yes I bet it is. I am always amazed to see art in person and how the splendour is never captured in a book or photo of the work. I'm sure Mural would be spectaculor to see in person

I had the pleasure of seeing "Mural" in the permanent collection of my hometown museum at the University of Iowa.

I saw it at the MoMA retrospective in 1998.

drugs will do that to

@@sirbantzalot lol

nothing more inspiring than getting rich for simply splattering paint on a canvas one afternoon while drunk

I've been to the Guggenheim. Enjoyed it so very much.

I see eyes.

La pittura del secolo scorso ha sempre il suo fascino

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

not in my opinion but hey if you think paint splatters are meaningful then you are correct

@Pete's Guitar Lessons TV Yeah but It's Pollock, I'm pretty sure he's the type of artist to not even care if the painting isn't even properly framed ..

@Pete's Guitar Lessons TV Besides the point ? The original comment was about what Pollock would think ? and no we should throw them in a pile and then throw a match and I bet even Pollock would agree we made a better masterpiece

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9yWiZxpkrHVno0.html

I kind of like the idea Pollock was probably drinking and smoking while doing this, possibly sneezing and caughing at it... And now decades later people in lab suits use hi-tec to clean this up...

who is that

@@RaeZoladawn777 Aelita Andre is a young girl from Australia who uses a combination of pouring techniques and pollock-like drip techniques to create her abstract compositions... quite talented for a child...

When I started painting huge canvases, I used house paint because it was so much cheaper than acrylic and gave a much more textured finish.

Eric Dickerson housepaint isn’t archival. It’s a horrible, cheap thing for him to have done that evidences his lack of craftsmanship. The sagging canvas, the cheap choice of stretchers... imagine if he had been a craftsman, instead of an unsteady drunk who apparently didn’t care about the longevity of his work for purchasers

And all that an artist should worry about is to work on archival materials and selling work right? haha

Needs must. And maybe he liked it.

I don't blame the artist. I blame the idiots who bought his work.

You're right, in a way. Anyone can splatter paint, but very few can make a large rectangle look attractive with that method. Even fewer can make a composition of pure color that millions of humans would like to look at for centuries to come, devoid of any recognizable subject matter. If you look at the overall whole of the mural, you can sit back and your eye glides over the entire expanse without ever stopping. That's incredibly difficult to do. Try it if you don't believe me. Splash painting is a great method for large scale art. It's dramatic, really fun to do, and actually takes skill to direct randomness into a cohesive result. I don't understand why people can't grasp how amazing it is to try and put a harness on chaos. Cowboys laud a guy that can stay on top of a bull at a rodeo for longer than 8 seconds. It's like successfully herding cats and making a product for the ages in the process.

In part it is to figure out how it was done because the paint has the texture of splashed paint, but the pattern of how the splashes looked was extremely weird. Too weird to just be normal paint on a normal brush flung at a canvas. They realized that it was industrial quality oil house paint with extra oil added through a chemical analysis. But without throwing types of paint at a canvas they'd never be able to rightfully say 'this is how he did it.' Now they know. You add enough oil to house paint and throw it at a canvas it gets all squiggly as it lands.

Mark Bee there is the game of subject, composition, style, medium, formed impasto, blah blah... nobody had moved paint like Polluck, his style overruled his sense of form in representation... he mastered form with no representation. Genius artist but troubled individual... I feel like abstract artists have more inner demons

One has to remember that the Abstract Expressionists were working during and after World War II. The world was in great turmoil and there was the fear that the world was coming to an end. So the Ab Ex painters felt that the whole issue of painting was over, that one couldn't just sit and paint flowers and landscapes and portraits. They painted as if painting had never been done before, expressing themselves with color, form, and the very act of painting itself. The "inner demons" were actually everywhere to be found in the '40's and '50's. After the great economic boom of the 1950's it was only natural that Ab Ex painting would be shunted aside by commercialized and deliberately superficial Pop Art. In short, all art is a reflection of it's time.

It was made in América.

Tom Furgas. Yes, the Abstract Expressionists needed to convey their feelings using the medium of paint. The pity is that they had no artistic talent and hence the daub that resulted.

As it really clearly states in the video, the legend is NOT true.

GTFO

maybe thats the point of his work.....not to see anything. I don't think that but to say something that is beautiful and wonderful as many people do and to say it is meaningless is silly imo. Life in the end can be meaningless so not everything has to have a meaning.

You're not supposed to see anything. It's an abstract expressionist piece. Think of it as a visualization of feelings.

I think you mean non-representative, not meaningless. Would you rather have an Alma-Tadema hanging in his place? Wouldn't make much sense, would it? Pollock made that space. It can't be filled by another painting. I know it's not beautiful in *that* way, but please take a step back before you say things like that. There's tons of free to read information online, and it might just turn out to be really interesting. The more you understand, the more you see in those lines. Which is beautiful.

you are the boring thing duude

It’s like music without lyrics

@Philip Gomez do you expect from me to give you art lessons? Especially on Pollock's art! What is your point, don't evade the question...

@Philip Gomez you didn't answer the question,so I will repeat it..,what's your point??

@Philip Gomez Art is about the feelling , the sense ,what is the impression you get from the painting. What motivates you to think , to feel? The artist doesn’t come to say “this is it” .It is what resonates between you and the painting. So someone has to feel and think about how he is related to that painting.

@Philip Gomez Nobody express himself here as an artist but as a layman. Anyone can search and read books, the internet and wiki. Anyone can do this. What is the beauty here is that people express their insight as a layman.

You do know that comments like yours are part of the artwork, right?