Post #536970 by Zeta on Wed, Jun 16, 2010 9:14 PM

On 2010-06-16 21:06, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

yes- anyone can paint like pollack but that's never been the point. The point is that prior to him, no one did paint like that and that is why his work is signifigant for that time as with most pop artists. Anyone can paint campbell's soup cans but prior to warhol, no one did.....these artists and more helped expand the cultural and social boundaries of what was considered art. Duchamp made his audience view everyday objects we take for granted as potenial works of art when taken out of their everyday context (i.e a porcelian urinal). most folks tend to confuse substance with aesthetics when viewing these types of things but these artists and others of the time were ground breakers in their own ways.....important culturally for the doors they opened with their art, not neccessarily for the type of art they made.....

I knew that! I'ts all about being a pioneer. But what about the Tiki-Pollock connection? Why does abstact expressionism and primitive art go so well together? Besides the era and all that. They just look good together... I guess Pollock represents the primitive among the moderns... Pollock art kind of reminds me of Papua New Guinea art... I dunno.
More cliches please! More images too!

Artists hate to "explain" their work