Re: <nettime> Wikileaks is old hat

[Goran Maric <goranmaric58@hotmail.com>]

I am not sure was he such a great painter. I might say that he wasn't
that bad artist, might say somewhat good one, but the painter???
Honestly, I have real problem trying to comprehend all this issue with
abstract art. Read this:

Cockcroft, Eva. "Eva Cockcroft : Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the
Cold War." Art in Modern Culture: an anthology of critical text. New
York: HarperCollins, 1992. 82-90.

I believe it is just a small part of a overall happening between 30's
and up to almost 65's. When one start digging into this matter, it can
be seen that this was more an issue dealing with social consciousness,
expressed through the cultural philosophy of Social Realism (don't
mistaken it for Socialist Realism ala Stallinist type) vs. some type
of capitalist-modernist philosophy toward life in general and this
was, of course, expressed through art, as well.

And if someone want really to get introduced to a real
philosophy, and not a dogmatic praising of Stalinist oppressive
regime type Socialist Realism, please then read about, Gyorgy
Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs

And especially, one should read: THE MEANING OF CONTEMPORARY REALISM,
to understand the difference between Socio-Realism and Socialist
Realism, but also to understand the disgustingly distorted version
of Russian Socialist Realism done by the oppressive regime and
ideology of Stallin and his cultural apparatchiks vs. a trully ideas
of Socialist Realism, well described by Gy?rgy Luk?cs in the above
mentioned book

By the way, it is really important to say, that American painters,
artists, of the first half of the 20th century were really
extraordinary in their approach to the everyday experience of the
struggle of the everyday layman, so called Soci/Social-Realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism

http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:of
ficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=American+Social+Realism&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=
univ&ei=4sgLTZfjE8T48AaluontDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&res
num=2&ved=0CDYQsAQwAQ&biw=1366&bih=598

Which was totally ignored from the end of the WWII all the way up
to 70's. The art at that time, especially main stream US type of
Abstract Expressionism heavily celebrating J. Pollock and the alike,
was politically neutral-impotent, if not ignorant, and was dealing
with something rather in within itself disregarding the outside
influence. This was the reason that this type of art and J. Pollock
were heavily favored by the USA. And of course the USA through its
cultural institutions/apparatchiks interconnected with Foundations has
been financing the museums, universities (not that much is different
even today - talking according to my personal experience) etc. in the
USA and throughout Western Europe.

Now, there is a very interesting book that can be used as a very nice
source of links and or info:

Saunders, Frances Stonor. The cultural cold war : the CIA and the
world of arts and letters. New York : New Press : Distributed by W.W.
Norton, 2000.

Talking about J. Pollock, one cannot but not to talk about the main
guru of American Abstract Expressionism, Clement Greenberg. And in
the book, I just mentioned, one can find that he was part of a very
influential and highly conservative, if I can say, think-thank group
in relation to art. So all this put a thick coat of questioning how
art was really evaluated ever since second part of the 20th c.

So, reading all of this one can ask, was J. Pollock really that
important artist-painter, or was only heavily represented dues to
the subject of matter of his paintings that were going along with
the ideology of the USA dogma at the time? I would say., he might be
somewhat interesting artist, but not that special of a painter.

Picaso was much a better 'artist' and, painter, as well, and by the
way, Sorry for the long posting, but it is not only the question of
was Pollock a good painter, but it is rather a broader question and
the answer...

"Also I do not think that comparing a child ability to paint is doing
any good to this somewhat serious cultural problem. It is not about
children abilities, to paint like J. Pollock, but rather finding a way
of getting rid of the oppression one got grown into through its life
time under the influence of state's institutions of oppression Artists
were finding those escapes in the innocence of children marks, 'cause
children didn't get a chance to get exposed fully to the cultural and
or social oppression. That was the reason they were trying to practice
those types of imagery. And, by the way, it was, again, initiated by a
Russian painter, Wassily Kandinsky. And he was really a good artist,
painter, and thinker, and, quite unfortunately, had to get exiled from
Russia after the Red Revolution..."

regards,
gORAN






#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org