Back to Home

That's Not Art

Have you ever seen a painting by some famous artist that just looks like some paint-eater vomited on a canvas?  Jackson Pollock has puked up some perfect examples:                  


Jackson Pollock
The Deep, 1953

Oil and enamel on canvas

220.4 x 150.2 cm

Musee national d'art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris

Jackson Pollock
Number 1A, 1948
Oil and enamel on canvas

172.7 x 264.2 cm

The Museum of Modern Art, New York

Several questions spring to my mind.  How on Earth did these people get famous?  Is that art?  Do people actually pay money to have this on their walls?

I've created better work with crayons on wallpaper when I was three years old.

Try to guess what this is:

Bird shit on the hood of a car?  Close.  It's another masterpiece by our man Pollock.  The bird added the finishing touches, though.

Is anyone familiar with Mark Rothko's work?


Mark Rothko

Red, Orange, Tan and Purple, 1954
Oil on canvas
214.5 x 174 cm
Private collection

Holy shit, I'm not making this up.  This is an example of the Colour Field style of abstract expressionism, and consists of painting blurry coloured rectangles on a canvas.  According to some websites I've read, Rothko was mostly self-taught as an artist.  Unbelievable, huh?

Finally, there's this guy:

Piet Mondrian

Composition with Red, Yellow and Blue, 1921
Oil on canvas
39 x 35 cm

Mondrian, I'm told, was the first guy in the world to figure out how to paint with a ruler, and called his new creation "neoplasticism".  Way-to-go on inventing this style, buddy.  That's about as innovative as taking a dump.  I've found a website where you can actually produce your own Mondrian knockoff in a matter of seconds with a few mouse clicks.

I maintain that art should actually look like something.  So please stop trying to paint abstract pictures of verbs and emotions.  What's that?  A depiction of "love"?  Oh, yeah, I can totally see it now!  Lots of red...mmm hmm...yeah, because blood is red, and blood is pumped by the heart, and your heart is where all that love is stored...uh huh.


Art Sucksalot, Love, 2004, Oil on canvas, 92 x 121.5 cm, $1,500

Oh, and I just love that painting over there!  Oh, you captured the essence of "rage" perfectly.  No, you don't have to explain it to me, it's quite obvious.  There was a sale on red paint, right?

Art Sucksalot, Rage, Oil on canvas, 92 x 121.5 cm, $2,750

Seeing all of this inspired me to take my own shot at "rage".  Notice how my use of lines convey a sense of balance and flow. It was quite a challenge, and robbed me of many nights of sleep.

Daniel Isaac, Rage #2C, Oil on canvas, 53.5 x 78.5 cm

Much better, I think.  Yours for only $1200.  

Art students have tried to tell me that "it's the meaning behind the art that counts".  Really?  Good intentions never seem to count for much with art teachers.  I'm finished my sculpture project, Mrs. Tipplethorn!  It's a pink eraser with a paperclip shoved through it.  I think it's a statement about mankind throwing off the yoke of tyranny and oppression and what-not. 

The meaning of your artwork doesn't count for shit unless what you've done looks impressive.  I'm not asking for photo-realism here.  I'll settle for anything that doesn't look like an accident.


Back to Home


Like it?  Send me comments.  Hate it?  Send me hate mail.

All submissions become my property and may be posted on this site (if you're lucky).