Pollock’s work is very interesting and I found that I actually liked it. To me, I thought that it was very aesthetically appealing. I like his work after his “transformation” from traditional, recognizable patterns to his more successful pieces, which have no apparent pattern. I thought that the Pollock that Teri Horton found is beautiful because it has so many colors that evoke an emotional response. I think it is cruel that the art world would reject her piece despite forensic proof, but then again, authenticity is the difference between a worthless fake and millions of dollars. I understand why the art community would hesitate to recognize it as authentic. On the other hand, Teri Horton is asking for way too much money. It isn’t one of Pollock’s great works. I believe that it very well could have been a piece that Pollock decided was not up to his standards and decided to discard it. I think it is authentic, but since it is one of his mess up’s, it probably shouldn’t be worth as much as his other works. Teri Horton should not have set a price on it, but focus on making the art community accept it.
I would classify Pollock’s work as art because I think that it has enough qualities of what we know as art. Personally, I view art on a broad spectrum, including many things that normally would not be considered art. So based on the mere fact that Pollock is producing original works from scratch, I would say that the product is art, regardless of my response. It just so happens I find the clashing colors and the chaotic nature of his paintings appealing.
John Dewey would probably view Pollock’s work as art because he classifies art as having a pure aesthetical experience. When you look at a Pollock, it is hard to say you don’t have an experience, since from what I hear, you either like it or you don’t. A bad experience is still an experience, and as far as its purity, a painting is not “adultered”. The medium of a painting is the paint on the canvas. There is no influence of the other senses. The image is conveyed solely through the eyes, unlike film where there both the eyes and ears are stimulated. I can’t say if Dewey would like Pollock’s work, but based on his philosophy, he would consider his work art.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
FAKING IT
Discuss the part of Faking It? that we watched - and provide a prediction: Will Paul manage to fool the experts? ..."fool"!? Why would he be a fake?
I find it hard to see Paul as faking it since he does have a month to prepare for his big test. Faking it would be if he had no preparation and attempted to fool the professionals with what he knows from the past. One month of preparation means that he is no longer faking anything, because now he is experienced. During that month, it basically took over his life and we watched a transformation from an ordinary painter to an artist who could actually sell his works for money. After all of that preparation, it isn’t correct to consider him a fake or trying to fake it anymore.
This situation reminds of actors and actresses who become their character that they are portraying. If they are just acting the part, it is easy to say they are fake, but some actors and actresses research and prepare for their role and actually see themselves as another person in order to be more real. This sort of acting isn’t fake because of the effort and commitment to transformation. Paul is committed and is determined to not just fool the experts, but to become an artist. He transforms his lifestyle for the entire month to become an authentic artist.
However, if he isn’t a fake for doing this experiment, is he a fake if he returns to his original life and severs all ties with this particular experience. If he no longer retains anything after that month, he would be a fake, but I personally think he will keep producing art because it seems like this experience was intense enough to leave a mark for a long time. As far as fooling the experts, I don’t think that he will because as far as what I have seen, his art doesn’t seem complex or difficult to produce. I could be wrong though, since artist have gotten away with a dot on a blank canvas. Paul could hook the experts because of his incorporation of his childhood disability into his art. I would say that if he can produce something that can stimulate sympathy, the experts will be more inclined to consider his work.
I find it hard to see Paul as faking it since he does have a month to prepare for his big test. Faking it would be if he had no preparation and attempted to fool the professionals with what he knows from the past. One month of preparation means that he is no longer faking anything, because now he is experienced. During that month, it basically took over his life and we watched a transformation from an ordinary painter to an artist who could actually sell his works for money. After all of that preparation, it isn’t correct to consider him a fake or trying to fake it anymore.
This situation reminds of actors and actresses who become their character that they are portraying. If they are just acting the part, it is easy to say they are fake, but some actors and actresses research and prepare for their role and actually see themselves as another person in order to be more real. This sort of acting isn’t fake because of the effort and commitment to transformation. Paul is committed and is determined to not just fool the experts, but to become an artist. He transforms his lifestyle for the entire month to become an authentic artist.
However, if he isn’t a fake for doing this experiment, is he a fake if he returns to his original life and severs all ties with this particular experience. If he no longer retains anything after that month, he would be a fake, but I personally think he will keep producing art because it seems like this experience was intense enough to leave a mark for a long time. As far as fooling the experts, I don’t think that he will because as far as what I have seen, his art doesn’t seem complex or difficult to produce. I could be wrong though, since artist have gotten away with a dot on a blank canvas. Paul could hook the experts because of his incorporation of his childhood disability into his art. I would say that if he can produce something that can stimulate sympathy, the experts will be more inclined to consider his work.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Kinkade
Read the article: "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and discuss it's emphasis of the commercial aspect of art in relation to the Kinkade-video.
I don’t believe that the Kinkade “paintings” have the same sort of value as other established artists because of the large scale marketing of Kinkade’s product line. There is a certain value that is never changing, or at least difficult to change, for a one-of-a-kind artwork. Because of the rarity of a one-of-a-kind, it is not influenced by the supply and demand effects within the economy, simply because there is no supply. There is only one. Kinkade is clever to use the explosive popularity of his works now before the market changes and he can no longer sell his products at such a ridiculous price. I don’t understand how his artworks that come off an assembly line can be sold at such a high price. Maybe I need to see for myself before I judge, but it doesn’t seem fair for other original paintings that are mass produced on a press to sell at Wallmart for $30. Relating back to the article, Kinkade’s paintings would be worth little because once everyone gets the Kinkade paintings that they want, there will be little demand for his products, which will most likely cause the prices to plummet. The price of his works is artificially inflated for the time being. Who knows how long it will last, and it could consistently retain popularity. However, I don’t see any security in buying a Kinkade because of the marketing involved. The value can change at any moment. I see Kinkade like a pop singer who usually only lasts a few years before another boy band comes in and replaces him. Also, since it isn’t a one-of-a-kind production, why would someone buy your particular Kinkade painting if they can purchase a new, autographed Kinkade at the many, and growing, Kinkade galleries throughout the world.
I don’t believe that the Kinkade “paintings” have the same sort of value as other established artists because of the large scale marketing of Kinkade’s product line. There is a certain value that is never changing, or at least difficult to change, for a one-of-a-kind artwork. Because of the rarity of a one-of-a-kind, it is not influenced by the supply and demand effects within the economy, simply because there is no supply. There is only one. Kinkade is clever to use the explosive popularity of his works now before the market changes and he can no longer sell his products at such a ridiculous price. I don’t understand how his artworks that come off an assembly line can be sold at such a high price. Maybe I need to see for myself before I judge, but it doesn’t seem fair for other original paintings that are mass produced on a press to sell at Wallmart for $30. Relating back to the article, Kinkade’s paintings would be worth little because once everyone gets the Kinkade paintings that they want, there will be little demand for his products, which will most likely cause the prices to plummet. The price of his works is artificially inflated for the time being. Who knows how long it will last, and it could consistently retain popularity. However, I don’t see any security in buying a Kinkade because of the marketing involved. The value can change at any moment. I see Kinkade like a pop singer who usually only lasts a few years before another boy band comes in and replaces him. Also, since it isn’t a one-of-a-kind production, why would someone buy your particular Kinkade painting if they can purchase a new, autographed Kinkade at the many, and growing, Kinkade galleries throughout the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)