Pollock

Jackson Pollock is an artist; there is no question about it.  He expresses his emotion onto canvas better than most have before him.  However, according to some of the past philosophers, he is not an artist at all.  I think more along the lines of the businessman, Andy Warhol.  If you can sell it for millions then more power to you.  Andy Warhol believed that if you could sell it then it was art.  One aspect that Andy Warhol would have disagreed with the emotional side of Jackson but the ability to sell his work as art would classify him as an artist.

The emotional side of Jackson Pollock’s work began as similar to Tolstoy but in the end failed as Tolstoy.  Tolstoy believed that emotion was the center of every piece of art.  It was not considered art if emotion was not put in the painting and then conveyed to the viewer.  The viewer must be able to see the emotion that the artist was attempting to convey.  Jackson Pollock had emotion in his art; the only problem that Tolstoy would have is that Pollock was unable to convey his emotion to the viewer.  People look at Pollocks and find their own meaning in his work but it is not necessarily the intent of Pollock.  Therefore I see Andy Warhol agreeing with Pollock’s ability to sell his art and Tolstoy would agree that Pollock had the right intent with his art, however, in the aesthetic appeal of the art, it seems that only Kant can be used to consider Pollock’s final product art.  Kant believed that no one criterion can be used to judge art.  Rather, it would be adapted throughout time.   Pollock’s work was so unlike all others in that time that art theories would have to adapt to include his art.

Nietzsche and Tolstoy

As I was looking up some more information on the topic to write my blog I came across this quote by Tolstoy, “Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.”  This quote threw me off a little bit because when I first approached the question I thought they were talking about the same thing.  Nietzsche, in his work, talks about the duality of an artist.  He uses the characters of Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus, to represent the duality.  Now this duality is not the typical one we are used to, good vs. evil, but rather it is a duality between, what he calls, dreams and drunkenness.  This is the key to understanding why Tolstoy would have been quoted saying it as well as it explains why I thought they were similar at first.  The Apollo/Dream aspect of Nietzsche is was chiefly based off of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.  It is the idea that when one dreams, they are aware that reality exists under the dream and the dream is not real.  Apollo represents restraint as one is able to separate their emotions from getting in the way of reality.  The Dionysus/Drunkenness aspect is the mere loss of restraint.  The Apollo idea remains at the forefront of our life, yet, when it fails, Dionysus appears.

To bring this back to Tolstoy, he claims that genuine infection of the meaning and emotion of art from the artist to the view is the only true art.  Though we have heard about many philosophers who claim one needs to be disconnected emotionally from art, Tolstoy claims that it the viewer cannot readily see the meaning and emotion conveyed by the artist, it is not a good piece of art.  To me, it seems like this idea of art, this immense passion is very similar to the emotion that occurs when, according to Nietzsche, Apollo is lost and Dionysus comes forth.  This explains a little of the meaning behind the quote above.  Nietzsche thought that emotion was only shown when someone let down their guards and fell into a drunken state of mind.  Tolstoy claimed that it was in the passionate emotional state of mind when true feelings made their way onto a canvas and to the viewer.

Faking It

I had two completely different opinions on the outcome of the show “Faking It.”  For the first forty-five minutes of the show I would have really disagreed that Will would have a chance to fool the artists.  He was going through the motions and was working really hard but just was not producing the type of art that would be able to be sold for anything more than twenty dollars.  He was getting advice from his trainers but it didn’t seem like he would find his own niche in the art world in only thirty days time.  I was unable to articulate exactly the reason why he was failing but it just appeared that he was not producing art at the same caliber as others in his field.  However, just before we stopped watching the film Will had his art analyzed by a room full of art critics.  At this table where they discussed his paintings, especially the one where he was crippled, they were able to articulate the problem that I saw as the key problem in his art.  One man said that for it to be true art, we wouldn’t need to know the back story to be able to understand the meaning of the painting.  Bingo!  After hearing this man say this I began to look back throughout the sow and see that I had been having the same issue with him.  When he first had his art judged by his trainers, they had to ask him the meaning because what they interpreted was not at all the message that he was trying to get across.  Then, when they had the brutally honest art critic examine his work, Will explained to him the meaning while the critic became brutally honest saying that he didn’t see the intended meaning in the painting at all.  The problem was he was using his knowledge to aid the painting which no art critic or viewer would have.  They should not have to read his biography to get something from his work.  That being said, now that Will knows about this inherent problem with his work I think that he will be able to change up his style slightly, and possibly be able to fool the critics.  

Kinkade

First off, I was astonished to see the production that was going on with Thomas Kinkade.  Technically, he was creating originals but at the same time he was mass producing originals.  In my way of thinking, it was almost the same as painting a “color by number” and then calling it an original.  He would merely copy ninety percent of his art and then just add some finishing touches to it by hand.  These finishing touches are what gives the art the “original art” factor.  Now, I see this as a problem for a company like Art Capitol Group.  The reason goes back to simple supply and demand.  When dealing with economics, there is a demand for everything.  If there is a huge supply, then the demand goes down and thus the price goes down as well.  This has never been a problem for art before because there were only two types of art works: originals and print copies.  The originals would be worth a significant amount more not because it looked better or took more time.  The only reason that it costs more is because the supply is forever at one.  Therefore, demand remains high for that particular painting.  This is why Art Capitol Group has such faith when they allow people to pawn their art.  However, I am curious to how much money they would give to an “original” Kinkade.  In the 60 Minute presentation of his work, it was said that every original the rolls off the assembly line is now selling for fifty thousand dollars.  According to economics, as he continues to produce more of these originals, they will slowly begin to diminish in value.  Typically, art never diminishes in value, and yet, in this case, eventually his will.  His art is turning more into a consumer product.  What I mean by this is take a TV for example.  Five years ago one would have to pay thousands of dollars for a decent size high definition.  However, with advances in technology, the price would eventually come down.  This meant that if consumers could wait a few years before buying anything, they would save thousands of dollars.  This happens over a few years because of the amount of TVs that are produced so when comparing to Kinkade’s art, this should be taken into consideration.  But nevertheless, Kinkade is mass producing his originals which will eventually lower the price and make investing in his art no longer, neither for the common person of Art Capitol Group, a smart investment.