| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Pollock update - part 2.; ...what say you? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2005, 09:36 AM (706 Views) | |
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 5 2005, 11:58 AM Post #26 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No. I think they are idiots for paying a million in the first place for something that a three year old could do. Or even themselves if they really wanted the art. Would have saved them alot of money. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 5 2005, 12:01 PM Post #27 |
|
MAMIL
|
Would you consider someone who paid a million bucks for an original Beethoven manuscript an idiot? Much easier to read versions are easily obtainable at a greatly reduced cost, and you can even listen to someone playing the thing for about $20. The manuscript has no objective value, but personally I'd love to have one. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 5 2005, 12:05 PM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Exactly, as would i. Because that took real talent. Splashing some paint in some random squiggles doesn't take talent. It takes balls. To be able to stand up and actually say your creation is worth £/$1,000,000, you really need to be pretty full of yourself. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 5 2005, 12:10 PM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Pollack didn't think his art was worth millions -- other people (critics, gallery owners, museums, collectors) did. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 5 2005, 12:13 PM Post #30 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well then back to what i said originally. They're idiots. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 5 2005, 12:16 PM Post #31 |
|
MAMIL
|
And this goes back to the original argument. How do we spot what takes talent? If the only art requiring talent is considered representational, is Picasso, say worthless? At what point do you say 'that's easy', and what makes us so sure that it is? Talent is subjective, and often not immediately obvious. J.S. Bach was long considered inferior in talent to his sons before he was 'rediscovered'. Saxophonist Charlie Parker was originally dismissed as talentless by many, and even today some claim that modern jazz is garbage. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 12:18 PM Post #32 |
|
Oh art definitely is a great investment, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Also, I don't talent is subjective. I believe talent is an abnormal gift, that enables you to do something that most other people couldn't do. Pollock, for example, was NOT talented. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 5 2005, 12:23 PM Post #33 |
|
MAMIL
|
How do you explain so many people saying that Charlie Parker was talentless if it isn't subjective? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 5 2005, 12:29 PM Post #34 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree. I don't think Talent is subjective. I don't see how anyone could argue that a few splashes of paint requires and displays talent. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 5 2005, 12:31 PM Post #35 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I could (and have) argued that, but I really don't feel like starting from scratch with this one. I'll just say that the argument could be made that Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionism does require talent. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 5 2005, 12:33 PM Post #36 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But what about John's example, of music? Can't you see how that could be subjective? some people think Celine Dion is a talented singer. I think she's horrid. Who's right? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 5 2005, 12:34 PM Post #37 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The man studied under Thomas Hart Benton for three years, and his early work is excellent figuration. He was no luckly talentless schlep.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Dec 5 2005, 12:37 PM Post #38 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
89th, The is sthe second post of yours, and drawing it out is getting very tired, rehashing the same arguments. If there is a point to these posts, let's get there quickly. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 12:50 PM Post #39 |
|
Regarding talent, I think the difference is that the interpretation of talent is subjective...Aqua thinks that pollock's stuff requires talent, and I don't. But whether or not someone has talent, is NOT subjective. That is, sure people can debate it, but when you bring stats and facts in and show that one person can do something that 90% of the world can do (such as throw paint at a canvas), then that's not talent and you have stats to back it up. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 12:52 PM Post #40 |
|
You can choose not to read this thread. There are a few active threads right now I'm choosing not to read, because I'm not interested. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 5 2005, 12:54 PM Post #41 |
|
MAMIL
|
See the above post from IT. Pollock objectively had talent, yes? This leaves the question, why did he choose to do what he did? I don't know the answer to that question. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 12:57 PM Post #42 |
|
Oh sure, Pollock might have talent...but he doesn't display talent, rather it didn't TAKE any special talent, to create some of his most famous paintings...if you can call them paintings. Some of the things he created, could have been done by jo jo the monkey, ruby the elephant, or mikey, the 3 year old. My point is that reputation in art is stupid. Two of the best paintings I've ever seen were done by people you've never heard of. I think Kenny's doorknob took 1,000,000 times more talent than anything Pollock has done. |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 5 2005, 01:00 PM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Polluck doesn't have talent. He has a good PR agent. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 5 2005, 01:05 PM Post #44 |
|
MAMIL
|
'Best', 'Good', 'artistic' - subjective words. Intercourse - there's a good woody word. Oh sorry, that just slipped out. I don't believe that I'm adequately qualified to determine who is talented or not. Of course, I am known for my excessive modesty. I know what I like, though.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 5 2005, 01:05 PM Post #45 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
This is pretty funny, considering the recent resurgence of the political 'list' thread. Seems we've heard that before as well.Speaking of tired, and rehashed arguments. I think there's enough room here for all of us to play. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 01:17 PM Post #46 |
|
I never said that "best" "good" etc...weren't subjective. I said that having talent isn't subjective. When anyone can repeat what Pollock paints...that's not talent. Again, I think every piece of art (music, paintings, etc.) should be judged subjectively. I think they should be ONLY judged by the opinion of the beholder. At least that goes with expressionism paintings. There are some realist or architectural paintings that need to be judged based on geometry, shadows, etc...but when it comes to Pollock-esque paintings, no outside standards should ever be applied. That's what's so beautiful about art.
|
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 01:18 PM Post #47 |
|
Good post suzie Q!
|
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Dec 5 2005, 01:20 PM Post #48 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Well, 89th, you seemed to imply that you had some point to the initial post. Evidently not. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| tcmod | Dec 5 2005, 01:24 PM Post #49 |
|
Senior Carp
|
COME ON MAN Finish this!! Let's see the grand unveiling!! |
| Dead girls don't say no, but you still have to buy them flowers | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 5 2005, 01:28 PM Post #50 |
|
Ah, I see you are still reading this annoying thread.
|
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







4:51 PM Jul 10