Lost his marbles

[The Hen]

I have a personal (therefore, yet again, subjective) guide to art: If it is not appealing until after it has been explained, it is crap.

To allow you to consider one of my local sculptures in a more informed fashion, AndrewD, allow me to inform you that THIS sculpture:



depicts



We had a massive protest campaign when the Gungahlin Drive Extension (the road in front) was built.

To build the road my Department had to bulldoze through swathes of native bushland. This was further exacerbated when the Australian Institute of Sport insisted that we put it further away from them to prevent elite athletes inhaling carbon monoxide when training. (Reasonable request I suppose.)

So the protesters ended up holding up the road construction for a period of two years while Court cases were heard. (Protest group eventually ran out of money). When the road was nearing completion our Chief Minister Nero (Stanhope actually) decided to beautify the road by providing a point for public sculpture. The grass was a nod to all the trees that were removed.

[Sue U]

Public funding for music is, in my opinion, badly misdirected. Rather than publicly funding the performance (and composition) of music -- excepting the public funding of free concerts, which allow the impecunious to share in what they would otherwise be mostly deprived of -- if we really are interested in "improving and beautifying the lives of all citizens," we should take all of that funding and redirect it into musical education for children.

Well I certainly agree with you on that score.

I have a personal (therefore, yet again, subjective) guide to art: If it is not appealing until after it has been explained, it is crap. Yes, understanding what the artist was trying to say, the place of the work in the "development" (which is all too often the devolution) of whatever art form it is an example of, and so forth can deepen one's appreciation of the piece. But if the piece is not grabbing in the first place -- even if the grab is not pleasant (Munch's The Scream is not pleasant, but it is immediately affecting) -- then all the explanation in the world will not save it.

I am given to understand that various works by Jackson Pollock involve intricate uses of fractals. So what? It was crap when I looked at it before knowing that, and it is still crap when I look at it after knowing (or being led to believe) that.

You know, I have always liked Pollock, Rothko, Frankenthaler, Motherwell, etc. just to look at; Andy Warhol, Red Grooms and Judy Chicago always made me laugh. De gustibus etc.

(P.S. for Sue U: "[A]fter sufficient exposure [ I] might even grow to like Carter"? How sufficient will the exposure have to be for you to grow to enjoy the brilliance of the Pachelbel Canon?)

I think it may be my over-exposure to Pachelbel that's made it unlistenable. Then again, it might just be crap.

[Andrew D]

Hen: If, when you first encountered that heap of scrap metal sculpture, you had not known anything about the building of the road, the protests, etc., would you have found the thing appealing?

[The Hen]

I seriously doubt it.

It looks like some of the girders for the road bridge work were warped and some arse has dumped them there.

It sucks to such a magnitude that will take a long time for anyone else to beat it to being the most offensive public piece.

[Andrew D]

I have a personal (therefore, yet again, subjective) guide to art: If it is not appealing until after it has been explained, it is crap. Yes, understanding what the artist was trying to say, the place of the work in the "development" (which is all too often the devolution) of whatever art form it is an example of, and so forth can deepen one's appreciation of the piece. But if the piece is not grabbing in the first place -- even if the grab is not pleasant (Munch's The Scream is not pleasant, but it is immediately affecting) -- then all the explanation in the world will not save it.

I am given to understand that various works by Jackson Pollock involve intricate uses of fractals. So what? It was crap when I looked at it before knowing that, and it is still crap when I look at it after knowing (or being led to believe) that.

You know, I have always liked Pollock, Rothko, Frankenthaler, Motherwell, etc. just to look at; Andy Warhol, Red Grooms and Judy Chicago always made me laugh. De gustibus etc.

If you didn't already know which was which, do you think that you really could tell the difference between a "work" by Jackson Pollock and the random spewings of paint produced by a raving chimpanzee? I very much doubt that I could.

[The Hen]

Pollock has a depth that I doubt a chimp could match. I don't like all of his works, but I am very partial to Blue Poles, which is in my local art gallery.

[Andrew D]

Can you say anything about why you like it? I realize that that is a potentially unanswerable question due to the inherently subjective nature of the judgment -- why do I like Beethoven's seventh symphony more than his third? I don't know.

Still, without demanding that you do so, I wonder: Is there anything you can say about that Pollock piece that might give me some insight into why it appeals to you?

That is a serious question. Pollock's works are, apparently, appreciated by many people, including people whose opinions on various subjects I respect. I am at a loss to understand why.

[The Hen]

Yes I can. (In a way in any case.) As well as give you my history with the painting which may explain why I (at least) like this Pollock. I have never stood in front of any other Pollock so I can not say I actually like his work in general.

My history with this painting goes back to when I first heard that the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had purchased the work. It cost the Australian Taxpayers the equivalent of $83.00 per square inch. An unheard of cost for a piece of public art in those days. (1973 I think.) This work is massive so the cost per square inch totaled to be $1.5 million dollars.

(We were a nation of thongs, singlets and beer at that point. We did not like being edumacated into works of Art and then of course there was the ensuring debate of what 'art' is ... for a decade or so.)

Any way, I went with a desire to like the painting. I didn't for many years.

The yellows and the oranges irritated me and I felt they detracted from what MIGHT have been a half decent (though rather large) painting in a dentists reception.

Over the years I generally ignored the painting until one day I sat and viewed it for about 30 minutes.

My opinion changed.

The discordance I felt from the yellows and oranges was replaced with a wonder of why I hadn't spotted this before.

The picture was not a two dimensional set of paint chucked on an overly large canvas. (Well, it was ... but it didn't just have a depth of the surface of the paint. The picture actually sinks into the canvas and has a depth of approximately 4 to 5 feet. The yellows and oranges help you traverse the picture form the front of the canvass to the back. Which should be a depth of around 1/4 of an inch, but seems to go for so many more feet that that.

I do not think you should judge a Pollock until you have stood in front of it.