One of the most common responses to Jackson Pollock’s paintings is to dismiss them by saying, “My kid could do that!” The statement suggests that his paintings are mere scribbling. But are they? Do you see more than scribbling in them? How would you defend Pollock from this attack? Or would you?

There is no correct answer it truly depends on you and your output on art.

Explanation:

The short answer is that the figure of Jackson Pollock sits at the apex of a vast cultural construction: the currently accepted history of American art and culture. To explain how he got there, and how his work became a form of currency, requires a long answer.

i think cheerleading is definitely a form of art. or at least it should be! not everyone has what is takes/and or the determination to become a cheerleader. it takes practice and hard work, along with being able to master a move correctly, like dancing. dancing is a form of art, and i think cheerleading is too. not everyone can dance, just like not everyone can be a cheerleader.