Jackson Pollacks “Number 17A” will be forgotten in 50 years

IS IT possible to admire this painting, Jackson Pollack’s “Number 17A,” which was bought recently by hedge fund billionaire Kenneth Griffin for $200 million, without knowing it was painted by a famous artist and is worth a lot of money? I say it is not. Not that Pollack had no artistic talent or that this is entirely uninteresting (there is nothing in the world — even a blank piece of paper — that is entirely without visual interest), but if you came across the same image on a discarded painter’s apron in an attic somewhere, would you consider it a work of art and attempt to sell it or keep it?

It is not surprising that abstract expressionism, which shows no sense of place or personality, would be coveted by a globalist, capitalist oligarchy.

Capitalism is to a sound economic order what pornography is to intimacy. It depersonalizes everything it touches. Even art.

— Comments —

B.E. writes:

“…if you came across the same image on a discarded painter’s apron in an attic somewhere, would you consider it a work of art…?”

Interestingly enough, artist Robert Florczak addressed Pollack’s paintings in the same way you did in his video for Prager University, Why is Modern Art so Bad?. It’s well worth the five minutes or so it
will take to watch it.

Philosopher Roger Scruton addressed the issue of beauty, and the lack thereof in the modern world, in an hour-long BBC2 documentary called Why Beauty Matters. This, too, is well worth the time, not least because Scruton defends Western civilization and traditional values in it.

Laura writes:

I unconsciously stole Florczak’s analogy. I have seen that video before.

I don’t agree with him, by the way, that the people can resist modern art by simply not attending exhibits, etc. That doesn’t matter much. The show will go on.

Mike writes:

I think some of the discussion around Jackson Pollack (and modern art in general) comes down to a discussion on the purpose of art. Must it purposely be beautiful? Must it be representative? As much as I appreciate art with both of those qualities, I don’t think the answer is necessarily ‘yes’ to either. The fact that we’re talking about Pollack’s art at all is a sign that he’s said something interesting enough to be worthy of discussion. That in itself might justify his works as a contribution to the dialogue of art.

I also can’t help but note the video’s use of a chart to describe the quality of art over the last couple hundred years. Two dimensional line charts are specific constructs with specific meaning. Using a line chart like that makes a concrete statement that the quality of art can be measured and reduced to a single scalar value that varies over time. The chart literally turns analysis of the quality of art into a one dimensional exercise. Maybe it’s just that the presenter doesn’t understand the math he is attempting to use, but an oversimplified world view tends to lead to oversimplified thinking about potential problems and their solutions. The irony here is that his use of math to present his point is arguably just as bad as he’s claiming Pollack’s use of art to be.

Laura writes:

The video is simplistic.

As for Abstract Expressionism, at its best, it draws attention to color in itself. It clears the eyes. There is a place for it in the dialogue. But it’s over-rated and it won’t last because it doesn’t help human beings cope with reality.

Please follow and like us: