But is it art?
[Update: Click the picture. It’s only funny if you click the picture with Flash enabled. The site requires Flash.]
Shostack + Friends Blog Archive
7 comments on "But is it art?"
Comments are closed.
[Update: Click the picture. It’s only funny if you click the picture with Flash enabled. The site requires Flash.]
Comments are closed.
i’ve seen more complex network diagrams.
And it’s tidier than the “structured wiring” on our rack.
But no. It is NOT art, never was, never will be.
Personally, I like Pollock’s work. It reminds me of my brain.
Comparatively speaking, I prefer Pollock’s “drizzle and splatter” much more than I do Rothko’s “go back and forth until the brush runs out of paint” method.
But that’s just me.
😉
Art can be any medium by which an artist intends to convey emotion to an audience. If Jackson Pollock intended to convey emotion with this work then it’s art. That said, if it fails to convey the emotions he intended then it’s not good art; personally I’ve not the slightest idea what Pollock was feeling when he created this work…
I need further data. How much does it cost? :^)
Nicko, you need to go visit the site. It will help you understand if the artist is trying to convey emotions.
(Is “snark” an emotion?)
Adam,
(yes, I followed it through.) The answer is, no it’s not. The reason however is not obvious: it is defined by who the creator was.
It looks Jackson Pollock as implemented by someone whose never actually seen a Pollock, but has heard of them.