Jack the Dripper

[djdiggla]

$140 million paid for Pollock painting

 

making it the most ever (previous was a Gustav Klimt portrait)...

 

I dig what Pollock was doing, but for gawd's sake it's some of the worst art.... I seriously would NEVER hang anything by him EVER no matter what it cost... It's just funny as shit how some stuff the public eats up and then there's people that kill it in the graff/tat/toy scene that are snubbed as "not being *real* art". WTF. So fucking lame. I wish I could punch a hole through that shit painting. Like he was fucking origional or even good for that matter... all he was was dedicated....to being a snobby hack.

 

 

Talk about the guy that made every jack-ass looser think they could be an artist too.

 

 

[rygon]

it reminds me of the stuff i used to do at primary school

[Steve]

The art world can be so pretentious. There was something on the radio the other day about an art gallery getting a grant of £20,000 to display nothing at all - the room would be empty. The "artist" said people can go in there and use their imagination. My new album "Silence" is out soon BTW. Just imagine I'm scratching like D-Styles and you'll love it.

[3D]

Fine art, it's like scratching in many ways. People who study

and understand it learn to appreciate it. Most listen to cutting

and go that sounds shite yet if your into it then you appreciate the

craft of it and the process it takes to get there.

 

Fine art is pretentious though, I have a degree in it and believe

me I've heard some bollocks in conversations with other artists,

I have also met and worked with some extremely talented people

as well. Artists in general get a hard time from the general public,

get a proper job and all that bollocks.

 

It is what it is I reckon I'm into but it's not everybodies cup of

tea I suppose.

[djdiggla]

Yeah the artworlds full of wasters.

 

...that want to try and ruin it for everyone else. Either by being dicks or so intellectual that they invented the wheel again, or by being so hard up on eachother's dicks... It's just crazy to me how the "art world" has been able to take the physical art and subjugate with the "concept" or "meaning". ... Esp when most of these people can't figure out the meaning of the simplest things in life! I swear that the funniest thing is personal statements of artists. Basically you come up with the biggest load of shit you can and see if you can pass that off as viable selling point. Its crap. I've done it, I've seen it done and I've seen people mocked b/c they didn't do it.

 

And like I said, I think Jackson is cool and the idea is interesting and shit, but how are you gonna tell me that his pictures are worth any more or take any more skill than a bird house made of popsickle sticks. That's what REALLY pisses me off about this is the whole fact that it has nothing to do with the skill of the work or beauty of the image (arguably)--all it has to do with is the written/oral statement *and* that Pollock was in the scene and a hip cool NYC fuckface. It's just like any shit--they did it with photography, they do it with hiphop... NYC thinks they r the shit and everyone else sux and they go out of their way to snub anyone who doesn't pretend they are from the east coast.

[Wax On]

it looks alright, but it doesn't look alright to the measure of $140 million.

 

is that not the whole point at the end of the day, if you like how something looks?

[$a!n+]

This argument goes back to commercial art verses personal art. Commercial art is not about talent, heart, drive, or any of that, it is about popularity and money. Bottom line. Look at mainstream art, mainstream music, and most all mainstream art. Most of the time, the most talented an most genius are to ahead of thier time to be appreciated and understood by the masses. The fact that the art piece is debatable as good art is in itself why it is good commercial art. Got to have a gimmick.

[djdiggla]

^^word.

 

it looks alright, but it doesn't look alright to the measure of $140 million.

 

is that not the whole point at the end of the day, if you like how something looks?

 

For sure, it's all about if u like it (although there are movies and paintings that I think are unbelivable but would never like to see again b/c they are so disturbing).

 

And I guess it's the $140 m think that irks me-- (1) Pollock isn't getting that cash and (2) think of what you could do with that money. I'd understand if you were buying like something hundreds of years old or a Gutenberg bible or the first degerotype or something, but this shit isn't even that old! ... and IMO it has very little historical relevence other than an example of when modern art went pop. Not like it's dada or some shit.

[Orion Scorpio]

The art world can be so pretentious. There was something on the radio the other day about an art gallery getting a grant of £20,000 to display nothing at all - the room would be empty. The "artist" said people can go in there and use their imagination. My new album "Silence" is out soon BTW. Just imagine I'm scratching like D-Styles and you'll love it.

 

Have you heard of a composer called John Cage? He made a track called 4"33, which was 4 minutes, and 33 seconds of silence, and it sold...BIG time.

[rygon]

..and he sued someone didnt he for doing the same on their album

[Orion Scorpio]

His estate did technically, he'd been dead for about 10 years.

[cbay]

My new album "Silence" is out soon BTW. Just imagine I'm scratching like D-Styles and you'll love it.

 

can i be the first to have that on wax?

[foodstamps]

"There she stood like a painting, Jackson Pollock's number 5..."

[Gizmo]

I watched a program where a couple of art critics stood in front of some Pollocks and gushed for 20+ minutes about the greatness of these pieces. I was in both hysterics at the utter pretentiousness of the guys and the abject stupidity of people who will part with such volumes of cash for what essentially is a random canvas of paint splashes.

 

They say art is subjective and we read into the picture what we want to see but for the love of God - $140,000,000 could be put to some real use on this sick planet of ours. The people who allow art to fetch so much money should be ashamed. No doubt they'll be watching all the hate and death on TV and just behind it on the wall will be the Pollock. Most likely however it'll be in a safe, never to see the light of day.

 

I'm not saying that Pollock's work isn't without merit (see one in the flesh and look at the technique) but perleeeese... let's get some perspective here. And I think the fact that he's American goes some way towards the hype as well.

[djdiggla]

No doubt they'll be watching all the hate and death on TV and just behind it on the wall will be the Pollock.

 

 

And they'll prob be wondering why there is so much unrest and need in the world as they sit on their leather couch eating popcorn and popping viagra.

 

 

 

Have you heard of a composer called John Cage? He made a track called 4"33, which was 4 minutes, and 33 seconds of silence, and it sold...BIG time.

 

 

If it needs to be explained why we are listening to it or a desertation of what the meaning is or even a debate on why it is/not art or music then it is most def not for me!