this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
412 points (90.6% liked)

memes

16691 readers
3288 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flux@lemmy.world 102 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Pollock is popular because of this exact thing. He "challenged" the idea of art as the Dada movement had done. You can absolutely hate it but like Warhol it made conversations and questions about process and astetics. By making a meme about it you have in fact thought about what art is and aesthetics you prefer. A Pollock painting made you do that.

People saying he do not select colors or use technique is just false. He would use a pulley system for large scale canvases and spread the colors quite purposefully. Remember this is the time of "happenings" like applying body paint and rolling on canvases, cutting up the canvas and applying newsprint, burning things, etc.

I don't even like Pollock but not to recognize him in museums within a moment of abstract expression would be a disservice. I've had plenty of students say. "I could paint that!". But there are two points they always misunderstand. 1. Pollock was an established painter who drastically changed styles. Many artists show that they can paint or draw in the traditional style but choose to push what is even art. Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum. 2. Everyone who tries to replicate a Pollock typically just uses some random paints with some bushes and just sort of flings it around. If you actually look at a Pollock in person up close. Yes you can see unevenness is created from not having full control of the paint on the brush but thought seems to go into exactly where the paint will land so that you have even coverage or at angles with different brushes. They is motion in how the paint drips. I can say that many of them I've seen are very much not "random" as you would think it would be.

Again I don't care for the work as there are plenty of other abstract expressions to choose from like Hans Hofmann, Helen Frankenthaler who used Pollock as an influence.

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This definitely gave me a new perspective. Thank you. I disagree with some things and the finished product is what is seen by most and "does not do anything for me" / I don't feel anything, which I value the most. You are more versed on the technical side of art than I am for sure. I hope people see this as a light hearted meme and nothing deeper, how I intended it.

Edit: Also, the fact that a vast amount of people dislike it, no matter how versed they are in art, still means something IMO, as on the subjective side everyone's opinion is equally valid.

[–] flux@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Absolutely. It's funny for sure. Your preference which I share is totally valid as any art critics. One more thing I forgot is the scale of these. Seeing in a book is one thing but like the Raft of the Medusa or Mona Lisa (very tiny) scale produces a very different idea and reaction in person. People often don't consider how things actually were/should be seen. Pollock could be considered a bit of a "troll" of the time I find it amazing he still gets a reaction good or bad. In a post post moden art world Warhol has just sort of been accepted as art across the board. Pollock, Rothko and Duchamp still making people question why they are in a museum.

[–] Depress_Mode@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm sorry, where are you getting your data for your assertion that "the vast majority of people dislike [Pollock's art]"? Your own meme indicates that people with that opinion are in the minority and that half the people with that opinion wouldn't even know what they're talking about. Obviously the meme isn't a real bell curve, but still.

I'll be honest, it sounds like you made that up based on not much at all. If that were the case, I'm sure I'd have heard many others express a dislike for Pollock, which I don't think I ever have, besides you.

If we're sharing unpopular art opinions, though, I hate Zawadzki and Beksinski (really just dystopian surrealism in general, it tries a little too hard to be spooky/dark/edgy imo and usually has that overly polished digital art look to it). Reminds me of something I'd see on Deviantart or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum

To expand a bit on the idea that the process itself is as important, or more important, than the resulting work standing in isolation, there are a bunch of examples of people really enjoying the "behind the scenes" or "how it's made" aspects of art.

I happen to love OK Go's single-take music videos in large part because they are absurdly complex projects requiring precise planning and tight execution. And you can see that the resulting work (a music video) is aesthetically pleasing, and can simultaneously be impressed at the methods used in actually filming that one take, from their early low budget stuff like Here We Go Again, or stuff like the zero gravity Upside Down and Inside Out, or even this year's releases with technological assistance from programmed phone screens or robot arms holding mirrors.

Another example I like is James Cook making paintings out of typed pages in a typewriter.

There's a lot of stuff with sculpture and painting that have these aspects where the methods used to make it are inherently interesting, and explain some of the features in the art itself.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 1 day ago

needing/getting and this too shall pass are perfect examples of this imo. i'm not really into ok go as a band, but the amount of pure work and skill on display is insane. the process is indeed the art.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Some people at this time said the "process" was art not the painting hanging in the museum.

I would assume that most people who criticize modern forms of art are criticizing the painting hanging in the museum. The more someone likes modern art, the more likely they are to learn about the artist and the process. The less someone likes modern art, the less they're going to learn about that, so the more the focus will just be on the painting itself.

By making a meme about it you have in fact thought about what art is and aesthetics you prefer. A Pollock painting made you do that.

That's "Pollock the influencer". Influencing has always been part of art, I'm sure. Would Dali's paintings have been as influential if Dali hadn't also been a moustache artist? Probably not. However, I think you invite chaos if you consider things other than the painting hanging in the museum.

