Your top 3 artists/groups

>Your top 3 artists/groups
>Your opinion of Jackson Pollock's later work

I want to test a theory.

lil peep
lil xan
yung lean

idc

>The Novembers
>Hank Mobley
>Television
The entire point of Jackson Pollock's work isn't what he's painting but how he's painting it - it's effectively a variation of performance art where we don't see the peformance, only the result. The movements for it have meaning, but the entire thing does not. And it applies to the whole screen rather than a focal point. I find it very interesting, though if we're talking about art I'll always be more of an impressionism dude.

All of jackson pollocks work is garbage

>Massive Attack
>XTC
>Burial
Everything to be said about Pollock has already been said. One of the most important artists of the 20th century.

Stockhausen
Coil
Neutral Milk Hotel

Its fine. I like its use on Ornette Colemans album and the Stone Roses.

Only liberals like this shit. Its literally not art.

Depeche Mode
Julia Holter
Scott Walker

Is Mural a later work? I like that one, otherwise prefer Morris Louis.

>every negative comment doesn't list their favorite artists
>every positive comment lists their favorite artists

follow the fucking formula faggots

>Adriano Celantano
>Ennio Morricone
>Andrea Bocelli

it's looks-a pretty cool imo

worthless. I literally could make something better in 4 minutes

leftists ruined art as well as western civilization.

Godspeed
Bark Psychosis
Tortoise
I'd call him a talented hack. His work is very aesthetically appealing and he's a genius when it comes to color and light balance, but I've always believed that an artist (of any kind) should be at least competent in more than just one field. If you're a painter it doesn't look good to do the exact same thing (in the exact same style no less) for your entire career. I think he hit a niche (abstract expressionism) just as it was taking off and was able to profit tremendously off it, which I respect. I just don't consider him a "great artist" like I do Michelangelo.
It led directly to stupid shit like postminimalism and """modern art""" so I'm obligated to say it would be better if it never existed.

I'm detecting something of a pattern, though on the other hand, had actual, valid criticism of Pollock and actually listed his favorite artists.

this thread is irrelevant and your theory sounds dumb so that's why im not gonna bother posting my top artists

I'm not the OP, dude.

theory is still stupid though

my son could make this

>King Crimson
>Slint
>Neurosis

>Pollock's later work
It's cool.

velvet underground
the stooges
lil b

art is art is art

Its terrible. This is what happens when you give a leftist a paint brush.

Real art ended after the 1800s

Death Grips
GYBE
Miles Davis

I think his style is really creative and is very fun to look at.

>Pink Floyd
>Peter Brotzmann
>Anthony Braxton

It looks nice. Although I don't know much about art, I'm sure Pollock was well versed in art/color theory (if that's a thing, again, not sure), but the splatter painting was his only forte, and after a few dozen paintings, its just milking the same modern gimmick that led way to a huge devolution in art. My dad always compared the free jazz music that I've liked for years to a Jackson Pollock painting, and I understand that. I went to a contemporary art museum the other day, and after staring for hours, I said to my girlfriend, "sometimes I put myself on a pedestal when people don't understand modern improvisational music. This stuff, I admit, I just don't get it."

Pollock was quite right wing, actually.

>itt butthurt righties who cant delineate from postmodern art and philosophical postmodernism

>Real art ended after the 1800s
finally

>I literally could make something better in 4 minutes
You couldn't
It doesn't take as much skill as something like an Italian renaissance piece, but the post-war expressionists still paid great attention to balancing the colors and moods of their paintings, formless and autistic as they were. Any normie trying to recreate something thinking it's so easy will end up making a mess with no sense of composition. It's only after the 50s that composition went out the window.
>leftists ruined art as well as western civilization
Agree with this
Remember though- The "modern art" everyone hates is just a money laundering racket. (((Connoisseurs))) don't pay $50 million for some green paint and shit splattered on a canvas because they think it's good looking.
Hate the game, not the players.

Idoli
Descendents
Talking Heads

In my opinion there is some brilliancy in his work,though the average person who criticizies him doesn't don't understand post-modernism,there at least is some substance (very little though) in what they are saying and that is that the final product isn't anything impressing visually but very much technically,but that begs the question; What even is art? What do you qualifiy as art? Well to me art is catharsis and Pollock's later work is that exactly. It brings up emotions such as anxiety,stress and just the general daily craziness of this world we live in

>Real art ended after the 1800s

I can't help but just grin and chuckle whilst reading this

great post user

Red House Painters
Elliott Smith
Gybe

Too many people get caught up in the whole 'I don't get it' type shit. There's not always something to get you moron. You either like it or you don't.

