While quite amusing to read such unfortunate accidents, I was wondering how a value is placed on a particular piece of art.
I understand these works of arts are hundreds of years old, and perhaps a catalyst to a particular art movement; but, is it the artist that places such a value on these pieces? Is it the current owner of the painting or those people who want to bid on the work of art?
There are some artist's whose works I never got around to understand.
- Mark Rothko
- Jackson Pollock
- Ad Reinhardt (specifically "Black Painting")
This is just to name a few.
I recall sitting in my art history lectures studying paintings by such artists. Now, perhaps it's my ambivalence towards this genre of art, but I never understood why these were such fascinating artworks. Sure, there is a ton of meaning attached to each painting, but is that all it takes? A simple painting with an elaborate meaning attached to it?
Take all I say after this with a grain of salt, please.
I remember when I was in kindergarten, I played with paint in my art class. I splashed different colors onto the canvas using the flick of my wrist and unknowingly, I was following in the footsteps of Jackson Pollock. I do think I painted several boxes on a canvas as well. There goes Mark Rothko. Could this have marked a legendary career in art for me?
Honestly, I don't understand it. Does everyone in the art school find this as fascinating as the professors.. profess? What am I missing here? Can I dig up my old paintings from elementary school and receive the same praise as these famous artists?
Please, someone enlighten me.
I feel like Pollock et al benefitted from a "right place, right time" situation. Did you take Wallace's Contemporary Art Survey course? She explains in great detail a lot of what was going on that converged to allow this kind of art to gain popularity at that particular time in history.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm fascinated by the biographies of the modern artists, their ideas about art, and the processes by which they created their works, I still find it a little mind-boggling that these paintings sell for so many thousands of dollars. Modern art reacted against the history of fine painting by attempting to break the "rules" and redefine what Art is. This sort of thing happens so often now that it's become passe to even try to argue what's art & what isn't... process or product? Idea or object? (Sometimes I think art is whatever results when the viewer agrees with the artist's statement. And purchases it.)
Pollock specifically benefitted from the whole Super-Masculine Great American Explorer stereotype/ideal, which was very appealing during a time when most people were feeling a sense of postwar alienation & wondering about the point of art (or anything, for that matter). It was Pollock's IMAGE (as expressed in the now-famous photographs of him at work) that catapulted him into fame: this idea of a tortured man slaving away in a barn, contemplating the deep mysteries of the universe, and aggressively expressing his journey of torment via splatter paintings. Amusingly (to me), all this was thrown out the window when people like Jasper Johns started making paintings that appeared to be "expressive" but were actually about nothing in particular (except to state the case that so-called "expressive" artwork can be mimicked by utilizing specific types of brushstrokes that we happen to perceive as expressive/emotive)
I find it interesting that art school teaches us to place a lot of importance on crafting a good artist's statement. Sometimes I feel like one could create any sort of half-assed work of art and gain credibility (and sell it), as long as one has a deep, serious, and articulate statement to back it up. Personally I tend to gravitate towards artwork that elicits an intense emotional or intellectually thought-provoking reaction in me. Sometimes this means that I end up liking things that many would call cliche, and disliking things that are well-praised but don't really do anything for me. It really aggravates me that I can't just "like" a piece of art for personal reasons--like in critiques, we have to explain what makes a piece "successful" or "unsuccessful," regardless of our personal opinions. Maybe I'm old-fashioned or not academically-inclined enough, but I really just tend to like things for the way they make me feel, and I really prefer to take pictures of things I find beautiful, and hope that someone else will make a connection.
NO. everyone in art school does not find all these artists as insightful. Jackson Pollock...wow dont even get me started. I never understood why his work was so great either. That's why some of my friends and I started having the Pollock Party. Throwing paint at each other is performance art right?
ReplyDeleteThis sounds very pessimistic and I apologize for that. In my time in art school I feel like I have developed the view that art is being able to convince other people that what you like is worth something. Pollock was somehow able to convince people that throwing paint on a canvas was worth lots of money and endless critique. Rothko painted color spaces on a canvas to create "transcendence" for his viewers (I think that's bullshit). I feel like people just do whatever they want and then convince people of some elaborate meaning behind the black square they painted in 5 minutes onto a canvas.
Because I just expressed my rather pessimistic view about art I will say that I realize this is not always true. I do not think all art is bullshit. ha