Pollock’s art is not just random splashes but a sophisticated interaction of movement, gravity, and fluid dynamics, creating fractal-like structures. This fractal nature might contribute to why people find his work visually compelling—it resonates with patterns we see in nature.
It's not any more random than where you happen to be standing in relation to the clouds at sunset. There's plenty of days that doesn't have any emotional resonance to me, but some days it does. I wouldn't dwell on it, and if you happen to see a piece in person some day, maybe it strikes you differently.
I haven't spent much time with Pollock, but I've seen an awful lot of Rothkos. Very different style but similar levels of "that looks like it took no thought and has nothing to say".
I'm content to say Rothko isn't for me, but I'll reserve judgment on Pollock until I can spend more time in those galleries.
That is a really good point. I've put a lot of effort into understanding things that didn't appeal and some of them are now very meaningful to me. I thought literature was absurd and now I direct Shakespeare plays.
This is a fun toy. I have no problem naming toys after the serious people and things that inspired it. For all I know, that is exactly what the author of this toy intended to do. Toy isn’t even a denigrating term — play is critically important to many things, especially in visual art.
What gets old is the hubris of the tech world thinking that an artist’s intention and methods boil down to a superficial ‘style’— devoid of granular stroke-by-stroke intention, context, or meaning which you can apply to any arbitrary subject or setting to effectively create new works by that artist.
Pollock's "art" is generous. The guy splashed random paint around. Buyers would come in and point to the section that "spoke" to them. He'd cut out that section, sign it, and extract thousands from these idiots. Actually, good for him come to think of it.
