I see your association. Which has merit. But I do believe that Pollack didn't need to print vulgarities on his paintings to get attention. Nor did he use a PC to generate the art. The 2 things Rap / hip hop are doing over and over.
That's why I said your comment had merit. But you have to agree that the christion rap doesn't sell 1/100th the amount that gangster rap sells. right? As for digital I agree. And that's the part I hate the most. Music is created with the instruments. The human touch and the diversity of the artist is what should be appreciated. Typical rap may have 2 solid lines of music that is repeated over and over and over. Along with, if you listen closely a large portion of it is a rip-off from other composers. You'll never convince me that rap is an art. I will agree that it is a product though.
Yes I would consider him an artist. I was in the MOMA about 2 months ago and got to look at "Full Fathom" up and close. You can see that the work was determined, developed and commited to. Although I'm not a big fan of abstract I can appreciate a self made art and not a contrived product.
I am unfamiliar with his works. But I did just now view a few of his under the wikipoedia entry. A bit childish, but actually represents something that has meaning. Pollack's "art" looks like a traffic accident between a paint truck and an canvass truck. It has no meaning nor intent. You've got to be kidding. You consider this determined?... Like I said earlier, it looks like a drop cloth or two that I have laying around my garage.
Wow, thanks to the one person who suggested a place where my daughter can take hip hop classes! I really appreciate it! Also wanted to mention, her last last (before it went ballet) was doing a routine to a "Hannah Montana" song, not rap. Just wanted to throw that out there...carry on!
Be that as it may, it is recognizable as something, rather than simply random squiggles. What phrase is that? Well, like I say, all art is an attempt by the artist to get the viewer to feel the same emotion that the artist was feeling at the time the item was created. Good art achieves it's purpose. There is no emotion in Pollack's "art". Actually it gives me a headache, but that is neither here nor there. Art shouldn't challenge the viewer, it should enlighten the viewer. Of that there is no doubt. However, if it means something completely different than the artist intended, then it is not art and it's creator is not an artist. This we agree on.
Let's see....what could we throw in here in between that they wouldn't even notice. I bet we could have a whole new conversation and they'd still be bickering over .....art :lol::lol:
Actually I think Pollack was trying to make a buck without breaking a sweat, but that, too, is neither here nor there. Be that as it may, confusion is not an emotion, it's the inability to define an emotion.
I saw a movie/bio about Basquiat on Ovation. Great film. Jackson Pollock? ... I'd need to drop acid first. Other than that, most of his work looks like a bipolar's moods on canvas.
Yeah, I mapquested the address to see how far it was from my house. Its only an additional four minutes from my home as it is from the place she is attending now. I think the four minutes would be worth it. Going to sign her up after the holidays.