the scale of these paintings, as Joan said, reproductions do not capture the full impact of the original paintings

[Bonehelm]

May I add...these paintings are created by dripping the paint above the canvas..not painted with a brush.

[knight66]

Does the technique matter if the art has impact and meaning to people? Pollock had a sure technique, it was not random or accidental. The paint landed where he intended it to land. I am not over fond of his work, but it is often arresting.

The value placed on it is now more to to with kudos, business and investment than art appreciation. Art is often treated as a futures comodity in much the way of coffee, but more long term. I wonder what the insurance premiums are?

Mike

[mahlertitan]

140 million? not worth it, i'd say 100 million tops.

[Sergeant Rock]

I read this recently: "We all think we can paint like Pollack...but we can't."

I don't know. I go back and forth. Sometimes I think abstract expressionism is the biggest con ever...but then I'll see a painting "live" that will blow me away.

Sarge

[Mozart]

The following painting called No.5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, is a work of the abstract expressionism movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance. It might just be a sheet of whatever paper it is painted on...but ladies and gents, this is the most expensive painting ever sold in human history. According to The New York Times, the painting was sold in an auction on november 2nd 2006,to David Martinez, a member of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million USD. Without further delay, let's look at this mesmerizing masterpiece:




I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt 


What do you think?

I was never good at these, people say if you onfocus your eyes you can see something else but I never have

[BachQ]

$140 million USD.

As of today, I've changed my profession to that of an "abstract expressionist" artist .........

[bhodges]

I was just talking about Pollock with a friend last weekend, when she and I saw some of his work at the Museum of Modern Art.  One of her first comments was, "Oh now I get it.  You really have to see these in person!" and although that's true of pretty much any artist, it's even more so with Pollock.

As Joan and others said, what doesn't come through in reproductions is the size of most of his paintings, which are extremely large, and the texture of the paint, which in many of his works looks to be almost one inch thick.  All that is lost in translation to the printed page.  But when you see them in person, there is something really magical going on.

All that said, $140 million is quite an eye-opener.

--Bruce

[orbital]

I was just talking about Pollock with a friend last weekend, when she and I saw some of his work at the Museum of Modern Art.  One of her first comments was, "Oh now I get it.  You really have to see these in person!" and although that's true of pretty much any artist, it's even more so with Pollock.

As Joan and others said, what doesn't come through in reproductions is the size of most of his paintings, which are extremely large, and the texture of the paint, which in many of his works looks to be almost one inch thick.  All that is lost in translation to the printed page.  But when you see them in person, there is something really magical going on.

--Bruce

That's definitely the case with Pollock. Until you see it in person, the paintings may not mean much.

On the subject of price, any work of art is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It does not have a price tag, but if someone thinks it is worth $140M then it is worth exactly that. I don't see any difference between a modern piece and a Van Gogh, there is nothing inherently worth $100M in a Van Gogh painting either.

[MishaK]

I second bhodges's and bvw's comments about appreciating Pollock. that said, there is just way too much hype about certain things that exist in limited numbers, so price is driven up to absurd levels. It just bears no resemblance to value in any non-monetary sense and only reflects a combination of hype and scarcity. There is no reason why a Pollock shoud cost $140 million (you could by a squadron of used fighter jets for that money), or why a Bugatti Atlantique should cost several million or why Le Bernardin in New York should be charging upwards of $7,000 for a bottle of vintage Bordeaux.

[Que]

Well, I don't know. Of course the price of a Pollock is determined by his iconic status as a key 20th century artist. But is it replacable? No, in fact a Pollock is priceless. In that light, even 140 million does not come close.

Q

[greg]

looks cool to me, though I normally don't get into any art that's that abstract.
At first I thought this thread was about Kandinsky-type expressionism- in response to the question:
"How do you appreciate expressionist art?" I'd say, "Just look at it" 

[bhodges]

And in a related story, Damien Hirst is now the world's most expensive living artist.  Here is the article on Reuters.

--Bruce

[knight66]

Hirst has properties all around us. His home...not a post modern building, but a pretty spectacular old Cotswold manor house, is close by. He has bought one factory at the bottom of the hill, then about two miles away, he has another factory he is wanting to modify/restore, but the local council are being difficult...not sure why. He seems to have more respect for buildings than he has for animals or humans.

Mike

[andy]

As several have said before, you really have to see much art in person to appreciate it.

And yeah, everyone could drizzle paint on a canvas and much abstract art like this, but there's two problems. First, you could do it, but you're not (and really, you couldn't do it with the same technique. It takes skill to achieve interesting patterns and textures in an abstract work, look at Mondrian's work for example). And second, you'd be about 60 years too late to splatter paint on a canvas and call it art. In art, much like music, originality is highly prized. If you want to be a famous artist, you'd better be the first person to do something... or raise the bar on something that's been done before. How many famous composers living today write music in the style of Beethoven?

[greg]

How many famous composers living today write music in the style of Beethoven?

well, there's surely a lot that try to sound like Beethoven but are 4th-rate imitations. None of them are famous, if you don't define putting up your music online as being famous  .