Sentient
I'd like to make a quick point here.
Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko are artists of international stature. They are appreciated by those with no artistic training and those with extensive training.
Joseph Albers (the guy who painted the colored squares) taught painting and color theory at Harvard and later at Yale. His 1963 book Interaction of Color is a fascinating work that I still don't have the background and sensitivity to fully appreciate.
Pollock spent years and years trying master the techniques of more representational art before moving on to abstract expressionism. His technique was much more intentional than many people immediately perceive. Though the result may look easy to achieve, many who have tried to duplicate his style have found it extremely difficult.
The point is that it is possible to look at something with great depth and yet not perceive that depth. A photograph of a Rothko in a magazine is not sufficient to give one a sense for how he achieves, for example, the varying levels of luminosity that give a physically 2-dimensional surface the strong suggestion of 3-dimensionality. One has look for it, up close, in a museum that has an original piece.
I have no talent for art, and only a dim appreciation of it. More's the pity. But over time I have found that there's a difference between not liking a piece and having no respect for it.
Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko are artists of international stature. They are appreciated by those with no artistic training and those with extensive training.
Joseph Albers (the guy who painted the colored squares) taught painting and color theory at Harvard and later at Yale. His 1963 book Interaction of Color is a fascinating work that I still don't have the background and sensitivity to fully appreciate.
Pollock spent years and years trying master the techniques of more representational art before moving on to abstract expressionism. His technique was much more intentional than many people immediately perceive. Though the result may look easy to achieve, many who have tried to duplicate his style have found it extremely difficult.
The point is that it is possible to look at something with great depth and yet not perceive that depth. A photograph of a Rothko in a magazine is not sufficient to give one a sense for how he achieves, for example, the varying levels of luminosity that give a physically 2-dimensional surface the strong suggestion of 3-dimensionality. One has look for it, up close, in a museum that has an original piece.
I have no talent for art, and only a dim appreciation of it. More's the pity. But over time I have found that there's a difference between not liking a piece and having no respect for it.
