Post #537004 by Baron von Tiki on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:08 AM

On 2010-06-16 21:06, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

yes- anyone can paint like pollack but that's never been the point. The point is that prior to him, no one did paint like that and that is why his work is signifigant for that time as with most pop artists. Anyone can paint campbell's soup cans but prior to warhol, no one did.....these artists and more helped expand the cultural and social boundaries of what was considered art. Duchamp made his audience view everyday objects we take for granted as potenial works of art when taken out of their everyday context (i.e a porcelian urinal). most folks tend to confuse substance with aesthetics when viewing these types of things but these artists and others of the time were ground breakers in their own ways.....important culturally for the doors they opened with their art, not neccessarily for the type of art they made.....

Nice post. I'd add to the list Andres Serrano, Jock Sturges, Robert Mapplethorpe, etc. as recent artists who broke new ground with their ideas.

If you're a Metallica fan and own the albums "Load" or "Re-Load," you've seen Serrano's work. What you probably don't know is that the abstract red and white album art is actually the artist's own blood and semen photographed through a microscope. Previously, he'd scandalized conservative America with an NEA funded piece known colloquially as "Piss Christ" (a crucifix suspended in a yellow liquid that resembles urine.) Yes, anyone can do it. But who has done it before ? And who has done it well ?

So, yes, there IS value in breaking new ground with a fresh concept even if the technical requirements aren't necessarily rigorous.