[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by kid cue

i have to consider Pollock's obtuse methods as an extension of himself because he demonstrated through example that these methods could produce great results. these great results are radical paintings that are incredible visually, emotionally, physically, and intellectually. as an artistic sensibility, i don't see why these horizontal splatter-gestures need to have anything to do with a "worldview".

Like I said above you say tomato I say worldview. YOu argued for "extension of self" as more important than worldview as something the artist communicates. I think i clearly argued that it in't worth the time to argue the differences.

Anyway, are you able to explain his results? Are you able enumerate the qualities and properties of the visual, emotional, physical, and especially intellectual results? And what's your criteria for proving that there's an objective reason for your response? Especially when you agree there's nothing he intends to communicate? This is the sunset thing i mentioned. You can find visual, emotional, physical, intellectual responses from nature. it wasn't intended. intention is the creative spark of art. Without it, its just the audience making shit up.

Originally Posted by kid cue

i only see Pollock's "self" tangentially--in his methods. i don't feel the need to connect his artwork with any concept of who he was as a person, because the work is its own entity. i look at the work and then i stop. i might conjecture as to what kind of person he was, but it seems almost irrelevant to me. he left this work, and this work is what i care about.

tangentially? you just said above that it was a perfect reflection of his methods and thus his results

Originally Posted by kid cue

ultimately, these connections are irrelevant to the bare, physical, visual facts of the paintings themselves.

exactly my point.

i disagree with this 100%. the "meaning" of an abstract expressionist painting is exactly, literally, what the audience sees before them. the extent to which the audience "understands" this relates directly to their visual fluency with the painting medium.

who care's about the painting medium? that's like saying I can throw a bunch of words together and call it a serious exploration in the literary medium, and say its up to the audience's fluency to "get it". Anyway I've always read that the intent of abstract expressionist painters generally and jackson pollock specifically is to make visual the subconsious. IE the inner states of the artist. which means you really should, if you want to know if the artist was successful, know what the inner state of the artist is. which is absurd, meaning art as communication is NOT abstract expressionism.

music is inherently 100% abstract and no one tries to make these arguments, because the emotional effect of sound is more intuitive to most than that of sight.

if any art is 100% inherently abstract then all artforms are. I mean seriously, its all sense data being processed by our brains.

i would probably say the same, except i get the feeling that your understanding of this phenomenon is a lot more right-brained than mine, going on the critique you've spun in this post.

Right brained? wtf? please explain this? Because to me its just reasonable and devoid of elitism. I'm not saying you're being elitist or unreasonable. I am saying that I really can't follow a lot of your arguments because this really doesn't need to be so complicated. Art as communication doesn't seem right brained. It seems common sensical and lacking any elitist notions of fluency.

this is one exact reason i feel Pollock's work is so amazing and successful. as intricate and esoteric as it is, its effect is absolutely clear. it--the paintings themselves, not so much ideas that can be reduced & expressed on paper--is forceful, joyous, conflicted, ambitious, etc etc. IMO any attempt to reduce this to a specific theme or idea would contradict the fundamental notion of art. and again, i don't feel as if i'm letting myself understand something less clearly than i want to (i.e. giving the artist the 'benefit of the doubt') -- far from it -- the language of art such as Pollock's is not "its own"; it's a universal language because it's purely abstract. at least, that is probably what all abstract expressionists believed, and what i certainly believe too. that art can be understood without being coded.

Its very tempting to point out that calling splatters of paint conflicted and ambitious is no better or worse than calling drums and chanting in animal collective's music religious. Seems like that could be just as painfully obvious if not cloying. all I've ever argued is that art is meant to communicate something. You're debating me on this by taking it to mean I think everything should be a doctoral thesis at oxford.

why did millions (incl. myself) enjoy "I'm A Slave 4 U"? was it because they weren't critically smart or astute enough to avoid being tricked by her pretensions at virginhood?

why is she so viscerally hated by like everyone now that she's older, a mother, fatter and bald? Possibly because the suspension of disbelief has been popped like a balloon and no one likes to have their disbeliefs all of a sudden unsuspended?