Back in the 50's, some people claimed that some abstract expressionist works, like those of Jackson Pollock, was Communist propaganda or something.
-tilts head slightly, mildly confused-I don't know about you, but that up there doesn't exactly scream "COMMUNIST" at me.
My friend Watween, on her trip to the National Gallery in Washington, thought this painting looked like a friend of ours.
Because she'd also brought a voice recorder to document her trip, after describing the painting and deciding that this looked like our friend, she tried to talk "her" down from the hill. "While I must compliment you on your lovely hair bow, you're really gonna fall down into the ocean, and probably hit that tree on your way down," she admonished.
I agreed.
I've always liked this one:
It reminds me a bit of Hemingway's short story, "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." Besides, it's just so neat-looking.
Now, here's something I don't get. How is it that this...
...is considered "brilliant," "genius," or even "art"? I think nearly anybody can do something like that. It's like taking a sheet of paper and hanging it in a museum, or composing a piano piece of four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence (that's true, there's a piece called 4'33". Creative name, no?). Sure, some art can be done by us untalented masses, but... -tilts head until is nearly upside-down- I dunno, that's a bit of a stretch for me.
(This gallery is not liable for any art-appreciation-related neck injuries or discomfort)
Dude! I feel the same way about some modern art!!! Apparently, Jackson Pollock's splatters are very unique, and the only way to replicate his exact arm movements is to hang buckets from a string, so I give him some credit...
ReplyDeleteBut the last one? -shrugs- And while I was in DC, we went to the Smithsonian Modern Art, and there was a polished ostrich egg. That's all it was, and it was in the Smothsonian!!! Strange, strange world...