Why? Because if "you thought about their art" is a major criterion, then Hitler is an important artist. Look how often people have made memes about Hitler and his art. If you go by how often the artist's art is posted, Hitler's probably a more important artist than Picasso.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] drath@lemmy.world 60 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Those art pieces are literally poison to a young aspiring artist's mind. It condemns them to a life in poverty, chasing dreams of becoming high profile abstract-postmodernist-whatever artist selling shits in jars, instead of focusing on making what the world really needs the most:

spoilergay furry porn

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

You either die dignified and impoverished, unrecognized in your own lifetime, or you live long enough to afford a custom alpaca fursuit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (4 children)

My favorite thing about art is that if you look at it and you hate it, that's still a completely valid take

Art museums became way more fun once I realized that

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nebula@fedia.io 42 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Not trying to be a dick, if you enjoy his art that's great 👍

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I was similar until I saw him actually painting. There is something about the process that makes me love it. It's weird to me too that I feel that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Uj_HAAvbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ&list=RDCrVE-WQBcYQ&start_radio=1

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Appreciation of art is always 100% subjective (except technique). So your opinion is just as valid.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh for sure, I believe everyone's opinion is valid as well. I'm just surprised that seeing him paint made me appreciate the art more. That is interesting to me. It reminds me of monks making sand mandalas, like he was meditating. I doubt he was drunk since he has to paint systematically and mainly on one leg.

Sand mandala being made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCwLLo_9D-E

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago

If he was an alcoholic, he would be "normal" at a certain blood alcohol level. At some point people drink only to avoid withdrawal, which can be lethal in the case of alcohol. I can absolutely see that the process of creating something influences how one perceives it.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

He did say one thing that made me think a lot about art in general:

"technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" - Jackson Pollock

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wait - you're respecting other people's tastest that don't coincide with yours on the internet? Is that legal? /j

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago

No, I was kidding, hahahaha. /s

collapsed inline media

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Pollock hits harder in person tbh.

Prints and photos don't really work; it ends up looking flat and empty. But in person, there's more "depth" in both a literal and figurative sense. You can see more of the intent put into the methodology.

Mind you, I agree with the idea that he's over hyped. He wasn't exactly breaking new ground, and there's plenty of other artists that explored abstract painting with more satisfying and effective results.

But I don't think it's accurate to call it shit either. As much as people love to say it, no a kindergartener couldn't do it. Even high schoolers have trouble making something that looks similar enough to carry the same visual effect. Some art students at a collegiate level can't.

Turns out you do have to have some degree of development in your techniques at the very least to get the same results, no matter how much raw talent you have.

Now, don't ask me if I really like his stuff. I mean, I'm going to say it anyway, but still. My take on his body of work is that he fully explored the "drip" technique way before he quit doing it, and likely could have stopped after the first one because the only real differences between them amount to nothing more than the difference between most hotel and doctors' office wall hangings. You see one, you've seen them all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that he got something more than money out of the process. I make bland and basic art myself, and IDGAF about the results as much as the enjoyment of making. Every art student I've ever known gets super into the process of creating and that's a wonderful thing; dissecting what they're doing as they do it.

But that value isn't something that carries on beyond the process itself.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 35 points 1 day ago

If you can find it, Kurt Vonnegut wrote an essay for Esquire called “Jack the Dripper” which was reprinted in his essay collection Fates Worse than Death. He argues that Pollock was a) absolutely able to produce quality traditional art and b) accessing his sub- and unconscious mind when making drip paintings in a way that anyone interested in the human mind should be fascinated by.

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I like it. Generally, when abstract and contemporary art is well executed, I find it to be thought provoking and exciting to experience. One of my personal favourite paintings is Asger Jorn's "Stalingrad".

It is entirely useless to look at that painting on a tiny screen on a search engine because it looks like shit online.

However, in real life, you enter the room where it is hanging and it is HUGE. Whites and blacks and blues ans yellows and reds in a turbulent mix on the canvas and if you sit down on the bench and soak it in, you start to feel the emotions Jorn was trying to evoke in the viewer. War is hell. War in the deep of Russian winters is worse than hell. It is blind, cold, desperate chaos and you're supposed to fight in this inferno while being able to tell friend from foe, but they all look the same, their blood looks the same in the snow and dirt beneath them.

I'm always exhausted when I look at that painting, but I do it every single time I'm at the Asger Jorn museum.

There definitely is shitty abstract and contemporary art out there. I have seen my fair share of bullshit pieces, but it is sad to me how some people entirely close themselves off to this aspect of art just because it is different. But, at the end of the day it is a taste thing, and that is okay.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

Counter offer: that's all expectation bias.

You read

War is hell. War in the deep of Russian winters is worse than hell. It is blind, cold, desperate chaos and you're supposed to fight in this inferno while being able to tell friend from foe, but they all look the same, their blood looks the same in the snow and dirt beneath them.

then you conjure up the feeling with some art museum self-gaslighting. Maybe the art is the prompt?

Modern dance and modern art (including free form poetry etc) that try to leave rules/form/structure behind are, to me, rorschach content with accompanying flavor text that makes them smell faintly of the artists' farts. This is to other forms of art what whiteclaws are to flavor.

