Painters Perspective

I may do that

I only give my paintings titles because Google.

Oh Yeah? Or did the CIA tell Pollock what to name the paintings?

Everything Pollock did should be scrutinized for it was presented to the public under false pretenses.

https://www.academia.edu/13533583/The_Mighty_Wurlitzer_How_The_CIA_Played_America_by_Hugh_Wilford

I think Drew May be referring to the politics of Abstract Expressionism. The government pumped money into the movement and helped export it world wide. The movement represented freedom while the USSR adopted Social Realism as the official style. However that said I think the actual artist involved were legit and simply used as pawns. It makes sense that numbering the works rather than assigning titles would work best if you are dealing with pure aesthetics.

Drew - thank you, and Ronald for explaining - I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole.

Sometimes I just give a number - Like abstract # whatever - my reason is I am lazy.

"The movement represented freedom while the USSR adopted Social Realism as the official style"

Ronald, this was the state sponsored propaganda message imposed on the public by a few players .

What is important is that Pollock was selected as a tool to manipulate public opinion. It work was weaponized to diminish one form of expression over another . Was he a patsy? Was he a victim? Was he an active participation in the deception? Ilrelivant for his work was propaganda.

Scrutinization, skepticism and reexamination do to false pretense is reasonable for anything when false representation is involved. Hence the term "False Pretense."
Historical reclassification for Pollock's work may result in the disclosure of new information released from old records.

" I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole."
One Blue Pill Pease!
:)

Drew might be splitting hairs here but I don’t think his work, as well as work of other artist from that period, was propaganda. However it certainly was used as such, I still feel the artist and their work was legit despite being used as political pawns. I do agree with you that with the money being pumped into the movement and the politics involved it must be looked at very carefully.

That would be much more simple.. or at least like this
Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3, Cat 1456 etc...

"I still feel the artist and their work was legit despite being used as political pawns"

Collective Behavior analysis has been deployed for decades. The discerning of social triggers and implementing said triggers on large groups creating a desired reaction is a science long developed and deployed on many groups.

I understand why individuals believe that they are immune to these triggers. A society that upholds free will and individualism may also believe they are immune to programming. The idea that Abstract Expressionism was nothing but propaganda is a hard pill to swallow.

Maybe Pollock wanted to name his paintings Phase 1, Phase 2, ......then we could be more sure but nothing really comes out of such suppositions. Makes good conversation though.

Dora, I'd hate to confuse your images with bad hurricanes.....
:)

Got to go and check my Facebook and Twitter account. I have to investigate my notifications. It could be important!

I think the governments support of Abstract Expressionism was more reactionary than plotted. Once the USSR rejected modernism and adopted realism as the official style they reacted with the opposite. The artist who were the core group were already well on their way and the creation of Abstract Expressionism would have taken place anyway. However it is questionable if the movement would have been near as successful without the support, personally I think not.

Pollock only did the titling for artistic purposes. I build on that with things like "Recent x". Recent is a synonym for "modern x" and the collection involves modernism.

AbEx theories about political agenda are long after the fact of Pollock. They also are overblown and totally miss the mark. Most of the theories come from measuring the economic impact of AbEx. The "theorists" never look under the hood to see what the economists mean.

That economic impact is mostly packaging.

Meaning when you look at a plastic and paper wrapped product the design is a form of abstract art. That is thrown into the political theory as economic evidence "undeclared". Meaning the theorists are building on true economists reports on the monetary impact of abex, small a and e. Just really abstraction.

Remember plastic and machine made plastic and paper wrappings for products was an innovative industry after WW II. The lift in the US economy was tremendous.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

David B. For years it was just a rumor that the us government helped export Abstract Expressionism as a type of PR weapon. However this rumor was confirmed with the release of documents in recent years, it is not some weird theory.

I am not denying that. It was done in broad daylight. It never was a conspiracy.

It was also done after Pollock died. Not so much prior.

But the economic messaging was about packaging. We reign supreme was about sales. The sales were in packaging.

Yes the front man was AbEx in museums.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

PS that is like watching the catwalk in NYC. Some 72 hours later some of the designs done at less expense are on the shelves and racks at Walmart. Who is making the actual money? What is the actual economy being boasted about?

