Is Jackson Pollock the Worst Artist of All Time?

Jackson Pollock 'paints' paint.


That is to say, not even the most drugged-out, politically motivated abstract art enthusiast can pretend that there's anything to 'get'. This is because, thank God, Jackson Pollock's 'patented technique' of heaving blobs of paint at a roll of paper on the floor was photo-documented.

This left no room for Freudo-Marxo-Gay-Luddite art critics to make up stories about Pollock living in an abandoned lighthouse for 7 years, painting subliminal sub-paintings below his eventual 'textural' exterior to keep amateur eyes away. No. It was just a middle aged alcoholic throwing paint on the floor.

Jackson Pollock at 'work'... If this was a painting it would be his only good painting.

Even Mark Rothko, an idiot who painted solid rectangles, left enough blobby crap inside of the rectangle that someone could allege that he was painting an "existential cloud scene". Still unlike Rothko, Pollock was not even a tasteful colorist; his policy seemed to be 'the more the merrier' just like his talentless peer Andy Warhol. Jackson Pollock's paintings are such naked, elementary scribbles devoid of mystery that you wonder if the guy who discovered him and told people he was profound was Alan Sokal. Somebody was looking for a challenge.

The excuse Jackson Pollock sympathizers do make is that Pollock's art wasn't about aesthetics or even art per se; but about the energy and sporadic process. The very fact that the Jackson Pollock let loose and that this mural of splattered nothingness is the immortal result.

Of course... Since Jackson Pollock wasn't famous for anything else in the first place, only a genetically inferior retard would pretend the above explanation makes any sense.

Let's PRETEND Jackson Pollock actually was some polarizing figure which made a giant roll of paper he vomited on a relic worthy of pilgrimage. Isn't this the same thing abstract art degenerates whine about in regards to real art? That it's 'history worship' dependent on physical metaphors rather than the 'pure emotion' of abstract?

There is literally nothing likeable about Jackson Pollock or his work. He was an unremarkable man who painted confetti. I try to briefly and simply analyze why each of the worst artists of all time was given any attention at all, and Pollock may be the most difficult.

My hypothesis thus far is that the abstract art community - being repressed, unhealthy emotional cripples - simply grew excited watching Pollock's highly physical (and minimally mental) painting method. You see, after years of cognitive dissonance, abstract artists increasingly reject anything relating to realism, however they still suffer from the same low IQs and physical impulsiveness as the average jock. Here are people who want more badly than anything to chase an inflatable ball around like their fellow idiots who were never sucked into the painful delusion of deepness. And here was a man they could watch move around and 'do stuff', yet who was making a statement against physical reality by painting things indecipherable to living creatures and forensic scientists alike. Wow! Was it like a sneaky way to own boring sports memorobilia without being disowned by your suicidal life partner?