Frank Stella is just a different kind of Jackson Pollock. And, yeah, I was one of those banging their heads against the table trying to figure out how the heck Jackson Pollock ended up being a famous artist. I find myself just as confused when I look at Stella’s work. All I see are straight edges, and geometric tools being used. It’s not all that difficult to use a compass or protractor to trace out their shapes, shrink them, enlarge them. I’ve done it dozens of times when I was supposed to be paying attention in my geometry class. Even worse, I’m supposed to be impressed the guy can color inside the lines?! My nephew’s learning to master that trick, and he’s four.
I guess I’m just not all that impressed by colorful, geometric shapes. It’s so simple. With a ruler and an oversized compass, I’m pretty sure anyone could replicate this work. I want real effort when it comes to art. That’s why I was never impressed with Pollock. I want to see actual talent, not just the “I was the first to come up with the idea to sell this crap, so I get the credit”. I looked up some of Stella’s other works, and they are all pretty much the same. I’ve also found another artist who does similar work, and I can honestly say it is difficult to tell the difference between the two. See for yourself. Can you tell which one is Stella?
For all the negative things I’ve said about Stella, I’ve got to give the guy some props. His attitude in the book when talking about his work makes me respect him a little bit more. “What you see is what you see”, and I guess he’s right. There’s no need to go looking for the deeper meaning or trying to figure out what in the world you’re looking at. His works are simple. It just drives me a little crazy that they’re just so boring.
I am totally on the same page with you for this one. I feel like these pictures are so boring and simple it's ridiculous. How could anyone think that is worth buying? I would be happy if a little kid made that and gave it to me, but a grown man? I don't think so. Give this guy a canvas, paint, and a paintbrush and then we'll see what he can do. I think protractors should be left to the geometry classes and artists should stick to freehand.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree to a certain extent. Sure his work is rather simple and probably does not require a whole lot of talent, but it is aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. The simplicity is what makes it interesting. Using the different geometric shapes makes it almost pop due to the clashing of the shapes. Then you add in the colors, and it makes for a piece of art that is easy on the eyes and kinda fun!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Mackenzie. I looked at his artwork and said "I think I did that in 3rd grade!" I don't understand why something has to be considered art if all you do is just trace a protractor and color it in with different colors. Sure, he's the "first" one to come up with it, but please.... If he could add depth and dimension to his work, I might be impressed. But just using a flat surface with a math tool? Not impressed at all.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion an artist can be judged by how much their paintings sell for. That is about the only universal way of comparing artists against each other. If someone is willing to pay a couple of million for a piece of art, then i consider that artist pretty good. Obviously, that doesn't mean that i personally like the piece art itself, it just means that the artist is doing something right.
ReplyDeleteI really dislike this style of geometric pattern and repetition. I also agree that this should not be considered art. However, I do feel that this took a little more effort than Pollock's splatter paintings.
ReplyDelete