PPS I really wish people who read something entirely new to them did not believe it must have been a conspiracy. Hogwash.

Good article on this called “ Modern art was a CIA weapon in the Independent, worth the read.

The Independent is the Irish paper?

I have heard about the story. It can be totally true. It is a very small sideshow.

It is not the museum interest in Pollock and the rest of AbEx.

It is not the economic implications in plastic and packaging.

Those are much larger forces in the arts and the economy than the CIA worrying about anything.

But to put this to the test will anyone tell me the CIA budget for this? Because whatever that budget was it was minor in comparison to the economic impact AbEx and abstract in general created for the US.

What I do not like is citing the CIA stuff as if to dismiss everything else about modern art movements. Think that one over Ron.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

I said that the addition of the backing of the CI A helped the movement to success internationally and I believe it is true. I was largely trained by Abstract Expressionist and have a great deal of respect for the movement. However as it is often said politics make for strange bed fellows. The artist involved in the movement were unaware of the source of the backing and most likely would not have been happy with it. Would the Abstract Expressionist have been as successful without the backing? No real idea and we will never know the true answer to that question.

David the article is worth the read as many of the questions we are both asking are addressed in it.

Collective Behavior analysis uncovers triggers and uses said triggers to manipulate people. "Propaganda "

Money is dumped prompting one idea while diminishing another.
"Social Engineering"

In the case of Abstract Expressionism, an idea that anyone is an artist is very attractive. Throw some paint on a canvas and that is art. Look a Pollock, he is the greatest American artist. Why? Because gross quantities of money and a clandestine campaign says so.
"Wealth sways human behavior and perception"

Who will deny they were manipulated? Of course the individuals who want to be seen as artists. Anyone is an artist if they say they are one.
"Inclusion for all who desire it."

The ramifications of this type of social engineering:
"Programmable human behavior that creates a false sense of freewill"

Abstract Expressionism was presented to the public under a false pretense. Except that or deny that.

The two main pawns in the game? Pollock, died drunk in car accident; Rothko, death by suicide.
When money and social manipulation are involved, everything is suspect.


The existential factor that states "something is art if at least one individual deems it so" is the cornerstone of Modern Art Philosophy's " dogma.

Have a good day FAA!

Would I be considered rude if I say: waste of paint, time and money ?

Pollock's paintings are complete ... He himself understood this and this is his tragedy. This is a general deception and manipulation of consciousness. After this brainwashing, millions of people fancied themselves artists. The trick turned out! Brainwashing works! Now who just does not draw kalyaki malaki. Everyone is happy, everyone is happy, dreams come true. And the king is naked.

Ron and Drew,

I agree in slightly different terms with Drew that AbEx is total nonsense.

The first generation has import for reasons Drew avoids. But the following generations are literally doing nothing at all.

Even the AbEx pieces I have using digital means are really nothing much.

That is why packaging matters in this. It is not at all fine art. But the abstract nature of it gave a huge lift to the US economy. Were products coming out of the Eastern block more than paper wrapped during the cold war? Usually not.

Ron I have read the article on this. I was not impressed. What Drew is disposing off as art I at times dispose of as words. Cheap talk. Until the CIA budget for this "push" is established it is nonsense to assume this was much of anything.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

"Good article on this called “ Modern art was a CIA weapon in the Independent, worth the read."



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://monoskop.org/images/3/3f/Simms_Gretchen_The_1959_American_National_Exhibition_in_Moscow_and_the_Soviet_Artistic_Reaction_to_the_Abstract_Art.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZ0LylspfyAhW8RTABHXUzCtMQFnoECB8QAg&usg=AOvVaw0w6uYMMMpQE4pwhMAzt7Ry


The above link is to a rather long dissertation on the subject: Mainly the involvement of the CIA in the 1959 American National Exhibition in Moscow and the promotion of abstract impressionism. It breaks down the effect on the Russian people and the effect on the American people.
I just started reading it.

Scanned the first half of that link. It is a long well written history of the period.