I quite strongly doubt that any abstract or contemporary art in isolation gives any specific, repeatable feeling to anybody outside of maybe "chaos". Its fine if you like it (I don't obviously) but I think adding specific feelings that you wouldn't get without the title is oversell and over-hype. It's like establishing the canon for a book or story using the fanfiction for that story or just the authors opinion: if you didn't actually write it in the main work, it doesn't count (I see you J.K. Rowling, Brandon Sanderson, etc). Put the story IN THE STORY.

But then, this is all just one man's polemic.

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 10 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

That's a fair point of view, but that is literally the point of art. Not just abstract and contemporary art. The more context you have with a piece of art, the more it will make you feel and think about what it is trying to communicate.

Try and look up the painting Stańczyk by Jan Matejko.

In isolation, you'd look at that painting and see a sad jester in a chair. You may feel something, but it won't be very deep.

When the context is added for that painting, it starts taking on a completely and much more complex meaning. The most basic takeaway with context is "while the politicians, kings and nobelmen are partying, only the jester is understanding the severity of the country's predicament."

But if you take the time and start diving into the meaning of the comet outside the window, the cultural and historical significance of the court jester Stańczyk to Poland's history and culture, the letter on the table, the fact that Matejko used his own face as a reference for the jester, dive into Matejko's own life and his views, interests and concerns you will get a much greater and much more nuanced interpretation of what you're looking at. It will basically educate you on something you most likely know nothing about.

That is what art does.

Asger Jorn's Stalingrad is the same for me.

It is so miss the point of art to think that you should be able to just glance at it briefly and get anything out of it.

Art is also not supposed to be pleasant or pretty. It is supposed to move people. There is tons of art out there that bores me to tears or that I think is bullshit, but others may connect with it where I couldn't and that is worth something.

Are there bulshitters and bulshit art out there? Absolutely. One of my favourite horror satirea Velvet Buzzsaw very much takes the piss out of the art scene and the silly snobs in it.

But I think it is a mistake to think that having context for an art piece is somehow cheating when all art ever made has a title and an intent and context by default.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I just like the way it looks.

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 19 points 19 hours ago

That's cool. Don't let any douche like me talk you out of that. 🙂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Very polite of you to make that comment. I, however, am willing to be a dick.

Pollock was a drunk and a hack, Kandinsky is the abstract artist we should be celebrating as a household name.

Also I'm p sure I read that Pollock killed a dude while drunk driving and got away with it but I don't care enough about him one way or another to verify that before posting it on lemmy dot com.

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Agree completely. I think Pollock was just really good at bullshitting people and once you are a big name you can pretty much make whatever you want and people will add value because of your name.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He was a commercial artist through and through, that is for certain. His pieces have that je ne sais bullshit feel that comes from people producing art as product, not art.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

I'm gonna have to try and remember "je ne sais bullshit". That's a good one.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Can’t tell if you are on the Neanderthal man spectrum or Jedi knight spectrum of bell curve.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social 23 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sir, I laughed and upvoted. I am unable to share as my wife is a visual arts grad and I want to be able to get laid in the future.

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 10 points 21 hours ago
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago

At least it's not made by AI.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think Pollock paintings are fine. I’ve seen his paintings in an art gallery at least once.

Compared to most other modern art in the same gallery, Pollock was actually visually pleasing to look at. He knew which colors work well together, which is uhm great.

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

i thought it was shit until i saw some of his paintings in person, and they’re awesome….
they suck when tiny and on a screen

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Tax dodges for the rich don't need to look good, they just need hype.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

Can't tell which people hate more, the art, the artist, or the admirers of the work.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I thought the same about abstract art until I saw that one painting in the movie Ex Machina. For some reason in that context it just evoked feelings of dread more than almost any other scene in the movie. And it's an almost static shot just staring at this one abstract painting. It was really interesting and totally changed my mind on abstract art.

[–] Nebula@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago

I love abstract art. I hope this isn't giving people a wrong impression. There should be something that makes me go "oh that's a cool idea" or an aesthetically pleasing composition.

Edit: He didn't even use complementary colors. It's just random splatters.

I like this digital art by borrachas1 for example:

collapsed inline media

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nebula@fedia.io 9 points 20 hours ago

Say what you want about this meme, but it sure as shit sparked a debate.

collapsed inline media

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Give Pollock crap all you want, but the guy popularized one of the most fun painting techniques ever, regardless of how you feel about his stuff.

Seriously, splatter painting is really fun to do even if there's no real reason to it, and if anything, who says art has to have a reason behind it? Just straight-up having a play around throwing paint on something (in fact, there are entire places dedicated to that exact thing cropping up over the last few years) is as valid as drawing a scene out with an actual story behind it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

Regardless of how people feel about Pollock's work, there was art before expressionism and art after. He and others undeniably changed the conversation about art forever.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I'd much rather the CIA spent their money on this.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Didn't the CIA covertly drive up his price by secretly overpaying for his paintings?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nebula@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago

I am going to sleep now. I'll be back tommorow if there still is a discussion. Good night everyone. 😪🐑🐑🐑

Lots of drip though

load more comments
view more: next ›