Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
Looking at something like a Jackson Pollock, it's easy to think that it's so simple to do. But try it - it's easy to do it, but not nearly as easy to do it well.
It's also hard to find a consensus on what doing it "well" means. With more-or-less-realistic representational art, you can usually get viewers to a level of basic agreement about whether the representation looks like what it represents, and if your goal was to paint a deer and it came out looking more like a rabbit, that represents a pretty unambiguous failure.

But if you meant to paint a blob, and you got a blob, but it wasn't the blob you wanted...or maybe it was...or maybe you didn't have a preexisting vision of a particular blob? And your viewer doesn't have an a priori reference for what a blob should look like, so some viewers are likely to see "good blob" and some "bad blob", and there's no real common framework that would allow them to go much further than that.

It's kind of hard to make a solid argument against someone who says "I think Jackson Pollock sucks". You can point to other people who think he's terrific, you can handwave about expressiveness, but there's practically nothing objective there about which you can start discussing, and the conversation tends to devolve into the Argument Clinic.

-NT