I find it ironic that Louis and the art community seperate modern and post modern especially pop art into pure and impure. In essence they are saying the things of this world are impure, but it really seems more or less a religious judgement then anything else. Since a lot of Modern AbEx reduced to the universals, and pop art reflected themanefistations of the many, of our progress, our manufactured world. The brands and the connections we make with them, if our ancient ancestors saw a brillo box they would not have the same connection with it, but this art as impure as it is has become a historical marker for the times. Do you think Andy Warhol's work is impure?

The historical art shows what our culture was like at the time, it depicts our society, or icons, just as our ancient ancestors painted or carved picture of there day to day life. In this sense it seems that Andy's art returned modern art back to its historical ancestors with a new culture twist.

I know the type. These people are characters, and oh boy are they a lot to handle. Very flamboyant. When I read the interview I imagined him with a NY accent, and I could just feel his character in the interview text.

I can see that after readying his interview. It sounds like he was a bit of a character.

Is he saying that Pollock's art breaks with the painters of the ancient Greeks, because if we look at history back to the era of the ancient Greeks, we did not see any art that broke the traditional forms of painting? Like painting events or emotions? Is he trying to say that Pollock's art has broken through something so ancient that broke the boundaries of what the Greeks were able to paint? That he has reawakened the ancient ritual artists?

I love this for so many reasons. I really relate to Pollocks views. I have always looked at household objects and thought of them in an artistic way, weather it was a coffee pot or a pen holder. It does not have to be cookie cutter, the coffee pot could be a circle with legs, or a geometrical shape, with different shades of metal. The pen holder does not need to be a slate with a whole it could be a small sculpture of a man holding out his muscular arms to hold your pen. Everything can be artistic and beautiful if we wanted it to be.

Then it could be seen an a minimalistic way, the beauty of nature, the beauty of our bodies, do we hold our bodies and can we look at ourselves naked and say wow I am a beautiful piece of art. Can we go through out our day without being anxious and enjoy the beautiful views of this earth, whether it be the trees or the city streets. It all looks so beautiful in the movies, but can we look out through our own eyes and watch life as if we are watching a beautiful movie.

This is living consciously, this is what Pollack stood for and why he loved working in therapy with Jungian theory or psychology.

I wonder if Johnathan Adler a famous potter found his muse in some of Jackson Pollock's ideas. I think a lot of his inspiration also came from Native American artifacts or way of life. Check out his work, and his way of making every piece a work of art. https://jonathanadler.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw-uH6BRDQARIsAI3I-UcWWsrqI-KKuQuSMAju61jgGHkyfqiysJsiAv-hC5qoAz46P7oh0-4aAsEZEALw_wcB

When I think of surreal artwork I think of visions, not only dreams, but maybe a vision we have while looking at the clouds. We envision a transformation and it feels like a message from our unconscious. Or a guided meditation, I've worked with Shamans and done meditation with spiritual gurus and masters, and the visions you can have while practicing these I guess you could say ritualistic practices are profound. After they happen you wonder what they meant, the vision or the video type imagery comes to you and you just observe it, and then after when you come back to yourself you wonder what it meant and attach meaning to it. I find my own surreal art ideas in these practices. I really relate to what Kaprow is saying here, how Pollock's work was an attitude, and a ritual, not just a abstraction to be interpreted. Do you think Pollocks ritualistic practice of drip painting came from his unconscious or a higher source, and that unknowingly Pollack's work was was made with intention from this source?

Would you rather see the picture as it is, or would you rather see the picture and then come to find out it was only a picture? In life the picture as it is, is the real, the raw, the universal truth, with endless perspective and in this way the modernist drew. Old Master drew the picture, taken from one perspective, from one set of eye, at one point in time, in a specific scene in the world, with certain finite context, with a set intention to invoke a certain feeling in the viewer. In a way it is meant to control the viewer.

Which do you want to see, the picture as a picture, or the picture as a event, emotion, feeling, that then is interpreted to just be a thing in a place in time, that is only a picture?

I have found so many contradictions in abstract artist philosophy and their actual art, but maybe the contradictions are part of the process, and maybe that is part of my own personal process shedding the more traditional thought forms that I have, forcing me to see things differently. Like Rothko's analysis to flatness leading to transparency and simplicity, I saw this to be very contradicting to his early works were not simplistic at all. They were rather symbolic and complex, and I thought his style looked like child's play. Yet, he defended himself by conjugating the critics (like myself) by reversing the comment.<br> If the critic thought they gained a point, the artist was able to flip it, and negate it. Reminds me of algebra, to find the conjugate of 1 is -1 which equals nothing, in essence artist were able to reverse conjugate their critics, they addressed them but never resolved the citism, in math that would = 0 and nothing can exist over 0, i.e the critics had no argument to hold above the nothingness.

This approach to the arts has allowed us to not just paint and create in our human realm, but it allows us to address ideas and express ourselves in a way that transcends time and space.<br> What do you consider essential to be categorized as art?

The inescapable flatness, is a metaphor for the unattainable perfection, and the assured imperfectionism that humans possess. Greenberg explains that the essence or flatness of the surface, is the essence of the art itself, and it is real and raw, not trying to be perfect, but nothing else other then what it is. The flatness does not attach an ideal body or an ideal stylistic practice to the arts, but it's essential that the art captures the spirit of its subject of lack thereof.

More on the arts during modernism vs. today's modern media obsession with body perfectionism, relating De-Kooning's, and other abstract artists works to define the essence or purpose rather then depict perfectionism.

https://the-artifice.com/body-imperfect-art/

I'm glad Greenberg addressed this. Modernism and enlightenment are at time intersecting or start to appear enmeshed. Yet, modernism differentiates itself, in that we are not spectating modernism to become enlightened, but by the act of modernism itself we are in the process of enlightenment. Enlightenment is "inward" or connection with oneself, while modernism is "outward" (human to human connection) and the art and philosophy of modernism ignites a inward outward transcendance, that directs our thoughts to a higher level or an "upward" (human divine connection).

My take on Modernism growing out of, and enlightenment as going inward, is relatable to the theories of inward outward on a micro and macro level. I will link the essay that explains the theory of inward/outward. It says, "Another metaphorical use of inside - outside is apparent when we see someone walking along, head down, lost in thought. We too, when we are having a powerful experience, might say to a friend, "I wish I could tell you what's going on inside me!" or "Something is going on deep inside me, but I can't put it into words." Someone may say he has images running through his head or that he has images in his head that he wishes he could paint. And, if he can paint them, express them, he may feel better. He feels he has made something invisible and private, visible and public, has taken what is only inside him and made it outside." To read the full essay you can go to this link: http://www.psychological-observations.com/key-concepts/inward-outward

I found it insightful and helpful to understand to build on my theory of what Greenberg is trying to convey in his point here.

Midpoint : Sum divided by 2

(7+1) 8/2 =4 (2+-2) =0

Leg AB=√(6-0)² + (1-4)² AB=√(36 + 9 AB=√(45

Leg BC=√(0--6)² + (4--8)² BC=√36+144 BC=√180

Hypotenuse AC=√(6--6)² + (1--8)² AC=√144+81 AC=√(225

AB²+BC²=(√45)²+√(180)² 45+180=225

AC=(√225)² AC=225

AB= √(7-0)² + (2-5²) = √49+9 =√58

BC= √(0--6)² + (5--8)² BC= √36+169 BC=√205

AC=√(7--6)² + (2--8)² AC=√169+100 AC=√269

(√58)²+(√205)² = 58+205 =263