Skip to content

This Blog Post Is Art

One of my pet peeves is when someone looks at an artist’s piece and states matter of factly, “that is NOT art, my little brother could make that.” Part of me wants to yell, “SHUT UP, YOU KNOW NOTHING! WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE” but most of the time I quietly ignore their ignorant comment on someone’s artwork.

Our society is constantly attempting to define what art “is,” and we have been for the last 100 years. The truth is, art can be anything from a blank white canvas on a wall to an exquisite piece painted by Van Gogh. For example, many people believe Jackson Pollock shouldn’t be considered a “great artist,” but I’m going to give you three reasons why that statement isn’t true.

    1. Pollock was the Jimmy Hendrix of painting. He threw out every rule about “how an artist should apply paint to a canvas” by using new techniques and ideas the world had never seen before.
    2. Pollock was responsible for creating the “all over” painting. Instead of constructing a clear foreground, middleground, and background on each canvas; he created a composition of forms trapping his viewer into a hypnosis, guiding their eyes in a calculated movement throughout the canvas.
    3. Jackson Pollock’s paintings focused on the act of perception. His drips are not random; every line, movement, and figure was deliberately constructed to evoke a certain feeling for the viewer. His artwork takes time to absorb and interpret to fully understand what was implied beneath the surface.Autumn Rhythm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next time you see a canvas hanging in a museum or gallery that you would normally brush past, spend at least ten minutes observing it. Try to figure out what the artist’s method was and why they went about creating it that way. Absorb it in slowly, then ask yourself “Is this art?” and I promise your previous answer will change.

-ZI

 

2 Comments

  1. ttran35 wrote:

    I am also really annoyed by people saying modern and contemporary art (abstract, minimalism or conceptual,…) are not art. While it is true that everyone has their own version of art, dismissing other artists’ works because you don’t understand them (or don’t even try to) is just unacceptable.
    I believe the majority of people, when hearing the word “art,” consider classical or realism paintings as its standard. If they have taken an art history course, they would know that nowadays, art has evolved a lot. Compared to the Renaissance period, there is much less restriction in term of subject matters, medium and messages, which takes art outside of the canvas. Therefore, I usually ask ignorant people not to use 16th century standard to judge 21st century art. It is truly stupid in many ways.
    I don’t believe art is exclusively for people with talents – either natural or trained – as it used to be in the classical era. Therefore, the phrase “my little brother/kid/dog/cat can make that” makes no sense, as art isn’t something that only a few gifted people can do. Anyone with creativity and passion can create art, regardless of talents. One doesn’t need to be good as drawing, but just need to be able to see to world differently, like Pollock, to create art.

    Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
  2. ilesiuk wrote:

    Seeing as how this post directly contrasts my first blog post of this semester… I had to read it. I am one of those people that sees an action painting and thinks “how is this art?”, though I don’t actually dismiss it as not being art. I just don’t understand how it is art and would like to learn.

    Coincidentally, in one of my classes we are talking about art exactly like this and the points our professor brings up are very similar to what you have pointed out here. And when I read them and think about it more, they make a lot of sense. The crux of these paintings isn’t the “random splatter of paint”, but the process in which the paint was added to the canvas.

    Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink