Schizophrenia or Alzheimer?

One one hand this looks like a child's drawing to me, on the other hand I have absolutely no idea how to judge art beyond thinking if it looks nice or not.

Attached: 238513DD-8BE3-4F6A-8A7E-9CEA16265B37.jpg (596x424, 39K)

This

>fart joke
just plain ol' retardness

The basic guide to judging art:
1) Does it provoke emotion out of context (i.e. the work itself, not the circumstances of its creation, exhibition, or the very fact that it was created)?
2) Does it provoke thought or give you new ideas or insight, out of context?
3) Question 1, but context of the work considered.
4) Question 2, but context of the work considered.
5) Do you think it was the artist's intention that it provokes response?
6) Do you think it was the artist's intention that it provokes this particular response?
7) If (1 or 3), how strong is this emotion compared to the response you got from all the other art you've seen? (on a scale from 1 to 5)

Results:
If (1): "This is a remarkable work of art."
If ((not 1) and (2)): "I find this piece interesting for a particular reason."
If (3 or 4): "You should understand why this was created" OR "This work has cultural/historical value" OR "This is really a commentary on art itself."
If (not (5 or 6)): "I believe this is a product of artistic intuition rather than intention" OR "The author invites us to participate in the creative process and find our own meaning"
Switch (7): case '1': "Mediocre", case '2': "Not bad", case '3': "Rather good", case '4': "Inspiring", case '5': "Great"

Looks like his lawyer didn't pull the mental illness card.

Well, that's how I approach things like movies and books and even music to an extent but when it come to painting... I just don't get it. I can look at the Mona Lisa and to me it's just a portrait of some dark haired lady with a constipated smile but it's the most famous painting in the world.

And I genuinely find paintings by Bob Ross nicer to look at than those of Jackson Pollock but anyone who actually knows shit about art would crucify me for saying that.

I like Andy Warhol's stuff, I guess. But I'm not sure if it's for the "intended" reason. He always struck me as a guy who saw beauty in mundane things and I kinda relate to that.

Everyone but ladies in their 40s Who want to seem like theyre acomplished and parrots the "its some thing about that smile" thinks that the Mona Lisa IS VERY overated.

It's called Art

so it means that strawman webcomics are the highest form of art

Attached: 1546802405007.jpg (1260x630, 811K)

>Porn is art
I can work with that

Pollock had his fame artificially inflated by the the art collector world like some sort of human bitcoin.

>Extra mild for white people
Okay that was kinda funny

I hate this guy's art so much. Mostly because it looks so polished at first while being so terrible under any amount of scrutiny

Visual art has its own language that you can learn to read. Most people never do, they no longer teach art appreciation in schools under the collegiate level and our society doesn't value mediums like painting anymore. Your personal response to a work of art is important to you but it's possible to tell if something is objectively well made. If you know painting you can't look at a Rembrandt or a de Kooning and say that they aren't both amazing painters, though you may not like what they are doing. There isn't any argument in the art world nowadays about realism or abstraction, it's all art. The discussion now is on the boundaries of what art is and whether you actually make something at all. Conceptual, installation, performance, etc. I think that stuff is mostly bad, but it's technically art.

Attached: beckmann.jpg (2000x1242, 625K)

He's literally always doodled like that.

Attached: ae069b3eaaf8ac0c70316fe17935988c--weird-art-visual-development.jpg (236x475, 35K)

Not only his collector but critic Clement Greenberg and his wife Lee Krasner. Pollock was a good painter though, kinda a shit as a human being though. His work has a lot to do with rhythm and texture. His early stuff had more imagery and symbolism. I used to hate his stuff but I've come around. Still not my fav.

Attached: guardians of the secret.jpg (900x578, 224K)

I like this

If I had to try to explain what he's doing here. He's focusing on the abstract composition of the image in 2d. Stipping down down the forms into shapes, geometric and organic. It's a quick sketch but he shows a good control of moving the eye around the picture, different parts mirror each other and draw the eye to connect them and move around. The quickness plays into it. People who mentioned cubism are onto something. Basically it's a quick doodle by someone who knows his shit, he doesn't care to make it look polished as his intent is only to play with composition, he's sketching.

these are way more decipherable than OP's pic

That's not even remotely similar user what the fuck are you talking about.

say what you want about john k, but this dude was a fucking chad in the 90's

internet was his downfall

my eyes want to vomit