Jackson Pollack's Convergence: The Value Of Art

I have always enjoyed viewing abstract art yet, at a certain point some abstract art seems to cross the boundary of what is considered as being art. This lead me to think about what can truly be called art. Paintings such as Jackson Pollack’s Convergence were argued to not be art as anyone could throw some paint on a canvas to create a similar drip style piece. Similarly, many works of art have been criticized as not being art due to being indecent or offensive and not offering any artistic value. However, one of the roles of an artist is to break down our preconceptions by offering a unique perspective that provokes us to rethink our definitions of the artists subject. The intrinsic value of a piece of art is subjective and can become more than what the artist intended or never seen for what the artist was aiming to invoke. (Convergence by Jackson Pollack) What I learned this week was the complex process of how value is assigned to art by its viewers. The assigned reading covering the value of art was particularly interesting as it explored how we actively see art, which may or may not be how the artist envisions her work. We view art through a lens shaped by our prejudices and
Artwork that elicits an emotion has an intrinsic value that is difficult to put a price on. People of different time periods, cultures and backgrounds will place varying values of importance on art due to their personal connection and beliefs about the piece. Examples of this would be African masks and Mexican skulls which were not originally created as works of art but to communicate with the spirits of the dead and pay honor to their gods during ceremonial worship. I find it fascinating that every piece of art has a story attached that gives us an insight into the perspective of the