08-15-2008, 10:14 AM
Your premise is flawed in that you're decreeing that only one of them must be art. I see them both as art.
Look, I can debate this with you all day, we're not going to agree. My point is that I'm not nearly qualified enough (nor is anyone else, to be clear) to declare "that's not art". Actually, I said very early on that a 4 year old is very capable of creating art, but what makes Pollock different than a 4 year old is that he had a vision. It's not random scribbles. Now you're going to respond by saying that only one of the two images you put up are art.
I'm going to take my chances and assume that both were painted by four year olds. And guess what? I think they're both art.
Look, I can debate this with you all day, we're not going to agree. My point is that I'm not nearly qualified enough (nor is anyone else, to be clear) to declare "that's not art". Actually, I said very early on that a 4 year old is very capable of creating art, but what makes Pollock different than a 4 year old is that he had a vision. It's not random scribbles. Now you're going to respond by saying that only one of the two images you put up are art.
I'm going to take my chances and assume that both were painted by four year olds. And guess what? I think they're both art.