solvs said:
I disagree - although your argument is not completely without merit. There is no one definition for art - it does this, it does that- just can't be done. Art is many things - and one facet is how it reflects the time it was made, and the time it is viewed. When this artist was working - it was still shocking to see something so simple and done on such a grand scale. It promoted discussion of what is art, what are the requirements to be dubbed "art". Today's practicing artists stand on the shoulders of giants like Frankenthaler.
A lot of the discussion here has been about aesthetics, not art. What is beautiful or appealing to an individual is not a very good standard for what is art. Frankenthaler helped prove that. Her work may not be beautiful to everyone, and it may not be complicated (I'm sure many 4 year olds could make similiar marks*) - but beauty and technical merit are not the only standards of art. They have their place - but in some work they are down played in favor of challenging the audience on another level. Nigel Warburton wrote some excellent material that helps explain this.
So - on the topic of "Is this art" and "Is it worth all that money" - everyone can and will have their own answer. Art offers that freedom. So I submit my 2 cents - It's great art. It informed decades of painters and made mankind a bolder and richer race. I find the work beautiful and pleasing.
* Yeah a lot of 4 year olds could make these marks, but could they shop the work around to galleries- show their work wherever they can for years to gain some respect, and would they be able to articulate the significance of the work in relation to contemporary and historical movements? Lot's of artists have to go through these (and others) before they sell anything - often nothing gets sold. They keep on making stuff because it means something to them. It is their way to interpret the world. Glad they keep sharing it.