Personally I respect how important Pollock was and I like some of his art but personally I don't care for it hugely, then again I've never been huge into painting - I prefer artists like Bas Jan Ader, Jonas Mekas, Beuys,

And yet you could have picked literally any other pre-1800 painter to demonstrate your point, but you picked an hudson river amerimutt who painted proto-Kinkadean kitsch, good job.

>David Bowie
>Lou Reed
>idk, maybe James Blake or Brian Eno

>it's alright I guess, not really an artfag

>every artist I don't like is a leftist, even if they definitely weren't a leftist
Sup Forums cucks need to leave

Too bad right-wingers are artistically illiterate.

Uhhh... even if Pollock did not exist, there would be someone else that would spark the creation of so called "modern art".

Besides, he was minding his own business, it was everyone else that was bothering him to show his paintings.

why are all the people calling him a leftist hack 1) not listing their favorite musicians 2) not realizing pollock had no (at least overt) left-wing views

are Sup Forumstards who don't even listen to music invading this thread?

(You)

Bach
Coltrane
Faust

Jackson Pollock was a genius

Elliott Smith, Dinosaur Jr, Built to Spill

Love Pollock. Actually I’m big into abstract expressionism.

>kendrick
>photek
>electric wizard

>who?

strokes
kendrick lamar
Carl brave X franco 126 (italian shit)

indifferent, i can see it looking good as a decoration in a modern house, but i feel nothing looking at it

>your opinion of Jackson Pollock's later work
>I find it very interesting
really dude

that painting was purchased by an Australian lefty prime minister using taxpayer dollars for $3 mil in the 1970s. it caused a huge uproar at the time, but now the painting's worth in excess of $300 mil, so Australians don't care as much, but some conservatives still want to sell it to help clear the national debt lol

It's less about them being illiterate and more about them not understanding that art actually has utility. Right-wingers usually are utility maximizers by personality.

I'm confused, what's that supposed to mean? Sarcasm?

slint
swans
joy division

it's pretty good

It's ironic in the sense that I find his later work pretty and I wouldn't be able to say much more.
But basically your opinion on the matter is literally "I find it very interesting" and nothing else.
What's stated before is a short rewording of what the dictionary says about Pollock probably, ie. the way he presented himself so I'm going to consider it not an opinion. What's stated afterwards is a preview of your artistic preferences in general. Not that there's anything wrong with icing on the cake of course.
Here, let me try to state an opinion on Jackson Pollock's later work that isn't the most bland opinion possibly communicable on the subject of a work of art, but maybe the third blandest.
Pollock is the Magma of visual art in that he hit a much-needed gimmicky niche and brooded over it. Also I like it very much. I find it's varied in its own way like Boccioni's work, both artists with anchors into reality of a different nature but due to Pollock's bed of variation being more abstracted it's fundamentally more samey. (Boccioni's "anchor in reality", or "bed of variation" is volume)

>Ravel/Igorrr/Magma/Ozric Tentacles

*I find it's varied in its own way like Boccioni's work, both artists with anchors into reality of a different nature but due to Pollock's bed of variation being more abstracted his is fundamentally more samey.
>gotta proofread

>pink floyd
>swans
>john coltrane
They look interesting and make me think of what art is and what he's trying to show in his paintings, or if he's even trying to show something in his paintings. That's what good art is supposed to do, make you think while being interesting or emotive

lately i've been on a super eurobeat binge and honestly i don't understand visual art at all

EH HACK

King Crimson
Rush
Jimi Hendrix

I don't really like it but whatever

What literally is art?

Oh, ok. I've always looked into Pollock with an eye for "what were his movements going into this" rather than anything else. What I see in his work is something of a patterned chaos, if you will - sure, it's an incomprehensible mess but there are still repeating things to try and make sense of them. Kinda like modern life - there's too much stuff always going on in many unpredictable ways, but there are still similar patterns you can find. I think he's got a very distinctive style no doubt and his aim was to try and create this gigantic mess. Can't really compare him to any music artists, I don't think there's any that really break from what we consider the structure of a painting to focus on the inherent parts of what makes a painting (the "strokes", the colors, that sort of stuff), though I can see him being analogous to, say, Steve Reich.

Pollock's ratios, patterns, and colors mostly don't reflect anything real but somehow have a very abstract sensibility to them. They're chaotic but cohesive. Lots of scientists claim his drip work is similar to patterns found in nature, especially fractal patterns, and that those patterns seem to be inherently pleasing to the human mind.

But on top of the physical style of the paintings, they also represent "art for art's sake" better than most anything else out there. It's made purely for the aesthetic, with no attempt at a layered message or meaning. The fact that it's so pleasing to look at on the face of it while not trying to barrel you over the head with some postmodern ideology makes him one of the greatest artists of his century.

I'm also a big fan of Steve Reich and I agree with that analogy.

you're a moron