How Jackson Pollock became so overrated
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2018
- There’s an overlooked reason for Pollock’s fame. Even if you love him, you might not know the name of the man who made him famous.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
Jackson Pollock is one of the 20th century’s most famous artists. But do you know the critic who made his reputation?
Clement Greenberg is a well-known name in the art world, but not necessarily to art fans. However, he earned a reputation as one of the most influential art critics in the 20th century, whose legacy included the canonization of Jackson Pollock.
Abstract expressionist art needed vocal champions to support challenging, unique work, and Greenberg was the most powerful and vocal in his defense of the art and, in particular, Jackson Pollock. Greenberg went from tie salesman to intellectual in less than a decade, thanks to strongly worded arguments for a new artform. Jackson Pollock was one of his favorite artists, and the two spent time together socially as they simultaneously climbed in the art world.
Is Clement Greenberg the reason that Jackson Pollock is so famous? He’s definitely a part of it - and understanding the role of Greenberg and critics like him can be a useful tool to understanding art in the 20th century.
Overrated is a series that takes a look at the things we all know - the books, the trends, and the ideas that have become iconic - and answers the question: “Why is this so famous"?
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Here's an undeniable American art legend for you:
Bob Ross.
@S C wowy! I guess so. He has skill, eye for detail, charisma, and a nice person, so thanks for the compliment!
I watched a Bob Ross yesterday where he paints a sunset. He had already drawn magic marker cartoons of the filmers who had apparently given him a hard time, in two corners and painted the background in dark shades in the center circle of the canvas. I watched intently for a while, while he creates the light shaded sky, marks in the clouds, lightly brushes long strokes and begins some trees. After a time, I began to drift away gazing absent-mindedly to the lap top screen. I came back too a while later and he had plotted in more trees and a whole wonderful landscape and those stray cartoons there still looking odd . I then shut the television off and took a nap.
Once I tried to paint my own Ross style painting, but that's not really a story either
YASS
your mad because post modernism has failed and talent has prevailed. just like bobs happy little trees that's why bobs going into the Smithsonian.
@@GenerateGoodInformation This is like a poem. Maybe it is a poem.
This means you don't need skill but need a good manager
Both...but as a general rule, it's the business manager who makes things happen.
Depends on what you need. Someone might want to become an artist.
Minimal skill but an inordinately good idea.
Someon sold invisible art for $100k. Literally nothing. The art industry today is not people actually liking art its people buying “art” for tax evasion.
Did you mean: The Kardashians
I like Pollocks stuff, but only because it seems unabashedly decorative. Cheap and cheerful. The fact that they're taken so seriously, and are so expensive, ruins it.
he how je weet niks je moet de vernieuwingen van Pollock niet vergeten hij is een echte pionier
I kind of agree with the first part, but i think the fact that they taken so seriously makes it seem way cooler to me. The fact that something as abstract and meaningless as a Pollock is worth so much, just makes it so much more interesting.
It's special when Pollock does it.
But it's garbage when I do it. Which just goes to show that it's the name that sells.
@Dennis Moore I have more respect for what you are doing than for what Pollock did.
Totally. When I lived in uni residence, they had each floor make a painting to represent the floor. We ended up making a sort of Pollock-style one with the floor number in bold in the centre. It looked cool, it was a ton of fun to make, and it worked well for a group project, since you didn't have to be good at art or even have a real coherent vision -anyone could contribute a squirt of paint somewhere..... & I think that really says it all, doesn't it?
I feel neither "genius" nor "overrated" when I look at Jackson's works. They make me feel hungry for cheeseburgers. The flowing lines feel like cheese and ketchup.
Like that one spongebob episode
Man I thought it was just me. His art looks like someone splattered sauces all over a white canvas.
@@yeokonma thats the definition of his dripping technique
the world need more people like you
i see that same thing.
So once again it seems that marketing is a big reason for somethings success.
Pretty much all of these videos seem to be along the lines of "America wanted to be famous for something that it wasn't very good at, so some guy was designated as "the Great American _____' and everyone else just went along with it.
@@liamdavis2387 Discredit. More like; This guy did something new in the art world. This guy just happened to be American. Art is subjective, and the fact that the OP and you are mildly upset about that does what the painting was made to do. Made you feel something. Doesn't have to be a Rembrandt to do that.
Actually, no, that's exactly how modern artists get people to pay 30K for a dead shark in a box.
He didn't do anything new though...
@@Udontkno7 maybe but there's nothing subjective about a million dollars
So what you're saying that the art world is an arbitrary and elitist culture where basically one guy decided what was and wasn't good?
What a shock, right mate?
Ñ
and it was a jew, how surprising
Read Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word if you wanna hilarious takedown of the crap that is contemporary art
Bean ? Noticing demographic correlations and historical record is anti-Semitic? Great argument, brainlet. No doubt that you also think that observing racial differences is inherently immoral also.
Jews hold a wildly disproportionate amount of power across the Western world as an ethnic group relative to their tiny population(s) respectively, and have done so for centuries. It’s just a fact, sweetheart.
The talent didn’t make him popular or relevant, the media did.
Yea dude that was kind of the point of the entire video.
Society works like that. Sad but true
Sad
Who controls the media and brags about it?
@@JonJon04it’s sad but it applies to pretty much everything. Popularity and quality are pretty much unrelated. Popularity is a function of newspapers, media, luck & coincidence, and an appeal to the common man’s eye. Those attributes have nothing to do with the quality of a work.
Fun Fact. I made a Jackson Pollock painting during art class when I was 7, because I didn't know what to draw so I just randomly drew lines. What the funniest thing is that my teacher complemented it, so I put more colors and she said I ruined it.
You shouldnt have put more colors bro. You totally changed the spatial fluidity of your picture. Your brush drops were probably totally too over the top and that ruined the sensation your painting initially was inspiring.
You just had to mess the contrast and the subtlety didn't you?
