I'll be the first to admit I don't understand modern art, I'm more interested in Impressionism. Having said that, what exactly is it about Jackson Pollock that is supposed to be impressive. Seriously, can you even be a painter if you don't even paint your work? If I threw paint at the floor, would that be considered art? Actually, the film about his life is far more interesting than any painting I've ever seen of his.
shareI don't kno it was new and refreshing what he did and tho everyone says that anyone can do taht he was the first to and it reflected the inner workings of his mind.
shareSure, it was new, but that doesn't make it appealing or good art. Like, if I cut my arm open and bled all over a canvas, that would certainly be innovative, but hardly a person would consider it quality art. As far as reflecting the inner workings of his mind, maybe it does, but not in a way that is understandable to anybody else besides Pollock.
Van Gogh, for instance, expressed his feelings and demons in his paintings, but did so in a way that one can actually materialize an understanding of his thought process through symbolic interpretation. I understand that Pollock and the abstract expressionists are basing their work on the teachings of Carl Jung, concerning the "collective unconscious." But that's taking Jung's theories a bit too far. Jung says that certain images have universal subconscious meaning for everyone. He doesn't mean that one person can throw paint on the floor, and demonstrate, in a way that is understanding to others, his subconscious. Seriously, Van Gogh, Dali, and other expressionists and surrealists paint the stuff of emotions and dreams: the subsconscious. But, people don't dream in a flurry of color and abstruse patterns.
I don't know. I just sort of think that people look at his paintings and are completely perplexed. Not wanting to admit that they don't understand what is going on, they call it genius.
[deleted]
It's not Western/European convention that dictates that ideas are represented through symbols. Symbolic thought is the basis of all human interaction. If you're saying that Pollock is trying to transcend the boundaries of the human mind, then, being a human, I'll never understand his work.
When I was in elementary school, I remember all the kids splattering paint on a piece of paper, and painting with their fingers. It was real cute when I was about six, but if I was still doing it as an adult, that wouldn't mean that I had transcended "Western convention". It would mean that I was either painting like a six year-old or a madman.
As for Van Gogh challenging convention, I have no problem challenging convention. However, it's not Pollock's opposition to artistic conformity that bothers me, it's the lack of substance in his paintings. Just like I have no problem with Cubism, because, although distorted, there is a subject matter. Yet, color does not represent substance. For example, white can express many things. Only through symbolic association can we come to understand what white is supposed to represent.
Also, Van Gogh may have only sold one painting in his life, but that had more to do with the fact that he was a social outcast and killed himself at such a young age. If he had lived longer and presented his work in more circles, he would have sold paintings.
What Pollock did was revolutionary, you may not think it is. But honestly, would you have ever thought of splattering paint about a canvas like that and then presenting it as art. Probibly not. What was so revolutionary about it was that it was "action painting", he was physically moving his entire body to paint the canvas, he was interacting with his painting in a way no other artist had before. He was also using unussual mediums, like wall paint.
Pollocks paintings were representations of his mind's subconcious - yes I know that is more of a surrealist attribute, but I feel that the idea still lingers in abstract expressionism.
Pollocks work isn't that controversial when you think of it along side the work of some one like Duchamp.
Also, why do you guys keep bringing up Van Gogh? What does he have to do with this other than that he was a artist. By the way; he didn't paint with palette knife, he just applied very thick layers of paint to the canvas.
j. Pollocks works are something that you have to approach with an open mind so that you can have your own personal interpretation.
I just find it so refreshing to see an entire thread having a meaningful discussion. Everything is "this movie sucks" or "you're an idiot if you like this movie" on IMDb these days. You all have restored my faith in IMDb message boards.
I am in no position to discuss art other than what I see in comic books, but I can say that I didn't enjoy the movie. It was too slow and fairly uninteresting to me. I walked away with no feeling at all other than, "I doubt I'll watch that again." I know I can like art-oriented movies because I thought "Frida" was pretty good. Anyway, that's about all I can contribute.
Thanks again for meaningful posts!
I don't mind Pollock so much as I dislike his more slavish followers. Pollock has always been hit and miss for me. Some of his stuff is rather interesting. You can see a real balance and the thought behind the piece. Others are too chaotic for my taste. But that's my own preference.
What I hate are the acolytes of modernism who decry anything or anyone that dare question their dogmas. The ones who, for nearly 100 years have made traditional representaional painting a dirty concept. The asshats that confused esthetics with the poison of politics. Ironically, they have become as dogmatic and unyieldingly ossified as the geezers that modernism tried to rebel against.
"Cate Blanchett is a creature sent by the Gods to delight us."
As a museology student, I have gone through all the affectations and audacious styles of painting; different eras, different countries. It all goes back to the concept of how an artwork magnifies one's soul and lifts one to a higher plain of perception; ideas that helped shape existence from the beginning of time come alive in the heart.
That is why I keep going back to the French Impressionists. Light. Spirit. Anger. Hunger. A glimpse of God.
Some years ago I saw a big canvas in the NYC Mus of Modern "Art" --
Its title -- "Study in White" -- all white oil paint only
-- Who paid for this S#%T?
-- See Who the %$&%# is Jackson Pollock for some fun ...
I do not profess to know much about painting or art in general, but I must say that I am very impressed with Pollock. I cannot express why very well in words, but his paintings are somehow striking and vivid, and very different from anything else I have seen before. I guess what is most important about art is whether or not one likes it - it is a very subjective experience.
I also thought the film was excellent. Ed Harris is brilliant.
[deleted]
A few years ago I read an article called "Death of the Author". It was designed as an introduction to literary criticism, arguing that the reader should not try to link up the work of the artist to biographical elements of the artists life. Ever since reading this, I have been fascinated by how culture does focus so much more on the artist as opposed to the art.
If you were to move to New York, live in squalor, abuse drugs, carry on several torrid love affairs with members of both sexes, get involved with several far far left-wing causes (especially relating to censorship) and so forth, then cutting your arm and bleeding all over the canvas would be considered a ground-breaking triumph. I am doubtful that it would achieve similar acclaim if it were executed by a happily-married accountant from suburban Florida.
That, I believe, is part of the attraction of Pollock. It is less about the art as it is the image of the artist he projected. Sort of like the visual art's version of Gertrude Stein. I also suspect there's an element of the Emperor's new clothes in Pollock appreciation, as if you admit you don't see anything there you run the risk of being bradned culturally illiterate and, worse, bourgeois.
I want to reply to the subject in general, as to what is Pollock's appeal, but I chose to reply to this message because I can definitely see what the person is saying. Well, first off, we have to remember that we are talking about the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's. This was not necessarily the most pleasant time. These artists, the Abstract Expressionists, grew up with WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII. Rothko, one of the Abstract Expressionists once said that "It was with the utmost reluctance that I found the figure could not serve my purposes. But a time came when none of us could use the figure without mutilating it." Although most of these artists did not suffer the horrors of the events mentioned, (with the exception of Gorky who lived and escaped the Armenian Genocide) they lived through them, and saw their effects. These were not happy times.
We have established one of the reasons why these artists began using abstraction; the figure could not serve its purpose anymore. Now, some of the Abstract Expressionists did make use, or so they said, of the subconscious, such as Pollock, in their works, which is where Jung comes into play. Some abstract expressionists, however, did not make use of the subconscious, but I will not talk about this since it does not pertain to the subject at hand. Well, we know that Pollock was influenced by Jung's teachings, such as the ideas of the universal or collective unconscious and symbols. However, the drip paintings can only be related to the the idea of the universal unconscious. Pollock once said that "When I am in a painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about." This is what leads some people to think that Pollock is trying to depict or portray the subconscious, which is not entirely right; rather, Pollock's intention was to reach a level of subconsciousness (which I personally doubt he reached while painting) in which he almost got rid from the Self that defines all of us and was able to paint from his innermost nature, or essence. He once said that "I don't paint nature. I am nature." This proves that Pollock was not trying to portray the subconscious, but tried to use this state of mind as a vehicle to purify his works, which in the end are ideally a depiction of the essence or nature in all of us, in everything.
Finally, I would not concentrate on the idea of paint dripping too much. In fact, this was just a medium that facilitated the process for Pollock. However, this does not mean that anyone can do it, which is why Pollock is considered good. In fact, people tried doing what Pollock had done, namely dripping paintings, and no one was successful. However, remember that dripping was only the medium, while the idea of the painting was perhaps even more important. To conlcude, I want to mention that abstraction was also used by all Abstract Expressionists because, as Clement Greenberg once said, the modern painting has to be self-contained. In other words, the painting has to be everything, which would be hard to portray with human figures or symbols even.
I am a huge fan of the Abstract Expressionists, and if I may give a word of advice to those people that don't like their work, I would just say to not think too much about the meaning of the work, and simply enjoy what you are seeing. Remember that Pollock was all about rhythm, order ("No chaos, damn it" Pollock once said), and nature. Do not look for anything outside the picture, everything that there is, is in there.
It doesnt matter if is god or bad art, at least he's being honest with he's inner self expresing how he feels inside. I mean that's nature, that's creativity.
Did you see the part on the movie when they were making the documentary that the guy told him: "Hey pollock wait a second, you have to look like you are thinking or something"....
Pollock said in his mind "WTF, I dont need to think to express myself" I just paint. whatever that comes out is ok ,it doesnt matter the result.
He even said i dont belive in accident when making painting's and he died in one but that's nature too, people die you know.
You need to change that perspective of what's good or bad.
Start looking at things by seing that everything has a pourpouse, and also that have its own nature and you'll understand life better.
What make's life perfec are their imperfection's.
God Painting, Bad Painting, they both exist and no matter what they are they'r are both art.
Efrain
Ryb3338
Van Gogh, for instance, expressed his feelings and demons in his paintings, but did so in a way that one can actually materialize an understanding of his thought process through symbolic interpretation.
Whether intentional or not, people's referecenes to "splattering" paint on a canvas are misleading.
Pollock did not simply throw paint down on a canvas. In interviews, one of which was included in the film, he is asked about his technique and answers that he reached a point where he could control the flow of the paint without worrying about it "splattering" or spilling. His creations were those of his mind, and I couldn't agree more that it is some of the most refresing art I have ever seen.
Just an idea - I challenge anyone to create a Pollock-like canvas.
jacksonpollock.org
I would concur that this film is not so much about the appeal of the man's work as it is about the man himself, trying to exorcise his inner demons through his art.
shareThe movie clearly showed that Pollock did not "Throw paint at the floor". Pollock's style of painting should be described as "pitching" just as a baseball pitcher throws a baseball to go in the way he wants it and where he wants it to go. Ed Harris was throughly amazing in how showing how Pollock created his art. I don't care for many of Pollock's paintings, but there are a number of paintings which are awe inspiring and this movie brought a deep appreciation for how such art was created.
shareFor my part, I love his stuff, my girlfriend hates it, and we just have to agree to disagree. I certainly can't explain my position rationally. I guess all bets are off with modern art.
If you're ever in NYC, though, do try to check out the Pollack room at the MoMA; seeing some of the big canvasses in the flesh is pretty overwhelming.
I guess that the difference between you or me splashing some paint at the door and Pollock or any other abstact expressionists doing the same thing is that in their case there is a "theory" behind such act. Their work is a result of a long-term effort and reaction to the world of art and history of art. They are developing a tradition or denying a tradition. They know why they are doing that and what exactly they are doing, ie what they are reacting to, what they are experimentig with, what difference they are making, what direction they are moving art, etc. They have grown from art, have been influenced by ideas in their development and their final splash of paint is a symoblic answer to that tradition. Also, such painters have mastered the drawing and painting techniques, the theories of color and perspective, etc. If they wanted to, they would paint a perfectly realistic work of art, which me and you could not (viz some of Picassos portraits). But the point is, they dont want to. Their cubes or splashes are a different perspective. They are able to take a different look at things, because they already know the standard one. Since me and you dont possess any of these skills or knowledge, our splash would be just a splash. This is also important for viewing art. As an ordinary man visiting a gallery of abstract art I want to say: Is this art?! I could do that! But this is just superficial view resulting from the fact that I am not familiar with the motives of the painter, ie his or her "theory"
ps. sorry for assuming you are not a good painter. if you actually are, cross out "you" from the above text. also appreciate you started a meaningful thread.
Vision and control, and not just paint, must be factored in so that a museum spectator could better appreciate Pollock's works
share"I don't mind Pollock so much as I dislike his more slavish followers. Pollock has always been hit and miss for me. Some of his stuff is rather interesting. You can see a real balance and the thought behind the piece. Others are too chaotic for my taste. But that's my own preference.
What I hate are the acolytes of modernism who decry anything or anyone that dare question their dogmas. The ones who, for nearly 100 years have made traditional representaional painting a dirty concept. The asshats that confused esthetics with the poison of politics. Ironically, they have become as dogmatic and unyieldingly ossified as the geezers that modernism tried to rebel against."
Great post Archer, hit everything perfectly. I just felt inclined to say so. :)
I am no student of the fine arts, but I want to comment that this as well bothers me. Why is it that so many who wish to break conventions create their own warped conventions on what and what isnt "good" art. I have actually heard supposed art lovers label great pieces during the romantic era as "bad" art. In reality the pieces were executed with absolutely amazing skill, and on top of that the term "good" or "bad" on an issue that is so subjective is just plain silly. I have even heard some truly ignorant jerks compare the works mentioned above with the fluff of Thomas Kincade... lame
Is art supposed to be good? Like Mona Lisa Smile, who decides?
I personally think it's up to the individual. Art isn't supposed to be good. It's supposed to be there for people to make their own opinions about it and interpret it in their own way.
What’s more important; eliminating pain or retaining the humanity that causes pain?share
great post. whether pollock appeals to you or not is for you to decide. he painted. we're the ones that look upon the paintings and make judgements and ideas from them. and in response to this thread in general i'd just like to add the following:
pollock indicates that painting is painting. whether the paint is in such a form as to mimic what the eye sees...in the sense of people, shapes, etc...or it's in no form at all, and thus creating it's own form. it's all still paint. any ideas we form about such a painting come from our minds and our beliefs and ideas we already have. it's easy to want to try to understand a painting...putting it into categories and making judgements about what we see...but all of that is not the work of the artist(that's not to say the artist doesn't do that as well in their own minds too), but the work of our minds.
art in this sense challenges the conceptions we place on things (duchamp's 'ready mades' are another prime example of this). it makes us question the judgements we make and allows us to rethink what exactly constitutes art and life.
I think this explains some of the appeal of abstract art well:
http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/
i think his appeal lies in the fact that he was the first to "paint" in that way, it was unique and yes revolutionary. Perhaps also that his style was uncommon for an american. of course the life he led (tragic as it was) also adds to his appeal.
thats probably all been said tho.
"Up yours with a twirlin' lawnmower" - A Nightmare on Elm Street
I would have to agree. The world of art is obsessed with what is "avant-garde". Pollock, at his time was pushing the boundaries of what was considered normal. He gained popularity not only because of his personality, but because he was the first to do this. I think it's fair to say that most people could create a painting similar to a Jackson Pollock that could fool someone who hasn't studied art or is an expert in the field of art, however, Jackson Pollock does have a style to his work that is easily imitated but definitely not replicated. Why did other action painters not suceed? Simply, because it had already been done.
share[deleted]
I must say that this is one of (maybe THE) best thread I have ever read on imdb. As was stated above 2x, this is so far beyond your typical "this film is great or this film is trash" type of thread. This film as a piece of art or as a medium is making us reflect upon life and theory way beyond just what Ed Harris and the others put into the work.
My question (which I suppose is a bit off topic) is why there is so much non-analytic posting on here. One thread on another site (forgot which one) said that a lot of people who post here are either very young (I guess they mean under 30) or have mental health issues and they're using this board to vent or get attention or get a rise out of people. Are people mal-educated? What is the difference between you all who post such profound and articulate thoughts about a movie like this and others who on other threads for other flicks just see surface level and can't/don't analyze and see everything in knee jerk fashion?
Theres' only two ways of answering any question. The blue pill or red pill way.
share