Pollock v. Warhol- The Greats

"Greatness", as defined by cultural institutions like the Met, has never really been about an artist's "talent" in terms of skill. (Pollock was a more than competant figurative painter and Warhol was an accomplished commercial illustrator, but I just said that's not particularly important.) "Greatness" is defined by an artist's contributions to the historical development of art, an artist's insight in to his historical situation, how the work responds to the past and the influence it has on future generations.

This is more or less where everyone seems to be going with the "signifigance" of Pollock and Warhol.

I find Warhol to be far more brilliant and inspirational than Pollock, but that's because his work isn't "personal" in that soul-searching way. There is no emotional truth to be uncovered within the depths of our souls; there is only surface.

It's quite liberating.

Of course I find old art incredibly boring. I'm going to go listen to Stereo Total cover a Velvet Underground song, while thinking I'm way more hip than you lot. :wink:

Welcome to A2K, oh hip one.

Yes, indeed, welcome in the highest oh hippest one. Your points are well taken. I do not, however, go along--for personal and perhaps indefensible reasons--with your extreme relativism. I DO distinguish between recreational music and art music. While I LOVE Louis Armstrong and Ray Charles, and find little of spiritual or emotional substance in the cleverness of John Cage and Duchamp, I find that in general art music and painting are far "superior" to commercially motivated tunes, performances and pictures designed to do no more than titilate us and consume our wallets. I do believe that ART taps our deepest capacities and needs, WHEN we are prepared to receive it. It takes a certain "cultivation" of the individual to be able to benefit from artistic creation, either as a creator or as an appreciator. That is not elitism; it is a clinical fact of life.

Some of Lucien Freud's representational stuff is pretty startling, too.

I'd say that every artist working since the '60s has been influenced by Warhol in one way or another.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shallow". Certainly a lot of his work lacks emotional depth, and sometimes it's not much to look at, but it's the idea that's important, and his ideas are quite complex. Warhol, Cage, and Duchamp don't necessarily care about emotional substance. That's why I like their work and that's a good part of the reason why it's important.

I'm not so much about relativism as I am understanding art in a more objective way than personal taste.

Unfortunately, unless you are lucky enough to see an exhibition of Pollock you may just see a few of his actual paintings in your local art museum. Unlike music, which is available to everybody via recordings or radio broadcasts, painting are available only through visiting museums throughout the world. Of course Google provides a 12" version onscreen.

I do recommend watching the movie "Pollock" to get a feeling of the evolution of this artist.

Pollock seems to be a successor of Picasso, at least in his earlier works. He is most famous for his "drip" paintings. Some of these seem too "thick" in content, but this is just my personal feeling. I also dislike much of Brahms' orchestration because of its "thickness."
Here is one of Pollock's "thinner" works:

Nice point, Coluber. I agree about Pollock's earlier work and prefer this "thinner" work (a new one for me). But I love the "thickness" (i.e., relative density) of Brahms' orchestrations.

Pollock is more related musically to Schoenberg than any other composer. He mastered color and there is a definite visual rhythm that no other painter has other captured. If one doesn't "understand" Warhol's depiction of the banal, everyday supermarket imagery or Pollock's exciting action paintings, they need an education in appreciating great art.

Schoenberg, makes sense.


Glight, or any other posters, someone is asking for help in identifying a painting - not so much identifying it, but even what possible place to look (a strange painting, but still, it might be from the purported time period and be an interesting, to the poster, artifact) I'll be back with a link.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56394

LW, are Warhol's "depictions of the banal, everyday supermarket imagery" examples of GREAT ART?

Yes. Every bit as much, I think, as depictions of everyday life such as Van Gogh's "The Potato Eaters." Warhol understood how much effort went into the design of the Campbell Soup label and that it's a classic of American commercial packaging art. Those cans all in a row on the shelves, albeit containing a product with much to much salt in it, across the supermarket shelf makes a statement. He was a very creative person and one has to recognize that he pioneered this kind of imagery. The scale was as imporant as with abstract expressionist paintings. The first soup cans were enormous paintings, some from floor to ceiling. I always liked the one with the label peeling off, exposing the glue and cheap tin underneath which looked distinctly unappetizing.

I see.

I find your view of art incredibly alien and incredibly narrow!

Painting is a language, a means of expression and has a rich vocabulary of marks and colour and methods. There is a wide range of use of the language, all valid.

Art without emotion is, to me, sterile and shallow with little depth and no lasting qualities. To limit the vocabulary is to limit art to the level of pulp fiction rather than great novels.

I don't mean the silly overblown emotion of some art 'quivering sensibility' was the phrase one of my fine art tutors used to describe it in an essay on painterliness, I thought it was a great way of describing it.

What comes through is a passion for something - the rhythm and colour and spatial sense of Pollock is emotional.

A good painting evokes an emotional response - that hair standing up on your neck feeling.

I totally disagree that Warhol has influenced all artists! I'd say very few. Outside the US he's certainly not a major historical painter, well known for Marilyn and soup cans is all. I know of noone who has been influenced by him in the lively contemporary art scene here or amongst friends and colleagues. To claim that all artists have been influenced by him is a sweeping statement with no evidence to back it up!

you don't like 'old art' - another sweeping statement. It sort of brings to mind the saying 'those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of history' - or go on reinventing the wheel.

Do you paint yourself or are you purely a theorist? I can't say art historian as you dismiss art history!

There is a Polllack film on TV next week.I know more of Warhol so the film may be an interesting comaparison.

Careful, Vivien. You're contradicting the hippest of the hip.

Warhol became what he was parodying as his late limited edition prints were actually printed by Rupert Jason Smith. In the desire to make his art available to the lay collector, he diluted the impact of his imagery. There are a few of these prints like the Chairman Mao and Electric Chair that are worthy but most of the portrait stuff is more decorative than collectable.

I actually am a painter myself. My flip statements are not meant as a dismissal of Art History. I care about Art History very much. I simply don't to be mired in an uncritcal love of a past which may have actually been something else.

Arists like Gerhardt Richter and Takashi Murakami, who are not Americans, are involved in dialogs with Warhol. (And what about some one like David Bowie, not a "fine" artist as such but certainly a cultural figure worth some note.)

I applogize for my sweeping statements, but I've got to go back to work now.

Oh, a little subjective generalization never really hurt anybody. We've had this discussion before -- one can look at reproductions of Warhol and get a satisfactory impression of the art. Pollock, not so. The scale is important with Warhol in many instances, like the oversized Campbell Soup cans but with Pollock a small reproduction is going to be wan and ineffective at conveying what the artist actually painted. The really emense canvases are breathtaking with forms and shapes darting across the canvas, and with a real three dimensional tactile surface that defies description. I once stated that a Pollock almost looked like one could walk up to it, stick their hand into the canvas and come out with multi-colored paint all over their hand. The "floating effect" of the tactile surface is nearly completely lost in a reproduction. It's truly action painting and it can only be perfected once. Anybody trying to duplicate Pollock's technique will only be a faux Pollock.