animal collective / 'freak folk' / manitoba etc.

[kid cue]

all i'm basically saying here is that i think you place too much stock in what the artist says. an artist's stated influences, ideas, beliefs, or even intentions are interesting to think about and study, but they're really more for art historians than for the rest of us*. ultimately, you have to take the work on its own terms, as its own evidence, in deciding how good it is. as human beings we have the same senses, and the same fundamental creative impulse, so it's completely reasonable to allow each of us to make our own judgments about a piece of art without running it through a system of checks and balances vs. the artist's own claims to NOT be "making shit up". for instance, when you say Pollock claimed to be trying to visualize the subconscious--sure, i can see that that element is probably there in the paintings (i said it before, and it's also sort of glaringly obvious)--but the fact that he accomplishes this stated goal in some way ultimately isn't all that important to the success of the paintings as paintings.



*besides, too many artists are full of shit anyways!