I just finished watching Pollock and am sort of annoyed. It was an ok movie, I learned what I didn't know about the artist, but when I say annoyed I mean by art critics. If you know Jackson Pollock's work, you know the "splatter" paintings. This is what Pollock is known for. But his earlier works go unrecognized. Why?
vs 
I'm sure a majority of the reason why art critics, galleries, and enthusiasts embraced this technique is because it was unseen before. But, I find his earlier works so captivating. I wonder why they were dismissed. Based on the movie, they didn't sell at all. They were cliche or seen already. Nothing special. I think they're gorgeous! Of course, in a time when he was up against Picasso, they may not relate but I still think they're worth looking at. What do you think?
0 comments:
Post a Comment