I hope your teacher complained to your parents and they grounded you for destroying a masterpiece your subconsicounsess created
@@robotube7361 Fair enough.
Expressionism is sometimes great, but names and connections are all that matters in the art world these days. Some of the world’s best modern artists will never be known, because the “high art” world is exclusive to those in the right location and connections.
You mean contemporary - not modern.
So true. Ones talent and skill is only a small factor in becoming famous. It's more about who you know, and sheer luck. The luck of being in the right place at the right time. Its the same deal with mainstream music artists. These modern pop stars didn't get to the top just because they are that much more talented than everyone else.
These days? It's always been that way
When has that ever not been the case?
This is a BS answer in my opinion. It's always been that way - wealthy people have always patronized arts. The "Mona Lisa", among many other pieces from Leonardo De Vinci, has been commissioned by François 1er.
If you're interested, I'm planning on discussing him soon on my channel. He is a greatly influential French King that brought the Renaissance to France.
We need to see an Overrated series on Fashion. Maybe Balenciaga, Dior, or Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel.
John Orozco you’re delusional
Or Gucci
How Jackson Pollock became so overrated?
Answer: PR and Money Laundering
the salesman paid magazines to "critique" Pollock's work, and drive its market value up... NY Art Mafia sold these paintings to gullible "collectors" who see it as a work of genius--- ever so afraid to sound uneducated or lacked culture refused to use common sense and hopped in the bandwagon.. Painters, Magazines, Auction houses banked, while collectors go home with $1.00 garbage
the real art here, is making money out of trash... and that is pure genius.
lilhyun...if you spend money on those things, youre a victim of marketing
we couldn't agree more
Still looks like the apron of the guy that mixes paints at home depot. Come at me snobs.
It's all scrible Scrabble art that two year olds make
Do snobs "come at" people? Lol
Pollock studied classical painting technique. He wasn't that good at it. I would say Pollock knew his limitations and invented a way of painting that fit his personality. Good for him. 70 years and he's still controversial, good for him.
Wafflepudding
How much is that apron worth at Home Depot? 😛
NELSON X thats why people dont like it. He doesn’t have skill
Don’t get me wrong, there are some amazing abstract and modern artists that when I look at their work, I really feel something I can’t describe in words. But when I look at this I feel NOTHING. Because that’s exactly what it is, a bunch of doodles on canvas that is treated as a masterpiece. So other people try to find meaning in a piece of garbage for fear of being called uncultured when there are so many talented artists that will never be recognized because apparently a bunch of scribbles is amazing to look at.
All is subjective. You said it clearly, you can feel something in abstraction without knowing why, then why would you spit on people who feel something in Pollock's work?
Have you seen his paintings in person though? I’ve heard that’s what makes the difference
Olivia Petersen Do I need to personally see the Monalisa to be impressed? No. Sure there is something different about looking at paintings in person, but there are lots of artists who share stuff through the internet that I stop scrolling just to stare at their art.
Rebeca Donadon the Monalisa isn’t an abstract painting. But even the experience of that painting in person I’ve heard gives a completely new experience. When a painting is realistic you can easily see the craftsmanship through multiple mediums because of “how realistic it looks”. Abstract art is a different ballpark because it’s harder to understand what’s going on until it’s actually in front of you. His paintings are also gigantic and seeing it through a phone or monitor doesn’t help at all. I’ve gotten to see Salvador Dali’s art in person and It’s something else when you actually see it
Olivia Petersen Well I don’t want to hate on what you like. If looking at modern art makes you happy then you do you I guess.
'Overrated' is a relative term, and Pollock himself didn't really think his drip-paintings were all that deep so it's weird that so many people try to over-analyze them instead of just appreciating them as the nice visual experience they were intended to be.
Well remember Vox is overrated so of course they would make this video lol I don't know or care to know Pollock
yeah but he pretended he was original...
Jackson was deep in spite of his lack of self-awareness. I think Gertrude Stein said that, lol
@@jayrussell1825 Reading meaning into something where there is none! Critic: "Mr. Artist, I think what you meant to say was..."
People reading so deeply into things that were just intended to be pleasant aesthetic experiences are a significant part of the reason why so many people think modern to contemporary era art is pretentious. I just love the way it looks. I enjoy it on a basic aesthetic level, and I think for the most part that's all artists intended out of a lot of their work. Unless the artist has come out and said what they intended out of their work, a lot of abstract work is just that: abstraction. And I think it's best appreciated that way. People try to put words in artists' mouths, and it just seems disingenuous and pretentious to me.
Fun fact about pollock being overrated, Australia bought a painting of his in the early 70's and it was so expensive it literally became a political issue (and is still brought up in debates today) can't get much more overrated than that
It was $1.3 million and a political issue then because of it's price at the time. However it is only brought up in debates today because it was a good investment and worth at least $100 million now. The Australian government has brought it up recently as a joke to pay of some of Australia's national debt. Just thought I would add some facts.
It was a great investment. 100x return easy and rising!
Ciaran Sullivan Its actually worth $350 million currently
Whoever bought it is an idiot
The painting "Blue Poles" was a very wise investment.
Two types of people:
Those who see this and think “Genius!”
and those who see it and think “Dropcloth.”
That’s not true, I see his paintings and think “yeah, it looks good. Good abstract painting” but I’m not going losing my mind and analyze it.
Only two
As an artist I still think drop cloth.
Hmmm, I'm not either of those. Some I think are okay, some I like and some I don't like.
I never really understood this type of art
1:37 but the one kinda looks good to me like I see faces in the middle of the loops
I agree, it's mesmerizing.
I see many bodies dancing together.
i agree. some modern artworks are really good like that one. but many of them exist only to scam your money.
RodolphMars Don’t say that just because you don’t like them.
@@ape2533 i like them. as i said some are really good but we cant deny the fact that art industry has been commercialized so much that the industry is corrupted. some are really not worth your time, you can easily found an artwork worthy of billions but objective not even good.