I have always seen the roots of AbEx in Rembrandt's and Turner's atmospherics. Many people see that in Turner's work. But truly Rembrandt is the forerunner.

My lessons at the beginning of the contemporary period were that art of the 20th century was disposable. If you take it from there I agree with Drew on modernism.

Where we part is that the first to do SOME things matters. Drew you seem to reject the idea of being first to do any of it?

Yes again it is all disposable. No argument there.

That said the linked paper touches on commercialism according to Stuart Davis. Packaging is the point.


Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

This conversation is splintering off in a bunch of different directions which makes it hard to respond. It starts with numbering paintings rather than giving them titles. The reason given for this is to try to keep you thinking only about the painting and not outside imagery. In other words the painting as object. Although I don’t think it worked I can see and understand the reasoning behind that. The painting as object quest possibly ended with Ad Reinhardt’s black painting. He stated that was the last painting that ever needed to be done. The problem was when people viewed the painting they said stuff like “ My room with the lights off”. So if the goal was to create a painting which was solely about painting it was a failure.

If communication of some type is the goal then the question becomes can an abstract or non objective abstract work communicate? Music does not require words to communicate and so I feel visual art falls into the same category, it does not require images to communicate. Think second generation AE artist were touched on and tossed aside. Personally I think second or third generation AE artists are able to create art that is as good or even stronger than the first generation. They have less theory to wade through and so are able to focus on the quality and essence of their communication easier.

Why modern art at all? Simply put change, change has been huge and rapid over the last 150 years. Industrial revolution, invention of the camera, world wars, better and faster means of communication, the digital age and so on. Times change and so does art, to continue to do what was done before makes little sense. Looking briefly at Picasso and Van Gogh, they both were influenced by art from other cultures. Van Gogh by prints from Japan, the flatness of form and perspective being the formal attraction and in his case the philosophy behind the work as well. In Picasso’s case it was more about the formal aspects of African art and not so much a study of culture. Both of these artist looked at cultures outside of the European base for inspiration, art becomes much more of a world wide affair from this point on.

"It starts with numbering paintings rather than giving them titles."

Carlton drops many topics onto this forum with very little or no follow up on his part. Often they have little or no reference other than general information. The perceived intent is to insert an artistic based catalyst onto the forum for an open discussion.

Pollock's art has been identified as propaganda promoted clandestinely by powerful entities; used to diminish one form of expression while bolstering the state's choice of expression. Exactly what the opposition was doing.

The Abstract Expressionism Movement has been tainted by misrepresentation. Scrutiny and doubt of legitimacy regarding anything related to it, even its historical record is being re-examined. Even "whose" credited for naming the "Propaganda" is fare game. The famous may become the infamous. The heroes are now pawns. The lessons learned from social engineering are now part of the playbook used as weapons against large groups of humanity.


"If communication of some type is the goal then the question becomes can an abstract or non objective abstract work communicate?"

No longer is communicating the goal. With everything being art as long as someone deems it so, there is no defined goal that distinguishes art from anything. Art is omnipresent.

"Both of these artist looked at cultures outside of the European base for inspiration, art becomes much more of a world wide affair from this point on."

If art reflects culture then art has been a world affair as long as their has been civilized humans.
It doesn't take a western centric group of artists to change this condition.

As communication improves from one culture to another it becomes more of a worldwide aesthetic. Art is Omnipresent, seems to be an interesting observation and most likely true based on today’s view. Good thing or bad thing is the question I ask? I still think that the primary function of art is communication. Nearly everyone uses verbal language and yet it has not stoped or harmed the use of the spoken language.

Indeed Ronald! Exactly the questions I also inferred from the conversation.
One first must except the omnipresents of art as true.
I do not.

Art is a man made concept limited by limited people.

I reserve the term Omnipresents as a placeholder for Something greater than human mental limitation is capable of understanding. Something seen and beyond sight, heard and beyond hearing, everywhere one is at all times and everywhere else simultaneously.

Like the intent of the laws in the fictitious story Animal Farm, the pigs have distorted their meaning beyond recognition to only benefit themselves.

