[longerthoughts]

>I only appreciate art that I recognize takes skill above my own to create

Even if you had the skill to create a passable forgery of a Pollock, which you probably do not, you're attributing no value to the importance of concept and initial creation. A kid performing a Beethoven piece at a recital is not Beethoven.

[umvi]

Simple thought experiment:

I let you study Michelangelo's sculptures for 24 hours using any resources you want. I then hand you a block of marble and a chisel and ask you to create a Michaelangelo-style scupture.

We then present your sculpture alongside an authentic Michelangelo sculpture and ask 50 random people on the street to identify which one was made by you and which was made by Michelangelo. I would wager 100% would reject your sculpture as inauthentic (based on an obvious lack of skill).

Now we repeat the same experiment but with Pollock. I would wager 50% would reject your painting as inauthentic and 50% would reject the Pollock painting as inauthentic (people would randomly choose).

Pollock paintings require no skill, just a large canvas and a few contrasting colors to splatter and drip. There is no dexterity or experience required to make a painting in the style of Pollock, unlike Michelangelo sculptures.

[longerthoughts]

1) You’re responding to a point about you attributing no value to concept by doubling down on the importance of realist technique and ignoring everything else. Even pieces that truly don’t require technical skill can still have value, which you don’t seem to grasp. A realistic portrait is far less interesting to many than something abstract that makes you reflect.

2) Please try to replicate a Pollock. I think you’ll be surprised.

[umvi]

> Even pieces that truly don’t require technical skill can still have value, which you don’t seem to grasp.

No, I understand. The Japanese flag is a red circle on a white rectangle. Takes no skill to design or draw. But I still think it's has value as a symbol. But I wouldn't pay $200M for it and I certainly wouldn't prop up the person who made it as some sort of highly skilled artistic juggernaut. I would think "neat concept, but I could've done that" and that would be it.

> Please try to replicate a Pollock. I think you’ll be surprised.

Please try and replicate my signature. I think you'll be surprised at how difficult it is (I've been perfecting it for 20+ years signing documents) and that should cause you to respect me much more, right? If not, please explain why not and in doing so you'll understand why I don't care for Pollock or his work.

Anyone can just make up a new form of art and "perfect" it by just doing it over and over (like your signature). I could invent a new form of music by randomly mashing keys on a piano in a way unique to me. So what? There is no negative feedback loop so therefore the "perfection" process is completely nebulous and arbitrary and takes no real effort because there is no defined destination.

Can we at least acknowledge the massive skill gap between learning to play a Chopin piano piece and pioneering a Pollock-esque field of art where there are no rules or negative feedback loops to correct you?

[SamReidHughes]

Playing a Chopin piano piece is much, much easier. You can tell Pollock is legit just by looking at his art.

[flowerlad]

I don’t think Pollock’s drips are art either. But I do think Picasso’s cubist paintings are art. And yet some of Picasso’s paintings are easy to re-create so would fail your test.