Vox : Pollock is overrated.
Also Vox: These white squares are a beautiful expression of modern art.
So you didn't watch the video.
@@FernieCanto I did, but I still think that Vox is saying that Pollock is overrated. My point still stands.
the man said he aint one of them guys whos thinks hes ovverated at the start of tha video hehe.
@Joe Casson Michaelangelo.
Kieran Burke: are you saying Michelangelo is overrated, or properly rated? My bad, I can't tell which way you meant your comment.
One of my fav paintings is actually one where Norman Rockwell made fun of pollock via his painting of a man looking at pollock's painting lol
Thanks for sharing! Just googled that and it does seem at least a tad bit more engenious than pollock's works. Gotta respect the satire lol
I'm familiar with the illustration you're referencing. Are you * sure * he's making fun of Pollock? Or could that be the interpretation you arrive at due to your bias? Because it could be read other ways.
Except his 'Pollock' was crappy.
@@EyeLean5280 Exactly!
Not true at all! read the Taschen book k about Rockwell, he respected and admired Pollock ! If he was making fun of something that would be the encounter between the casual museum visitor and the new abstract art!
I always feel like a host from Westworld when I see an abstract piece and someone tries to convince me it's a masterpiece, "Doesn't look like anything to me..."
You blind
After painting my kitchen cupboards I accidentally created a Pollock on the floor but managed to clean it up ok.
The Mural painting in 1943 looks wonderful. I’d buy that. Because I like when abstract art tells a story or sets a mood, that sets a mood. Not the other ones I’ve seen of his.
that is the thing, it does not tell a story, and its not abstract of anything at all. its just lines, curves and dots and after he was finished e voila it looks like this and that....
Fr maybe he didn't mean it and maybe it's just our ability to recognise the patterns in anything but in that Mural painting I see women. It's wonderful indeed.
You didn't really mention that Jackson Pollock was financially and socially backed by CIA programs. Artificially inflating his popularity. Why? Because his work was the exact polar opposite of Russian art. It represented 'all American freedom' more than at other artist at the time. And they were in a cold war between two competing ideologies. Russian painters were almost forced to be master realists, because the state would squash anything else. So Russian painting was labelled rigid, constrained and backward. Whilst the American abstract expressionists were held up as torch bearers of inalienable freedoms and expression of thought.
Theres a lot more on the CIAs many hilarious adventures during the cold war.
Just Google "Jackson Pollock funded by CIA"
Painters may of, perhaps, but look at Russian films from the 1910's, they are full of anti establishment symbolism.
Thank you, every modern art history upper level undergraduate student's essay in the late 1990s.
Lots of art throughout history is funded by the pwerful for extraneous interests. "Guernica" by Picasso was commissioned by the Second Spanish Republic to win support abroad in their civil war.
@@appalachians1 You forget however that artists often hide rebellious anti establishment messages even in their corprate/authority funded projects. I have not studied Picaso, so I can't tell you how he showed his rebelious side, but I can tell you what film maker Stanley Kubrick did with 2001, which IBM and NASA helped fund because they thought he was making a pro space race/exploration film. They thought it was going to be propoganda, but very, very cleverly, Kubrick 'takes the piss' out of his supposed pay masters. He subliminally ridiculed them (as he had done in movies like Dr Strangelove). Another example is Michelangelo using his own face as Judas' face in his famous Cistine Chapel decoration, as if making a comment on having to accept Vatican money as payment for his work. Not sure how Pollock hid anything in that mad mess of paint mind you lol Ed Harris portrayed him as being an angry smoker and drinker and not much else! A man at war with himself, rather than with the status quo. Again, I am no expert on him, so, please correct me if I am wrong.
Kinda like Andy Warhol was backed by the Men in Black.
I love how his art is still so controversial and divisive to this day. It's a shame that his paintings outside of the drip period are hardly recognized
“You either look at his work and think it’s overrated, or that he’s a genius.”
Meanwhile I’m over here like “why can’t it be both?“
The whole art scene is like that children's book "The Emperors New Clothes" where the king is naked but everyone keeps telling him how great he looks...........total fraud
New Goliard: you got that right.
Thomas Schmidt: how do you come up with that? Why would we "resent" abstract art? But we don't think it's solid gold or worth more than diamonds, either. Same with realistic art, for that matter. Today we have photographs if we want realism. I really like impressionism, frankly, as it seems to blend realism with abstraction and puts the artist's view into the recognizable image...
Especially with all the junk that upper middle class people accept as "profound" and "meaningful" these days.
I really do enjoy this sort of art, not for pretentious reasons, or so that I can feel superior in any way to other people. I just enjoy it. It's aesthetically pleasing to me on a basic level. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. Just because a lot of people don't enjoy it doesn't mean it's a fraud. I probably enjoy some genre of music you don't, and you probably enjoy some genre of music that I don't, but neither of those genres is a fraud. It's all personal taste. Can we just agree to say "I don't get it" and stop calling other people's work fraudulent just because we personally don't enjoy it?
a five year old could make it
It's the Bob Dylan syndrome. People don't understand it so they assume it MUST be deep and "over their heads"..
I knew someone who tried SO hard to be a misunderstood artist. He was actually a pretty decent author when he wasn't self-sabotaging in an effort to be "misunderstood."
Voto Studios it so weird to see you here look into it
Voto Studios “why abstract art is useless in the streets”
Voto Studios like Dylan, it’s “over your head” but a direct connection to your heart. Nobody has or ever will get a song across to his audience as well as Dylan. Instead of analyzing a work with your culture-fabricated “mind” and try “allowing” the work to enter your heart. Just saying. You might discover a refreshing dimension to life. Pollack is OK, probably the best at dribbling paint of anyone in history. It is definitely “art” but so is glass-blowing, neither of which I find very moving, but others do; go figure.
What about the other side of the same argument? People don’t understand it, so they don’t actually acknowledge the thought that went in it.
What's interesting is that artists like Andy Warhol took years to break into the New York art scene because galleries wanted a Pollock-type painter to sell. And then Warhol went on to be more influential than Pollock ever was.
Both are grossly overrated
Warhol was an in demand commercial artist before he got famous. He could actually illustrate and paint. But Pollock never did anything but flick a paintbrush at a canvas.
Pollock is actually a very genius and intelligent guy, who knew how to overcome the emotional perceptions of millionaires and extract millions of dollars from them.
“There are two kinds of people, people that think this painting is overrated, and those that recognize it’s a map of the reptilian solar system.” Keep asking questions.
exactly!
dude what do you think about free jazz? do you also think its overrated too?
Our Founding Liars It’s a beautiful solar system
Thisss isss our sssolar sssysstem now mammal.
Turned this comment into a video. Keep Asking Questions.
One thing hasn't appeared in the video, which is that a big part of Pollock's success was due to his art being promoted as the first truly american art, being pushed forward by entities likes the MoMA (paid by the CIA) to impose american culture over the then hegemonic european culture, otherwise known as propaganda. It's important to note that Jackson Pollock's art, and more generally, American Expressionism, was not a particularily new form of art, nor was it very popular (it was considered as degenerate art by many), but it had a lot of help from people who wanted to develop an American culture. In a way, it shows that there is a certain american bias in Vox, or a lack of access to critical scientific litterature.
(I borrowed what I've learned from a course about americanisation)
exactly. this is right down vox's wheelhouse and im surprised there wasn't even a footnote mention of this very important CULTURAL context. instead they hyperfocused on an individual - an important figure, but an Individual nonetheless - as opposed to the structural forces at play.
Yes part of the "New Deal"
that's your lack of imagination, no offense, but if you study art and culture, you'd know that most everything falls under the purview of art and culture. especially in 2018, the most cutting-edge artists work with all types of material - NSA documents, actual satellites in orbit etc etc, making DNA sculptures out of found DNA (in chewing gum or a piece of hair etc)... living in a technological society, art does not so much offer a respite as it does an interrogation.
+Marko That's actually pretty interesting stuff. Mind sharing your sources?
ah so u meant it literally. fair enough, i see what you mean. though i don't think OP meant it literally so much as was trying to find the words that us embedded in the field (im doing my masters in digital media and art i hate it lol) are more exposed to.
This pretty well missed the mark on why Jackson Pollock's art was successful, at least among other artists. Many abstract expressionists before him were making paintings which, abstract as they were, were still acting as windows into a sort of 3 dimensional illusionistic space with forms that recalled actual objects. Pollock's paintings were only about the surface of the canvas and how the paint was manipulated. He did this in a way that hadn't really been done before and opened the floor to post painterly abstraction. People like Kenneth Noland, Frank Stella, Morris Louis and Helen Frankenthaler. Even she was still painting more like De Kooning before Pollock's mature work came about.
Zack Hutchinson - Read up on Janet Sobel. She was doing drip paintings before Pollock and was shown at Peggy Guggenheim's gallery in 1946.
I had one of these after my contractor finished painting my kitchen.
Like other artforms, sometimes it's about who made it not what he/she made.
Which means the art itself is worthless and it's the name that sells it.
@@mme.veronica735 Art not worthless. it is priceless. names made it easier to pricetagged it.
@@muhamarfirmansyah3199 no its worthless its the name with all the value, priceless implies that it has so much value that it could never be calculated
@@joshwilner5622 you probably don't know art and the process of making it
Lolo Solo this just isn’t true. It may BECOME true. But many artists go unrecognized until after death. Also there are many examples of famous art where we don’t know the artist.
This two notions completely negate your argument and that of many of the other uncultured peons who came here to hate on art because they don’t understand it.
The argument of many abstract expressionism "fans" is that "Why don't you make it yourself if it's that easy?" when this video clearly shows that you need "connections" more than talent, creativity, and passion. Many great artists are already in the graveyard, literally.
PS: I get what abstract expressionism is and Pollock's works appeal to me. But that's it.
The point of the video isn't that you need connections more than you need talent, creativity and passion. You need connections AND talent, creativity and passion, at least if you want to become big in your lifetime. Of course that's not really a revolutionary statement: if you're the greatest artist of all times but you never get out and don't show your paintings to other people or only to people who don't have any influence in the art world, you probably will die before you get any sort of recognition.
'Why don't you make it yourself' is a perfectly good reply to people who believe that they could do what great abstract artists do because a) creating great abstract art actually does take skill even though it's less obvious to the uninitiated than the skill it takes to paint a hyperrealist portrait and b) coming up with something that's truly original is the hardest thing in the world. Yeah, maybe you're skilled enough to recreate a Pollock, but it's still just a copy, it's not original, it's not a real creative achievement. How about you come up with something that's never been there before, something innovative? How about you come up with something about which the next generation will say 'pff, I could do that'? That's the gist of the question 'why don't you make it yourself'.
I agree. There is a layer of manipulation in the modern art market. So I say, if you like great. If you want to buy it go ahead. But this stuff is not worth millions to me. I don't see why anyone would think it is either.
I don't think genius nor do I think it's overrated; if it pleases my eye then I like it.
not true
🐰 *I МÀ!SТURВÀТЕ Т0 VIDЕ0!S !0N МY СHАNN!ЕL! !L00K!* 🐹
Am I the only one who is reminded of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
Nobody cares what you think.
This is the most pretentious comment I've ever read
Pollock: Splashes lots of paint on canvas
Rich People: *Art*
I dont hate him. I just sincerely think he's overrated, too.
"Radically American"? Funny, since the first gallery showing of drip-paintings was from a Ukrainian-American artist named Janet Sobel. She was considered the first drip-painter, and if you view her paintings, you can see how much Pollock was, *cough*, inspired by her. Funnily enough, it was Clement Greenberg who pointed out the connection, and it was only much later in Pollock's career that he even mentioned her. Guess he felt it was better to just let people believe he pioneered the technique all by his lonesome.
