ah, the age old question of the value of art. someone along the way claimed to see greatness. maybe they really did like it, maybe they were pretentious. but who was anyone else to argue? so the people around them claimed to see greatness too. next thing you know ole jed's a millionaire. (or, ole jackson.) there was an 80s movie called 'the big picture' in which a guy produced a video for a band called 'the pez people.' they were no one and he was no one but someone important overheard the words "have you see that new pez people video?????!!!!!" (or something to that effect) and suddenly they were hot and famous and the producer was hot and famous. i call it the pez people phenomenon now.

Its the Emperors new clothes all over again IMO

It's easy to say about modern art, "my 4-year-old could do that". Such things are usually said by people who barely give more than a glance to a work of art. If you appreciate art, and study the pieces, you'd realize that there was a knowing technique to how Pollock painted. You look at one of his paintings, and see those solid, well placed, low and thick obstructions. But they don't hold you down! There is a whirling, wild sense of freedom, and at the same a most cunning arrangement of space as to line, thick as to thin, rise as to fall, abrupt angle and surprising dash. Here, impediment is a means of freedom, and the artist's beautiful, central ambition is satisfied, and we are satisfied. We feel we can be ambitious to be free like that. It is a sign, as Eli Siegel has described, of the world itself making beautiful sense, and we like it. Stop and look... REALLY look at some modern art. The next time you're in a museum just sit on a bench, and look for 5 minutes. Then stand close to the piece, so you can see the textures of the paint. ABSORB the piece. Seeing it in a book is not the same as seeing the real thing, believe me!

I think it really all comes down to marketing.I have studied and been an artist for years,and the way to fame is through marketing then necessarily talent.Pollock deserved his success for he realized what the market wanted and supplied the product in his art.He was not one of the starving artists.

I saw the artist's "Blue Poles #11" when it first arrived in Australia, and I could not see why we paid so much for it. To me, it was, and still is, more of a symbol of the then Labor government that acquired it. that government followed every whim and wind and spent money like water on projects that produced nothing except for large bank balances, or overseas trips for those involved. Looking at it now, I see it as better than I did, but still, we paid far too much for it. (at that time the highest price for a work of modern art).

They are splattered paint in the strict sense of the word, but not just any splattered paint, there's a science and feeling to it. Funnily enough I found this amusing program 2 days ago:http://www.jacksonpollock.org/ (Right click on the mouse to change colors)

Was Barnum correct when he said, "there is a sucker born evry minute"? If you want to see God's art as captured by a great photographer, see www.WestOfTheMoon.com.

I have been thinking about this for some time.Any splattered paint does indeed look like a master-piece and if somebody who pretends to be a great art critic and says ,wow !,the rest of them all give it great value.Then somebody comes along and says,there is a feeling of release,a cunning arrangement of space ,abrupt angle, surprising dash and other such adjectives ,we think ,may be , all that is there and we have not noticed it.We begin to view it as a great work of art. As an art critic I will say ,it is a quiet contemplation and great work of art. I don't subscribe to these views as a generality but I have a feeling that the merit of an artist has definitely a lot to do with the self-projection and self-hype he is capable of creating.

because jackasses are willing to pay it...money itself holds no intrinsic value since we went off the gold standard...things are only worth what you believe they are...no more, no less

"I bet if I set up a studio and placed a large canvas on the floor and then asked random people off the street to make a splattered painting- the results would probably be very impressive. " Probably, but then you'd just be copying the real artist. I can cover a Beatles song and sound just as good, but that sure doesn't make me as talented or creative, or as worthy of praise as the Beatles.

If you show me an image of a painting that looks like a Pollock, but isn't made by him, you might have a point. Pollock had a very definite personal style, the way he applied his paint on the canvas was only part of that style. His paintings definitely do not look like "nothing but splattered paint". That is just a superficial way of looking at them. His works are so valuable because he was a pioneer. Generally speaking, though, the prices paid for art of the 20th century -and of our time - are at the moment irrationally high, and that it not really justified.

Cult of personality.

To some people yes, it may look only like splattered paint. But Jackson Pollock worked his soul into the canvas. Art IS the expression of one's soul into whatever they create. What looks like splattered paint to one can be a work of art to another, and vice versa. Each indivudal person has there own view of art.

;) i used to say the same thing... till i tried to do a pollack style piece. it's more difficult than it appears on the surface. my attempt, at first, was a complete failure. it was only when i went in my own direction and decided not to copy but merely be inspired was when i ended up making one of my favorite pieces. you can only see very little pollack influence in the final product, the rest is all my style ;)

I agree with you completely. I could produce the same kind of DRIBBLINGS, if I handed two squeeze bottles of ketchup & mustard to an orangutan, then injected him with massive amounts of LSD. OR... I could hand the same items to a tomcat, and see the kind of "art" he could create, while being neutered. Pollock produced garbage. It's wrong to call barfing onto a canvas "art," by any stretch of the human imagination.

A look at the reason Jackson Pollock may have got so famous at the time he did, the cold war and the theories of Marxism could have been a factor: http://www.socyberty.com/Philosophy/Jackson-Pollock-and-Marxism.757165

because art is Subjective. like music, some appreciates classics and some appreciates a very modern types. and in my opinion, Pollock's art is more than splish splashing paint but there are color combination and dimensional strings and twists he does to it