This posting discusses a minimum of two reasons why Jackson Pollock's Convergence is a work of "fine art" as opposed to an arbitrary composition of paint.
Imagine that you are a defense attorney for this work of art. Establish a very strong "argument" for this artwork by first establishing what defines "fine art." Support your argument with research. In addition, consider what influenced the artist to create work like Convergence, and discuss how this work fits into the specific era, and the specific movement from which it comes.
Please allow my ideas to formulate your argument:
First, Pollack's work transcends commercial art for various reasons. First, please note that Pollack's abstract expressionist style defines the time and era of his pieces. Because fine art seems to define and artist and his or her art "by deferring in time, by responding to what came before him" (www.dyske.com/index.php?view_id=724), Pollack's work adheres to this standard.
Since Pollack's work embodies the confusion of the times in which he works, his art is fine since it captures the emotions, social issues, etc. Research indicates that Pollock himself observes, "that the modern painter cannot express his age, the airplane, the atom bomb, the radio, in the old forms of the Renaissance or of any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique" (http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/process4.shtm).
Because Pollock developed his own style, not a copycat of the historical masters, he was able to make fine art, not just commercial area. Please note that critics say that he "reflected the aesthetic concerns of his ...
This posting addresses Pollack's work as fine art.