This video should have mentioned that, and the Tom Wolfe book, and the CIA connection
I take offense to the idea that Sobel being Ukranian-American does not qualify her as "radically american." In my view, there might not be anything more American than an immigrant making their way in the states. Doesn't make you wrong that she should get more credit. She should.
@@appalachians1 The "Radically American" was a direct quote from Clement Greenberg (starting at 5:56), in championing this idea of Pollock's drip paintings coming from the soul of this hyper-masculine cowboy from Wyoming. All the while, he got his inspiration from this lovely Ukrainian-immigrant housewife.
That wasn't to disparage her being an American. Just pointing out how ridiculous it was for Greenberg to frame Pollock's work this way.
CynicallyHopeful I love her because she has all the wonderful aspects of drip paintings without the bull. Her work is arguably better
@@Annimations I agree. This may be subjective, but where I see chaos with Pollock, I see mastery from her. Like, she's using the technique in service to the work, instead of making it all about the technique itself.
I can see where the frenzy of Pollock might've felt new and fresh back then, and the art world seems to always be looking for the next big thing to sink their money into. I just hate how he didn't credit her, and perpetuated this idea that he broke ground that he didn't break.
My mother is an artist. She had a large plastic panel on her table that she used to mix the paints. The paint grew layered and spread all over the place. It looked pretty cool. Eventually, she removed it but cut a large section and framed it. It hangs in the living room. It's better than Pollock--more vibrant, more troubled, more probing, more existential. I hope I never have to sell it, but it might have to serve as my retirement.
It actually makes me angry that he is so famous when actually talented artists are struggling to make any money
pollock was most definitely talented. even if you don’t consider his later works to show his talent, not all of his works are drip art and he certainly has peices where he shows technical proficiency
He was talented and to say otherwise is ridiculous. He made (just) a few gorgeous paintings with techniques he invented. The "good artists" you are talking about are people who have studied art that other people created and copy those techniques. They hardly invented anything except the subject matter of their work. That's not to say derivative works can't be brilliant, but your average internet freelance artist doesn't deserve the same level of respect as an innovator.
@@firebanner6424 Its why I strive for innovation in my own work.
I'm the second kind of person. I really don't get why abstraction is so revered. They may be cathartic to make but otherwise it's justa talking shop for what it could be about rather than is.
You don't like picasso?
There's a book called Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud and it has a part explaining the evolution of art and how we got abtrabt art like Kandinski and it actually made me appreciate it more. Didnt expect that from a book about comics. Actually, I didnt expect a lot of the amazing insight in that book.
didn't John Coltrane say that he doesnt care about whether he's understood or not?
It's art for artists. It's like when programmers make tech demos or write pointless code that does something neat. It means something to the other artists, and somehow that got confused for having actual meaning.
@@GamesFromSpace .......thats an amazing explanation
Wait... you're telling me that critics' and gatekeepers' opinions are crucial to success in the arts???? And that talent alone does not guarantee success??? THIS IS SHOCKING
That's right. Same as it ever was.
7:37 My dude is seriously resting his leg on the canvas
Haha is that a party foul in the painting world?
That hurt me too
When I was a kid my favorite painter was pollock, because all I had to do to be like him was throw paint everywhere. I thought I was as genius as Pollock
This video makes as much sense as his paintings
His paintings are just pleasant visual experiences. They're just impressive, awesome, and fascinating to look at. People try to read deep meanings into them, but that's disingenuous. No use in trying to make any sort of sense out of his paintings in my opinion.
And so many people don't realise that Pollock's daubings are hung upside down.
@@brianbethea3069 anybody can splatter paint
"Pleasant visual experiences"? How sick in your head must you be?
The point of the video: Pollock and his handlers laughed all the way to the bank. ;-)
I know art is subjective but I just find it hard to put this sort of stuff on the same planet as paintings such as the Starry Night or Mona Lisa
A I i think it has to do with movements and people doing the opposite of what everything else that was being done.
Ok but the Mona Lisa is the most overrated painting ever made
Mona Lisa is overrated. Vermeer’s Girl with a pearl earring is mile better. When I saw that painting my eyes couldn’t believe that blue could be so vivid. Absolute evidence of beauty in the world.
Van Gogh wasn't considered a good artist when he was alive. Now we think of him as a genius. Only because art historians said so. Same with the Mona Lisa. Specially the Mona lisa.
And Nickelback
When I went to school our art teacher gave us the task to model a cube out of clay and make it special. So I got my piece of clay, had no idea what I wanted to do and kneaded because I was bored. My art teacher came to me, looked over my shoulder and said: "Excellent, you are working not additive, but plastic. That was the moment when I knew that some kinds of art have no value, because everyone can poop on the floor and call it art. When the cleaning lady in a museum accidently "destroys" a piece of art because she thinks it's garbage while cleaning the spot, then you know that this piece of art was garbage. Someone even nailed a banana to the wall and called it art. It's hilarious that Pollock's pictures sell for millions, because the reality is that a normal person can't see art in there. Maybe it's simply garbage.
Not to sound like a snob, but the average person usually has no idea what they’re taking about. Same would go for any other area of specialty.
@@dougthealligatorThe average 9 year old could replicate a Jackson Pollock and only forensic testing could prove it's not an undiscovered original.
@@odobenus159 see the comment you’re replying to.
@@dougthealligator He said "only" forensic testing, so he includes all the "experts" and "cultured" people who look at Pollock's "art" and say they make them "feel" things. So he did reply to the right comment which is yours. Now I am not gonna say that Pollock's pieces cannot make you feel things. But I can assure you that if some 9 year old splashes some colors all over the canvas and if Pollock signs it and puts it in a museum, those people would still "feel" things because it has Pollock's sign. If you want to "feel" something when you look at something, yes you can definitely feel something.
@@odobenus159well why didn’t your kid do it then? I think this is what people forget. Anyone could’ve done this, but it was Pollock who did it first and became revolutionary for doing it. Sometimes that’s all you need in order to change history.
It’s not overrated and I’m only speaking for myself. I’m no art aficionado but I took an art history class just to learn about this world. When it was time our professor introduced his work with one slide was when I was impressed. You see his style of work in pop culture and homes and then you see his work. He was the original plus it wasn’t just pouring and drizzling paint. If I remember correctly it was action painting or performance art. You would get entertained watching him and then you have the finished work. Remember he was doing this in the 50’s and his style is used in many homes around the world. It’s very modern and fresh after 70 years and shows he was ahead of his time. I can only imagine how many people were in awe of his style then. He sort of changed the landscape of NY art at the time too.
His style is copied by many and “artists” are pumping them out in quick time. JP’s work takes weeks and months so at least there was some thought he put his work through.
I don’t think he’s the best but I can appreciate his work and he does have a history in the art world.
Controversial artists live on because both sides will continue to add fuel to the conversation and keep his work relevant.
I like Pollock and his paintings, but I don't think of him as genius. (Like I would, say, Michelangelo or Beethoven)
Why? what's so great about Pollock's painting? How are they different from any random paint splashing?
@@freespiritedbeing Random paint splashes can be some of the most amazing marks made in painting. Jackson Pollock was recognized because he was purported to be the first painter to make an entire painting in this method. There is much more to the story, but in a nutshell that's it.
@@GenerateGoodInformation why would random splashes be heralded as great? What's the meaning behind it? What's the purpose? What value does it have?
@@freespiritedbeing The splashes aren't actually random. Pollock had a way of dripping drizzling or pouring paint that was akin to a shamans dance. Much of the value is contained in the history. Though, to be honest, as I contemplate your questions, for you, it has no meaning or purpose and the marks have little value. This is perfectly valid. You could go see a painting and contemplate it and see if it gives you meaning. Or take an art appreciation course to find out if that changes your outlook. One of things about Pollocks work is that no one had ever made paintings like that before, therefore it became ground breaking, so it's said; I wasn't actually there at the time. Did you watch the video? It might give you an idea. Abstract art isn't for everyone but it is for some and for the ones who like it it has value, purpose and meaning. I hope this helped. I rambled a lot. I hope you have a nice evening.
@@freespiritedbeing They cool and it's fun to do. That's it.
THe power of the critic. They decide who's very good and who's not, who will be remembered and who will be forgotten or put aside in the corners of history
Aladin Hammi Yes, and what is the all powerful critic in this case...? C’mon, say it. You know damn well it’s important.
I went to New York and visited a couple of galleries after dropping a bit of LSD, and some of the most wonderful pieces I saw were the Pollocks on display at the Metropolitan.
Openness, in all its ways, is the prerequisite for viewing and getting creative work. Getting high on mind expanding substances opened many, many people to the complete range of art in the 70's and 80's, allowed them to slow down and take the work in, unllike the average person who wants enjoyment in a matter of seconds. Good art, like good cinema, is an incredible luxury to experience for such a small investment.
@@murkatable I like how you put that, friend.
If you have to take drugs to enjoy something then it's probably the drugs you're enjoying and not the original subject.
These paintings are like a toddler took some crayons and markers and just destroyed the paper
This video did not change my mind in the slightest. Jackson Pollock ruined modern art with his alcohol fueled 'soul' you speak of. It's all marketing.
You don't need 4 years of art education to recognize garbage. I have the 4 years and I still think it's garbage, even though I was told otherwise.
what is it with art teachers trying to indoctrinate their students to have the same opinion that is written in the book?
Modern art wasn’t ruined, nor could any movement be ruined by a single artist.
I did my four years, too, and I have to disagree with your stance. You can’t get huffy about being told something is great art and insist it’s garbage in the same breath unless you believe you are the only person who knows what good art is.
Art school trains artists to be professional artists and that includes understanding the history of art and the art world. Like it or not, Pollack’s work is a cornerstone of the abstract expressionist movement, and influenced artists around and after him.
The great lie is that it’s the market or another person who dictates what is and isn’t art. It’s all subjective bc the idea of “art” itself is a construct with nebulous parameters.
Pollack’s paintings are as valid as the Mona Lisa.
You have 4 years of art education but didn't use any of the language one would use to articulate how the piece operates and it's just merely "I dont like it" wahh.
I also have a BFA and I agree with you
Ruined... on several levels I'll have to agree with you because the way Modern Art is going right now is absolutely insane and I believe it did start with this type of thing... Marketing
No matter the explanation or rationale behind his "art, " I'll never get the enthusiasm for Jack The Dripper's work.
domerik
I'm an artist myself I've seen his work in person I'm afraid I think it's just rubbish, so many wonderful artists out there are never recognised and yet this slightly mad guy gets credit for being a genius...bullshit
It is genius, what are you talking about? His interpretation of non objective art was completely original at the time.
You obviously learned nothing in painting classes. Where’d you go to grad school?
its abstract art 😒
@@taabisloof5298 nah there are many abstract pieces that are leagues better than Pollock. Calling it abstract is an insult. It's expressionism which is the second worse art genre
He made this style popular which is the point, it's art and not architecture you see elsewhere.
I'm a truck driver, if I can do the same thing, it's not art. I find Bob Ross to be more of an artist.
surprised there was no mention of the fact that CIA was invested in Pollock and the american modern art movement as a form of soft power. seems right down vox's alley. no one in the art world today looks at pollock and thinks he's a genius, he was mediocre at best. but a fascinating icon just by virtue of his cultural production's relation to the political context of the day.
mEDioCRe aT beSt
They didn't do their research very well on this one
Ironic how the video says we should give more attention to those other abstract expressionists (7:40) yet none of them are mentioned once in the video description while JP and CG are mentioned tons... so here:
Lee Krasner
Helen Frankenthaler
Joan Mitchell
Same! I was about to go back and pause the video to get some of the names. Glad someone highlighted them. =)
Lee Bontecou
Thank you! Great mention of other artists, I did learn of a few when I was in the university. But like this video, the professor only mentioned the "most venerated or most high rated" and yet there are so many incredibly talented visual artists of that era! 📚
There are two kind of Artists: Those who make art, and those who make money.
That's why some art is worth millions then
@@Driecnk it's a witicism. It just means that I think popular art is bad
This is a great video! It reveals the biases of the past that have helped some while overlooking, possibly, other greater talents in so many industries, not just the arts. It is still happening today.
for sure, like Harley Earl who was head of the design dept. of GM (General Motors). He and his staff gave us those wonderful designs of the 40's and 50's cars that influenced industrial design around the world. Earl should be as well known as Cole Porter or Frank Sinatra
His paintings look cool but theyre not that deep
In the words of the Dude "That's just like your opinion man."
They're actually quite deep. Many layers.
They’re not meant to be ‘deep’.
Would be cool to see an Overrated series on architecture. Maybe Frank Loyd Wright's Falling Waters or Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye
How is Frank Loyd Wright’s falling Waters overrated. Have you ever been there?
regarding Fallingwater; its design is brilliant, however it failed to deliver the one thing the owners wanted- to see their beloved waterfall from inside the house. I adore Wright but it's hard to respect an architect who puts their vision over the owners wants. Also the cantilever deck would have fallen down as Wright designed it. It was only the owners' and builders' insistence to put in more support that saved the whole thing from crashing down.
Though it definitely makes Wright look cool, we did include some of his work in this Overrated video about open offices: ruclips.net/video/-p6WWRarjNs/видео.html
-Phil
Thomas von Delft I stayed in falling waters for spring break
How are Frank Loyd Wright's Falling Waters or Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye overrated?! These two structures are the elemental basis for modernist architecture.
Falling water is far from FLW's best work, many other buildings are far more practical and elegant, but are less known... What Falling Water did do is open people's eyes to naturalist architecture and the Prairie Style bungalow movement which millions of homes were based off... Its a huge deal for huge reasons --and yes, it was structurally unsound, but keep in mind the building as at the cusp of steel beam skeleton engineering and this technique was commonly used for vertical structures like skyscrapers, not horizontal cantilevers in houses... it was an experiment that paid off.
As for the esteemed Le Corbusier, he is nothing less than a genius in modern architecture and urban design... His Brutalist movement whilst now unpopular (such as the Le Corbusier inspired Boston city hall) was groundbreaking, without it, we would not have post-war housing sub-cities such as the Brutalist 'Barbican', a miniature garden city in the center of London's financial district, said by Queen Elisabeth to be the, "8th wonder of the world". Villa Savoye is no different in its impact, inspiring others such as Phillip Johnson and Mies van der Rohe.
Villa Savoye created the International Style, and architecture so foreign and groundbreaking, it was adopted for most of the financial towers in Chicago and elsewhere. Le Corbusier would later team up with Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer to create the United Nations building in NYC. The 'villa', though seemingly insignificant was an early bases for half the architectural modernist movements of the 20th cen.
Also don't forget that Villa Savoye was built in 1931, for that era the building looked like it was from another world... nowadays it looks modern, but not unusual --see the shift. Architecture has just recently has caught up with this building and it's style (being that it did not catch on until the 1970s). Lastly as a side note, this building does have a deep history being that it was built for a wealthy French-Jewish family who later died in the Holocaust and the Nazis used the building during the liberation of Paris to stockpile ammunition... we are lucky it was not destroyed like the Parthenon. He also met with Einstein many times who supported his 'utopian' city planning design: 'The Radiant City' which like Frank Lloyd Wright's 'Broadacre City' urban design was unrealized. These buildings and the architects who built them are far from overrated.
Reading Greenberg is something most of us that have only did because we were forced to at art school and he was the worst part of it.
If you see a Pollock up close, you get why these paintings are considered masterpieces. I find these paintings way more aesthetic than most other paintings, why would they be overrated? How do you rate art?
I'm an european contemporary artist, honestly the power of Jackson Pollock was the fact to be the only good american answer to a successful Picasso, Picasso had all the media around him in Europe as in Usa. The Usa felt themselves in a secondary position like everyone against that incredible machine that Picasso was, because Picasso was always different and superproductive. But when Pollok arrived someone said "This is something never did before, and never did by Picasso, so, it's a good card to play against european art". If you don't believe in this phenomenon try to understand that we are talking about an art period trough first world war, second world war and after world war, a period full of nationalisms. And, for last, we are talking about the exact moment when USA for the first time is recognized as first superpower in the world and the country needed an artist as suprematist flag against Russia and other communist menaces.
What about ManRay
Picasso's overrated, too.
@@kinyutaka Agreed.
@@kinyutaka Picasso was a master draftsman and painter, though; you should see his evolution as an artist. Pollock could only drip paint on a canvas.
@@Pantano63 They both kinda stunk.
Just shine an ultraviolet light onto my room’s floor and we’ve got a Jackson Pollock masterpiece.
You got issues quill
Virgin loser
@@CALI-ll7iv Virgin losers call strangers on the internet virgin losers
Vox has like the most immersive visuals and audio. I mean all the animations, music, it is all just too perfect. How can that be?
If you have a tragic, dramatic backstory involving addiction, disability, family loss, etc., and you have a good p.r. person , you can be elevated to god like status regardless of your talent.
It's not Pollock in particular. Why did abstract painting become so overrated in the first place???
Because they're aesthetically pleasing and art is one of if not the most subjective thing in the world
It's not. Talk to nearly anybody on the street and they'll give you the same opinion about it that you have. Some people legitimately enjoy it though. I know I do. It's a valuable part of many people's lives.
