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