Maybe to the uninitiated or unobservant eye, but all one has to do is look at Pasiphae, or Mural to know that simply is not the case.
Your comment doesn't make sense, since if it was 'all you had to do' was look at those paintings, then the 'uninitiated or observant eyes' would see it too.
Just pretentious B.S.. Like a group of art critics standing around staring at a black dot on a white wall and telling each other what great art it is, and all of them too afraid to be criticized by claiming something different.
reply
share
jmbwithcats
8 years ago
It makes perfect sense because if you looked at the 3 different paintings you'd see they all LOOK TOTALLY different with unique painting styles... so he's clearly not just throwing paint at a canvas!
Web www.jmberman.com
Fcbk www.facebook.com/catnipdream
reply
share
snagswolf
8 years ago
Actually, the videos of him at work show that exactly - he is just throwing paint at a canvas. And pretentious 'art fans' claim it's more than that.
That's why there's so many paintings out there that people claim to be Pollocks. And it hard to prove them as fakes, because anyone can paint like Pollock. Anyone can throw paint on a canvas.
Here's a story about a monkey who fooled the art critics:
http://modernnotion.com/the-time-the-art-world-was-fooled-by-a-monkey-named-pierre-brassau/
Here's what the critics said about this monkey:
"Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."
Sounds similar to what you're saying about Pollock.
reply
share