Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zombat
I am unsure of what you seek to expose by comparing these works to one another. I don't understand how the comparisons show intentional misrepresentation. I feel as though you've misunderstood why Rothko and Pollock are famous, considered innovative, and worth remembering artists.
Clearly you're thinking along the lines of "My kid could paint that..."
|
Zombat,
Since I am also unsure whether you are deliberately being disingenuous or I have somehow failed to make what I thought was an obvious point. I will try again, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Your quote was:
[QUOTE=zombat] The Conceptual artist spends as much time thinking about and analyzing his art as the Traditional Artist does observing and drawing or painting their art. Examples: Pollock, Rothko...QUOTE]
I gave you examples from Da Vinci and Michelangelo off the top of my head that clearly demonstrate no such equality in thought process or analytical consideration at all (by and with said comparison). You now say you are unsure what I seek to expose by comparing these works.
Perhaps I should just be more blunt. I made the comparison because in my estimation it demonstrates your statement was clearly unfounded. If, as you say “my kid” could do it there would be no basis (or reason) for the alleged time spent thinking and analyzing by either artist. Evidently then, “my kid” can produce a work these artist could not without forethought so extensive as to compare to the effort put forth creating a Da Vinci or Michelangelo masterpiece. It follows in my estimation, that if this were reality, neither artist (Rothko or Pollack) could have generated enough synaptic activity to write the check for a canvas.
Reality instead is that modern art, like wine, jewelry, or fashion is sold on hype or the pretense you mentioned. It sounds to me however, as if you have simply elected to buy into some of it. Hence, my observation that you have been duped. My point was that Rothko/Pollack finished works show no evidence at all of time consuming and painstaking careful deliberations needed to create the work of their predecessors. One merely has to look at any of them honestly.
For what it’s worth, I went to The Rothko Retrospective at the Guggenheim in 1978. I did not therefore, have to consult a magazine to reach these conclusions.
Cheers,
_gonzo_