Art is not omnipresent. To put art along side with Other Ideas linked with Omnipresents is absurd.

If you are saying that art, by today’s interpretation, is anything or everything just as long as someone says it is art then I agree that it is not. I feel that at the very core art must be manipulated to create some type of communication with others. My viewpoint does not even begin to analyze the more complex issues of how good or bad the work is but at least for me it is a starting point.

Art is to the senses.

In that music, writing, visuals, touch are all art and omnipresent.

But to each their wishes for thinking differently. It does not matter.

Art is information on the waves. Well before it is communication as we pull it down.

I see visual art in the last 100 years as disposable. That does not mean it is a lesser art. Just that it is disposable.

In the 1600 to 1900 period no more pyramids were built. If we were honest about not wanting disposable art we must turn to pyramid construction.

Since we are now in part discussing other cultures and omnipresence, let's discuss Asian mindfulness as awareness the truer ability to know all than book learning as a definition of omnipresence. As discussed prior here omnipresence seemingly is being defined as a deity. The Asian cultures had no deities.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

I don’t view modern art as disposable, how long something should last, I can’t say but if you want to go that direction even the pyramids are disposable given time. For that mater our species is as well.

All true. I believe everyone has their own opinion.
And rightfully so. Hence the title “Painters Perspective”
Everybody has there own perception when it comes to this subject. And it’s alright too.

"All true. I believe everyone has their own opinion.
And rightfully so. Hence the title “Painters Perspective”
Everybody has there own perception when it comes to this subject. And it’s alright too."

Being polite in polite company avoids conflicts but very little or nothing is learned when political correctness skews human exchange.

What is "All True??
That everyone has there own opinion? True.
That everyone has there own perception?
True.
That everyone is right?
Very little can actually be considered right.

René Descartes logically concluded that the only thing that a person can deem a truth is their own existence because they are aware of their thoughts. Everything else is perception. If we assume our sinces are accurate then suppositions linked with logic our thoughts construct a tangible environment in which our thoughts find themselves.

Have a good night.

Lol. Drew. You have a blessed night.

"If you are saying that art, by today’s interpretation, is anything or everything just as long as someone says it is art then I agree that it is not. I feel that at the very core art must be manipulated to create some type of communication with others"

A clinched fist, furrowed brow and gnashed teeth communicates anger. If communication is art then threaten gestures are art. If acting out these gestures is art but the effect is communicating anger than this is art. If the former is not art but the latter is art yet the effect is still the same then art is ambiguous. Interpretation of communication is an individual act, even though a group may experience similar interpretations. If the group witnesses the communication on a screen in a theater then they call it the art of acting but if the group witnesses the random action on the street then they are unaware if the action is posturing or a physical response by and individual ready to attack.

We enter theaters or museum expecting to have an artistic experience. Conditioning imposes this expectation on the masses. Art exist because it is experienced. An individual within the group may be disappointed and have no artistic experience. In this case art exist and it doesn't exist.

The relativistic aspect of interpretation is a fundamental aspect of art and it an existential element in the understanding of the definition of art.

Have a nice day FAA!

Let's discuss for a moment that the label "artist" is way over used.

What are the cut offs?

Well bad art is the first cut off. What is bad art? It is not punitive, but it must universally suck. I actually think many people in the forum seeing bad art would kind of know it when they see it.

The next cut off is actually good art that is worth hanging. Okay. I think everyone here has that.

But where the few posters here might disagree is on the main thrust of western art. What does and does not fit in. It is an exclusivity that truly exists. Some of the great global wealth of roughly 4000 collectors is invested for multi generational asset growth in fantastic art that may well be in large part forgot 200 years from now.

If you judge modernism by that, then it would be easy to say much of what goes as "great modern art" wont be thought to be great 200 years from now.

In my book that is a total charade.

That does not mean there is no main thrust of western fine art culture. Just the bets on it at the roulette table wont hold up.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

Ron,

The better way of seeing how disposable art in the 1900s was is to look at the design on a baseball cap. It is art. The cap is disposable.

The rise of commercial art in the last 100 years is all disposable. Fine artists have dalliances in the commercial arts.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery