I've always been annoyed by Jackson Pollock's paintings, not so much by his
work as by the high respect paid to it by university art teachers. I can't
say what went on in the man's mind when he was creating one of his
paintings, but the results resemble a house-painter's well-used drop cloth.
Natasha, what good is there to Pollock's work other than the novelty it
presented in its time? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like
to know. When you view one of his paintings, what goes through your mind?
Are you emotionally moved? Inspired? Delighted? Am I mistaken in thinking
that one aspect of art is communication?
Bonnie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.com
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.com]On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 11:40 PM
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: ART: What Art Is
Oh my. This paragraph is painful to read. Pollock (painter), Cage
(musician), Cunningham (dancer/choreographer) were brilliant artists whose
*innovative* abilities shook the very foundation of the old-world
stifling-stamp on what society thought art was supposed to be. Their
visionary approach to creativity helped society to break free of
intellectual and emotional constraints.
Natasha
Natasha Vita-More: http://www.natasha.cc
To Order the book: Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture
http://www.natasha.cc/books.htm
Extropic Art & Transhumanist Arts Center: http://www.extropic-art.com
Transhuman Culture InfoMark: http://www.transhuman.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:48 MDT