• CommCat [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      no matter how highly educated some art critic is, they are not gonna convince me that Pollock's art pieces are anything but dribble. For those who don't know, the CIA's cold war playbook against Socialist Realism was to promote artists like Pollock:

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

      -yeah every once in a while, there is a news story about a dribble art piece found in a yard sale, if it's a genuine Pollock, it's worth millions, if it's some preschooler's dribble, it's worthless lol.

        • tim [he/him,they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          The important part is that working class people tend to not understand it and art snobs tend to pretend to understand it. Instant status symbol

          • ssjmarx [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            It's wild how angry postmodern stuff makes reactionaries though. Most working class people who don't get it just move on, but it takes a special kind of person to show up to an exhibit with a knife and attack a painting.

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I think Pollock was just doing a bit. Like, he was expressing himself in a clearly uninterpretable way, like dashing random keys while typing. Then, he saw people freak out about how it "wasn't art" but they couldn't explain why it wasn't. Finally, rich snobs spent millions on nonsense they could have made themselves, and pretended to know what it was. Like when Andy Warhol made painting with piss just to get a rise out of people.

          • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            In my opinion, art is anything made to express a feeling or concept. How good it is depends on various factors, but if someone is trying to communicate their feelings or some thought, it is art.