Suckers and Music?

[jochanaan]

This discussion reminds me of a story about Jackson Pollock.  (I know I've posted this before, but it's still a good story. )  A journalist once interviewed Pollock in his studio, and made a comment about the randomness in Pollock's paintings.  Pollock, in good New York City style, growled, "You want random?  I'll show you f***in' random!"  He then swung his brush through the air and deposited a single drop of paint in the center of a doorknob a dozen feet or more away. A convincing demonstration that his artistic choices resulted from "art, not chance." (Alexander Pope)

[Catison]

Pollock was a true visionary.  He said that he was "interested in the rhythms of nature".  He was ahead of his time.  What he meant was that he was trying to understand the forces that give rise to the structures in nature.  Nature produces a lot of random looking things, but there are always some rules to the randomness.  For instance, it is impossible to predict in precisely which way a tree will grow, but a tree always starts with a big trunk, then moves into smaller branches.  The natural forces pushing and pulling the branches to their final destination are what Pollock was after.  So he was really no different than Monet in that he wanted to paint nature.  Monet painted nature itself.  Pollock painted with nature itself.  That difference is what makes Pollock's paintings so rich and interesting.

If you don't believe me, then try to make a Pollock painting yourself and see how hard it is to produce.

[jochanaan]

Pollock was a true visionary.  He said that he was "interested in the rhythms of nature".  He was ahead of his time.  What he meant was that he was trying to understand the forces that give rise to the structures in nature.  Nature produces a lot of random looking things, but there are always some rules to the randomness.  For instance, it is impossible to predict in precisely which way a tree will grow, but a tree always starts with a big trunk, then moves into smaller branches.  The natural forces pushing and pulling the branches to their final destination are what Pollock was after.  So he was really no different than Monet in that he wanted to paint nature.  Monet painted nature itself.  Pollock painted with nature itself.  That difference is what makes Pollock's paintings so rich and interesting.

If you don't believe me, then try to make a Pollock painting yourself and see how hard it is to produce.

Oh, I believe you!  It's hard enough for me to make a "normal"-looking painting! To make something as visionary as Pollock's or Vance Kirkland's would be beyond my poor painting skills.

[sonic1]

If you don't believe me, then try to make a Pollock painting yourself and see how hard it is to produce.

THAT is exactly what I was trying to say.

[Larry Rinkel]

Democritus said value exists only in the mind (didn't I already quote this). What more do we need to know. If someone finds value in something, it has value. While you can scoff at someone buying a tin of excrement, you must understand that there are many people who feel nearly to the same degree somewhere in the world about the very things you value.

An admirably democratic position, yet too relativistic to satisfy me. A tin of excrement vs. a Caravaggio? I can't assent to that, even if you find someone who values the shit more than the painting.