[tgv]

Which of Pollock's works? Until I saw a drip paining in a museum, I always thought it was a dull, lifeless, messy Kindergarten style, but the actual work was quite impressive in its sheer physical presence. It was rather different from the usual pictures in books and magazines. Seeing Mondriaan (or: Mondrian, as he's known in the English speaking part of the world) was different: his paintings look great in books, but are small and quite imperfect in reality.

[FpUser]

Here is the example: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/b2/b9/1eb2b9a2d656762f8bed... I agree that when printed on very large canvas and under proper lighting it can evoke some impression but the same would go for some computer generated art under similar conditions.

[Talanes]

No print has the same physical presence as being able to see the layering of the paint on canvas. It's not a fully 2D medium.

[FpUser]

My friend once had gallery of CGI in Toronto. Some of his printed images simulated just that. To me, unless you rubbed your finger you would not guess. It had visually perfect shading and relief. Granted there were no parallax but to properly notice that one human needs to be constantly moving when watching the painting.

Also I have no idea if it exists but nothing prohibits one to hook up simple plotter type robot to computer and have it make that physical presence real by using real brushes / spray and paint.

[ljw1001]

I had the same experience until I saw a Pollock retrospective at MoMA. Not only is his best work gorgeous, it’s vastly superior to his own early experiments. The whole “anyone could do this” thing I had going in was wiped away completely by the time I left.