pollock

When we first started looking at pollock's work, I realized that he was the one who I had previously criticized for doing things that anyone could do (dripping paint on a canvas) without any knowledge of him and probably without even seeing any of his work. Now when I look at a painting he made, I kind of like it. You don't have to deal with figuring out what represents what or why something is painted that color. The chaos of his paintings is appealing to me for reasons I can't exactly figure out. Plus, it's just kind of cool to see how the paint falls on the canvas and the shapes it makes. Having said this, I wouldn't dream of spending 1 million for one, let alone 140.

Looking at Pollock through the Kantian concept of disinterestedness led me to think. I agree with Kant in that if you see a picture of a strawberry and want to eat a strawberry or see a lake and want to go swimming, you're not really appreciating the art so you can't call it good or bad. I find Pollock's work appealing, and I can't find a single thing about it that would lead me to be swayed one way or another due to my interests. Unless you were afraid of fractals or forced to watch your parents die by paint-drizzling, I can't see what would contaminate your Kantian perspective (correct me if there is something). It occurs to me that the only works of art for which you could be an ideal critic are these types of abstract pieces, which ironically i have often criticized for not looking like anything. Long story short: unless everyone in the art world who likes pollock has been lying to fit in, it must be art since it is appealing and makes it difficult for us to be biased, assuming we don't have any problems with the fact that it is just paint dripped on a canvas.

Erik

nietzsche and tolstoy

In his work, nietzsche defines two artistic forces, the apollonian (beautiful and orderly) and the dionysian (intoxicated and emotional). The apollonian is characterized by the principium individuationis, the principle of the individual. When the principium breaks down, the barrier between men breaks down, and we see the intoxicating effects of emotion and instincts.

Tolstoy qualifies art as that which passes on the emotions of the artist to the receiver, "infecting" them with it. The best art, in his opinion, is art that clearly and sincerely passes a strong emotion. I like this definition of art because it is easy to apply and agrees with what I classify as art myself.

I think that the two are talking about the same thing (though tolstoy is a little more concise). Nietzsche does not necessarily say that the apollonian is not art, but as it breaks down and leads to the dionysian, emotion takes the place of rational thought. This is in a sense what tolstoy is saying in that it is the emotions that infect others and cause them to react to art, not cold logic.

Erik

faking it

When we started watching "faking it" in class, what struck me was that Paul was actually a fairly good artist. His self-portraits actually looked like him and he seemed to have an understanding of basic art concepts like proportion etc. I think if most non-artists went on that show, they would have more trouble with this than he did. When he moved on to color, he seemed to be doing the same thing over and over, with some random colors and maybe a picture of his injured teenage self. I don't think he's really becoming an artist, he's just doing what he thinks will please the critics.

As for the image, I would say he looks more like the typical "artist" than he did before. While artists don't always look a particular way, he is trying to infiltrate the elite art scene, where artists have to stand out and be individuals and look like he does. Also, the new look probably makes him feel like more of an artist, since it is different from how he looked before and emphasizes the fact that he is making a transformation. However, I don't think his art is going to be judged on how he looks, so it is probably mostly to make him or other artists feel like he belongs.

From what I have seen so far, I don't think that he will become an artist in a month. Art seems like a slow process to me and to be a really good artist it takes time to practice and experiment with different ideas. I think the judges will to 2-1 either way, depending on whether they phrase it "is he a fake?" or "what do you think of his work?"

Erik

commercialism

When I read the art pawnshop article, I actually wasn't surprised by any of it. As far as I know, people have used art as collateral for regular loans for quite some time and the only difference here is that the company takes possession of it. It was interesting to think of an art gallery made up of pawned masterpieces though. The article showed how the owners of these companies are using the art market to their advantage, and seem to be making quite a bit of money off of the loans and the artworks that they get.

The Kinkade video was very interesting to me. My grandparents have a Kinkade in their living room, and I've been inside a Kinkade gallery, but I had no idea this was how they were produced and that there were so many obsessed Kinkade fans. To be honest, I think he is a genius and if i were in his shoes I would probably be doing the same thing, though probably not as well. I think that art should be less exclusive (and expensive) than it is now, and producing pallets of prints gives anybody the chance to own a piece of good art. The one thing that bothers me, though, is the price. From my small experience in economics, it seems to me that a huge increase in supply should reduce the price, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I was surprised to say the least when I heard that a print with a little paint on it could be worth 50k. Kinkade seems like he's trying to wring every cent he can out of his fans, by adding a dab of paint here or there or signing stacks and stacks of prints to make them worth more. By the looks of that addicted couple shown in the video, I would guess that he's doing a good job of it.

While the art pawnshops are taking people's money in huge sums at a time, Kinkade is doing it with a ton of small purchases. They both show the opposite ends of the art market spectrum. One shows how you can make money off of works that are worth millions, and the other uses cheaper mass-produced art. Both of them bother me a little, but I would have to say that i support Kinkade more. After all, he is producing something that people enjoy and willingly spend money on, but the pawnshops are just taking advantage of people that need money, and then taking their expensive art if they can't pay back. I just hope Kinkade doesn't really turn into Disney, because if I see little chinese children putting frames on thousand dollar prints I will be a little perturbed.

Erik

I like an escalator, man, 'cause an escalator can never break. It can only become stairs. There would never be an "Escalator temporarily out of order" sign, only "Escalator temporarily stairs. Sorry for the convenience."

-Mitch Hedberg