You didn't, no. I did.
Because that's where most of the talent in abstract art is, in most cases, Pollock's being one of the worst examples.
The difference between Winehouse and Pollock is that Winehouse had a certain degree of pop culture appeal. It gets tougher to pinpoint exactly what she's doing but some people like her so she must be doing something right. Whereas Pollock's fanbase I'd assume is almost all pretentious "art interpretation" people, and it's very easy to see what makes them tick, and thus where the talent lies. Maybe I'm wrong-- maybe there are average joes on the street who can say "whoa, this is amazing" but I'm just not seeing it as very likely.
You may think interpretation of the painting and the painting itself are inseparable and that you have to be talented at painting to be able to manipulate, but I just don't agree with that. You can also claim that Pollock's "drip" painting "technique" makes him talented as an artist and not a diplomat-- I say that's just more interpretation at work. You can call anything, even something that's ineffective, a "technique." The difference is that in most fields a bad technique will be obsoleted, but in abstract art the actual merit can be obscured by a bunch of yes men "connoisseurs" deeming it good.
But yeah, like I said, talented, just not as a painter. Sorry if this was offensive.
--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!