A 4-year-old Pollock?
Wow, it’s been a while…
anyhow – I know this is an old topic (though one new to me), but it really raises some good points that have always bothered me about what people call “art”. I sort of follow the last point made in the article – about how Pollock deserves respect for creating something which was not mere replication, but even so it smacks to me of a case of The Emperor’s New Clothes. What I would love to see is a group of art aficionados participate in a blind study that analyzes their ability to discern the work of unfamiliar, yet professional artists from cheap knock-offs produced by someone intentionally mimicking the style but without a shred of artistic ability (myself, for instance).
As Stephen will attest, they would probably identify my Pollock knock-off by the exceedingly “long legs” hidden within the splatter. 
August 18, 2008 at 10:02 am
We just watched this documentary last night – it was very good – thought provoking. I’m going to blog about it some more, because it touches on two important ideas: children and fame, and aesthetic definitions and judgments – something I have to discuss with my students quite a bit, particularly when we get to the 20th century. The documentary leaves you feeling very ambiguous about her abilities and the interaction of her father.