The vast majority of people I've talked to on the streets about Pollock tell me it's a load of crap and a waste of wall space. The splatterings of Pollock's brain, liver and piss on canvas has no value in most peoples' lives.
Just know that if you take a blacklight to Star-Lord's ship you'll get the same experience as a Jackson Pollock painting.
but those will glow so they will be better
Thank you. Really interesting and informative. Another great video from Vox!
these paintings are oddly satisfying
I’m so so so happy this series is back!!! I’ve watched season one a billion times!
Hannah Rosario. A billion times? You ought to get out more.
I like Pollock, but my favorites are Monet, Renoir, and JCC Dahl. Each of them are masters in their own way.
It's a lot easier to dismiss an artist as overrated than to try to understand why he's so highly rated.
Because we know nothing about the mumbo jumbo used by entitled art critics?
Pollock's Mural 1943 is his masterpiece.
I went to moma and turned a corner and saw a Jackson Pollock. I was struck. I totally understood what the fuss was about.
Ok so here is the thing. *Every* major superpower needs to establish itself as dominant in the cultural field also. 1945 USA was the dominant rising superpower and needed it's own art. Different from Europe or Russia the big cultural players at the time. Hence Pollock. In recent unclassified documents it is shown that CIA (!!!) piloted the rise of the star Pollock. Making his fist exhibitions in Europe in USA embassies.
Side note current superpower inrise is China and as expected Chinese artists are on the rise.
Anyone who begins by saying "I am in the first category" is not qualified to discuss this issue.
I’ve always found his work beautiful. Come at me
I don’t even born in the that marketing time. I saw his work in google and love it and become his fan since.
I think he got something in it and I just don’t know how to explain.
Pollock spilled paint on the his project the day it was due, the rest is history.
Why are you everywhere? you probably spend more time on RUclips than me, honetly
RESPOND TOOOOO MEEEEE OR ELSE I'LL USE ZA WORLDO!!!
@@bigusboimusnibbamjoestar3234 JoJo fan detected
Perhaps you could remedy this injustice by making a follow-up video educating us on other worthy American abstract expressionists?
True story: My parents met at The Art Students League of New York. One of their good friends was a surreal abstractionist, Jerry Kamrowski. He went to the Guggenheim Foundation and got a scholarship to do pure abstractionism, which was considered passé already by the young artists. My parents were semi abstractionists. Kamrrowski continued his surrealism. Then he got letter to bring in his work. So he stretched a large number of canvasses, popped up bags of popping corn, bought a few jugs of wine and invited his friends at the League over. After they were done, he sorted them into piles from worst to best and dated them Sept, Oct, Nov....then took them down to the Guggenheim and got his scholarship re-newer. They could not tell that a dozen different people, including Spiro the sculptor, had made the paintings.
THATS WHAT I AM DOING I AM GOING TO NUMBER AND HAVE An outside opening in back yard ill invite you lol
What drugs do I need to understand this damn type of art
there's nothing to understand. you either think it looks nice or you don't
Acid
Psychadelics definitely help.
It arose as a means to rebel against the old, traditional art scene fostered by the academies of Europe. Starting in the late 19th century, artists began to approach art in a different way, and over the next half-century they worked to break "art" down into its basic, elementary components (color, form, line, etc.) and focus less on the subject of the work. To fully appreciate works like Pollack's (whom I personally am not a fan of), you need to be educated about art, its history, and the motivations of the artist.
all of them. at the same time
for people like me, that appreciate art but have no talent- nothing is overrated. i'm in awe of every painter i see.
pollock's work is particularly fantastic exactly bc it looks like anyone could do it
Love this. Really interesting stuff!!!
I was painting like that before I knew who he was or saw his work, what makes them dynamic is the size, and the fact he used house paint, and his wise choice of color combinations.
The art class I’m in and the teacher were talking of how overrated he was like 2weeks ago
I love this ! Thank you and the jazz used in the intro ,music is so correct a lot people make that mistake - they never make that correlation or forget ...
Just like today’s pop music, it’s all marketing
Okay zoomer I bet you like elvis cause he was "a real artist"
Since when music was not about marketing
@@dizzy6947 exactly
@@dizzy6947 it's very disturbing to read your comment. Music is an art. Most music isn't used for revenue.
@@austinhernandez2716 sure but most are
That was very enlightening. Thank you.
Once again, Lee Krasner, an established artist in her own right, is overshadowed by her husband AGAIN.
I never even heard of her, nor did I know that Pollock actually had a wife who was also an artist! So thanks for this comment, gonna check out her work!)
Ugh it drives me nuts that they just skipped over her! Jackson Pollock was not the most amiable character, Krasner was the genius who promoted his work to critics even after his death
On top of that Lee was the one whose art form was taken by Jackson to further his own career.
"Exit Through The Gift Shop" taught me the price of a painting means absolutely nothing
Pollocks paintings looked like the underside of an elementary school desk. No joke, kids used crayons, pencils, and pens and markers on the bottom just because and basically looked like a pollock painting.
unpopular opinion: i actually genuinely like his art and don’t think it’s too expensive or overrated.
Idk I just think they’re nice to look at
It's ok to like it. It's not ok to elevate it to a level of $100 million.
I agree that they are interesting to look at, they've also become iconic. However, Pollock did not pioneer his painting method, there is no message in his painting and literally anyone could do what he done. On top of this, he basically only did one single thing.
It's definitely art, but I don't feel his pieces should be worth millions, more like hundreds...
jpsplat quit the sarcasm nobody's saying she was wrong it's just funny
“Don’t put that cigarette out in my eye.”
Holy sh-
I that an actual thing people used to do or is it just an expression? I’m freaking out imagining that.
Yes they did
No they didn’t
@@noblechief4023 Yes they did
@@romo2674 no
@@achyuththouta6957 yes
The only thing more absurd than abstract art are critics
If the beauty of a piece of art depends on the opinion of a critic, then that art has no beauty.