Electric --> Artistic :: Electromotance --> Artistromotance

Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with the physics obviously involved in Pollock's paintings.

I find the difference between Pollock's abstract modern painting, and traditional examples of religious art pointed. The religious art has obvious intent behind it, while Pollock's intent, which may be "clear" to many critics, is less than transparent to a majority of observers.

What is the difference between these two artists and how we interpret their work. In the religious art, previously established symbols are used, while the abstract art doesn't include any physical symbols. Because of these recognizable symbols, observers familiar with them find meaning linked to those symbols as well as the painting. Pollock's art has no such attachments, and observers are free in their ideas. These two pieces of art are hardly comparable! They both have their value and place. Because the religious art is tied to religious ideas that are already establish, it has a base to build on and achieve more meaning, but because Pollock's paintings do not have this attachment, observers are more willing to criticize and to disagree. Disagreeing with established religious symbols is not always the easiest thing to do.

So both of these art pieces have different functionalities. Which is better? What exactly is the purpose of art which these works much satisfy? The religious art was meant to inspire wonder, modern art to inspire thought... we see commercial art all the time, aesthetically pleasing swirls on a can or box meant to inspire increased purchases. There is clearly no specific shared purpose, but thinking back to the cave paintings at Lascaux, the the purpose of which we don't know, we do know that its significance is as a symbol.