I would not rate an indistinguishable copy of your Rembrandt as high as the original, simply because the original idea was Rembrandt's. But if you could make an original painting in the style of Rembrandt so well that an expert could not distinguish it from a Rembrandt (except by scientific means of course) then you certainly deserve as much credit.

I contend that that is rather easy to do with Pollock's style, hence its lack of value as art.

I disagree. I may receive credit for being an expert forgerer, which I suppose is fine. I'll take my fame where I can get it. Nor do I think it's easier to reproduce a Pollock. Again, not every Pollock has the same worth. Let's say experts can produce a forgery of almost anything; does that mean all art lacks value?

Certainly, I can easily reproduce Hamlet. Hell, all I need do is retype the damn thing. Does that mean Shakespeare's play lacks value as art? Perhaps, though, this is a poor analogy.

Also, you contend that since Pollock's style is easy to imitate (begging the question here since this hasn't been proved) it lacks value as art. I could say that since his paintings have sold for millions of dollars that proves they have value as art. I'm not sure, though, many would accept my last argument.

"You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!"



Sorry; this is just what I think of every time I see one of these paintings.

I really don't care to talk about art but I will say, as an artist, I feel abstract art is some of the most over priced garbage. I'm kinda smitten that artists get away with charging thousands of dollars for paintings that resemble something my 3 year old cousin did with his fingers...

/rant

Subjectively speaking, no art lacks value. People can attach whatever value they want to it. However, we are trying to find an means to objectively value art. Now, maybe you don't think there is any objective value to beauty, and a Pollock and Rembrandt are of similar value. But if that is the case, then why would the overwhelming majority of men sleep with Jessica Simpson rather than Whoopi Goldberg if given the choice between the two? Certainly, there must be some objective standard of beauty, hence objective value to art.

Subjectively speaking, no art lacks value. People can attach whatever value they want to it. However, we are trying to find an means to objectively value art. Now, maybe you don't think there is any objective value to beauty, and a Pollock and Rembrandt are of similar value. But if that is the case, then why would the overwhelming majority of men sleep with Jessica Simpson rather than Whoopi Goldberg if given the choice between the two? Certainly, there must be some objective standard of beauty, hence objective value of art.

I'm not sure I'd want to sleep with either Whoopi Goldberg or Jessica Simpson.

In a way, I have been arguing for criteria rather than utter subjectivity; hence, I posted a link to Fried's article in which he discriminates among Pollock's work. Of course it would be crazy to think that the same standards apply to Rembrandt and Pollock.

But, I do not think there is any Platonic ideal for beauty. I might find both Rembrandt and Pollock's work beautiful although I know they are not beautiful in the same way. "Beauty" is only one criteria by which any art is judged.

Let's take one example we both know. In Bresson's Au Hassard, Balthazar, the donkey is taken to a zoo. Bresson cuts back and forth from the donkey to the other animals. I find this one of the most moving scenes in any film I've seen. I would be willing to bet that most people would find this scene laughable. I do not care how many people tell me the scene or the movie is stupid; they're wrong. Is it a matter of subjectivity? No. They're wrong. They may not like it, and I can't make them. But they're still wrong.

Nicely said. However, don't hold anything against a fellow civilized human if they are wrong, especially something so trivial as Balthazar and his donkey, at least, not any more than I would be about someone's interpretation of Balaam’s Ass (Numbers Chapter 22).

But didn't this same type of thread (abstract art; J. Pollock etc) occur about one year ago? I spewed out my opinion then on that trailer trash artist Sandro Botticelli and his saloon painting dubbed "The Birth of Venus".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bir...s_(Botticelli)


-Zeno

In critic circles, there is a term called "intentional fallacy."

Any kind of background information is relevant provided it aids that perception. If we permit the producing process rather than the work of art itself to be the basis of our judgment, we are led away from, rather into the work. This destroys the usefulness of criticism.

-- The Humanities Through the Arts.

I'm sure John could also give persuasive reasons for liking that scene with the donkey, thus proving its value to us. Can it be done with a Pollock painting to that extent?

Pollock's style can be summarized like this: tack a canvas to a floor, drip and mold paint onto it using unconventional objects like a knife, and try not to think about what you are doing. That's all folks.

It's the part about not thinking about what you are doing which makes me cringe. For example, I am going to write a great poem in the style of Jackson Pollock: lakfopah;opj;oapiihlpiajdpuapjd'pauet[paus

Anybody want to buy the rights? I had to suffer greatly before making this masterpiece manifest.

This film is an interesting look at the world of abstract art.

It's all abstract. Didn't pick up a paint brush till he was 30, died when he was 37.