Saturday, March 21, 2009
Looking at a "fake" Pollock
Think of how you might react if you were to discover that a Jackson Pollock painting you were looking at in a gallery was in fact a parody of his work produced by a lesser artist for a bet. The institutional theory of art suggests that a Pollock is important because it is "a" Pollock. To what extent do you think your appreciation of a particular work of art relies upon what you know about the work/artist and your personal beliefs. How might thinking about your expectations/assumptions challenge a formalist approach to art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, if I were to see a parody of Pollock's work I would not by overly opposed. I think that, especially in the instance of a Pollock, the process is more important then the actual piece, therefore I think it is possible for people to express their angst similar to the way Pollock did. And based on the movie we watched of Pollock he does not seem like the kind of guy that would care if his work was parodied because he did seem so focused on the process and emotional expression. He didn't seem to buy into the 'famousness' of the art scene. I think if he did he would have been more productive and not been so conscious of the process behind the painting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this leads to the issue of how much you know of the artist. For some seeing a parody of a famous artist might seem offensive for the famous artist because they don't know the process behind it and just look at the form of it. I feel that I could appreciate a parody of a Pollock only because I know how Pollock created his paintings.
However...this leads to another issue...do we always have to know the artistic background and technique to appreciate a painting? In some ways I think we do as previously mentioned and for example, I never had an appreciation for field painting and canvases that were strictly one colour until I learned about the technique and the process behind it. But I do think there is an element of formalism necessary because I think that it is important to come to some pieces just looking at the elements themselves. In some cases there should be an element of naivete which leads to more impulsive reactions to pieces that can often be limited to previously conceived assumptions.
So I guess I'm not exactly answering the question but rather throwing some ideas out there because I am able to see it from both sides...what does everyone else think?
Even though I don't like to admit it, I would be disappointed to find out I wasn't looking at a Pollock. However, I do actually enjoy looking at his paintings, aside from the fact that its a Pollock. In the case of Pollock, I almost wish I didn't know anything about him, because then I could enjoy the fake just as much as the real thing. Not that I wouldn't think a fake Pollock isn't good, just not as exciting to see as the real thing.
ReplyDeleteReaction:
ReplyDeleteI would have mixed emotions if I was faced with a fake Pollock. I would react to the dishonesty of someone faking it and then wonder about the person who could pull it off. The copier has a great story, he plays with a lot of questions about the museum, its relationship to artists, and what “art” is, as well the copier must have great talent to copy a Pollock; in these ways the copier may be an artist indeed.
Institutional theory and story:
Already I have assessed what art is by looking at story and talent, two things which are not forefront for the institutional theory of happenchance objects being transformed in art when they enter the sacred walls of an institution.
The fake Pollock may deserve to stay, not because it is already there, but because it has a story, a talented author, and works allusively for the viewer. At least one must notice how the piece plays with our notion of what a museum is, and in this way its possibly anarchist and pomo question raising may deserve to stay.
Formalist theory meets Banksy
Fake or not? It would not matter if… the surface is the key to what art is. My reaction to assess the piece as having a story of intrigue and subterfuge, as the copier manages to hang a painting in the museum, questions this theory because it removes the story and relationships which are inherent in art. Banksy the UK graffiti artist actually posts "fake art" in galleries, it is a story and imagination like this which may be a better clue to what art is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkUbYBo5xgs
To some extent, I think I appreciate the art because I understand the artists-for example; I appreciate a Pollock painting because I understand the things he went through when he did the pieces. It is his character that pours out onto the page. But, someone else can go through the same process, and create works alike and we can appreciate this process too. I'm not sure why knowing the artist is important to me. Sometimes I feel as though when I do not know the artist, I can appreciate the piece more because I see it at face value so to speak.. I can come up with my own conclusions; or just appreciate it for what it is. If we don’t appreciate someone elses painting, I feel like we are buying into the idea that puts prices and fame on things, and turns away others because there is no "name."
ReplyDelete