Complication is not the same as complexity. There are many complex works–novels, paintings, musical compositions–which are not easy to comprehend, but rich and enjoyable to work with. Like the stuff Loren Eaton writes: I mean at first you’re like Wuh?! and then you’re like Dude!! and then you’re like Whoa! That’s where it is.
Terry Teachout talks about art complicatedness in the wake of James Joyce and Bloomsday. “Are our brains simply not big enough to process the prose of Joyce or the music of Boulez?” he asks. “And if not, then why have such similarly complex artistic creations as the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock succeeded in finding an appreciative popular audience?”
Manifesto of a Middlebrow: Has anyone ever come away from this kind of art thinking, “Wow! I want to be a better human being!” Or “Wow! That evokes the feelings I had when I first fell in love!”
I guess I think complexity for its own sake is just the drilling of technicians. They need to produce works that speak to my heart, to attain the level of art.
I remember seeing pictures of Jackson Pollock’s works when I was younger. My only thought was about how incredibly stupid they were. How could that be considered art?
Several years ago there was an exhibition of his works at the Des Moines Art Center. Our family had a friend who worked their at the time and she invited us to come and see Pollock’s work. In my mind, I grumbled and groaned about this. I don’t care much for walking through art galleries and, as I said, I have a particular dislike for abstract art. But I went.
I was astounded by Pollock’s work. It is one thing to see a picture of his work. But it is a religious experience to see the actual work. The colors, the patterns, and, oh my!–the textures, the TEXTURES! I could feel the textures just looking at the piece. If you get a chance to see Pollock’s work, do not pass it up.
I get that Greg. Sometimes appreciating a work of art doesn’t give you an articulate message, but a positive feeling of complexity, as your response may be to intricate iron work or some clothing designs.
I sympathize with your statement, Lars. When art answers questions like that, it can be transcendent, but I don’t think good art must. I think I’m saying that good art can be separated from Story, even if it losing many by being so.
With the American holiday coming up, I recommend the video course ‘The masterworks of american art’ (Teaching company; William Kloss) I’m most of the way through it and I’ve enjoyed it immensely. (His course on the history of European art is even better.)
– I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with Mr. Smith. I utterly loathe Pollack. His ‘art’ was based on the idea of a meaningless, chance universe. It’s a kind of nihilism in oil. His success is a great triumph of PR.
Regarding Pollock: I could never get much out of the photos, but I read recently that someone did a computer analysis of some of his paintings and found that he was–consciously or not–using fractal patterns in his paint splatters.
So even if he was trying to show that the universe was ultimately random and meaningless, he was actually creating patterns and meaning.
And thanks to the wonders of Bing (no Google hegemony if I can help it): http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock