MovieChat Forums > Pollock (2001) Discussion > Stereotypes artists?

Stereotypes artists?


Who thinks that POLLOCK contributes to bad stereotypes about artists--e.g. that artists are ill-tempered, mentally ill, alcoholic, abusive, moody, arrogant, etc.? And who thinks that the movie romanticizes these problems?

Not saying I believe this myself, but it does bother me a bit...

reply

Most artists, great ones anyway, do tend to be that way. Beethoven was not a nice fellow. Ken Kesey was a dope fiend. Jackson Pollock was an alcoholic. Samuel Beckett was... just plain weird. Van Gogh cut off this own ear. These guys are so creative it hurts themselves and everyone around them.

I greatly doubt that there's a single great artist who was a "normal" person in society. If there is I don't want to read his work.

Some psychologists think that because the part of the brain the deals with creativity also moderates mood that the reason why artists are usually depressed people is because that part of their brain is overactive.

reply

[deleted]

I agree about the part that a "normal" person's art would be mundane at best as artists are almost expected to challenge the status quo in some way. And although, as the old adage goes, "good artists borrow, great artists steal," this doesn't mean that one must go out of thier way to conform to these 'stereotypes' in order to be an artist lest you might be accused of having all the symptoms but not the disese. I mean there are plenty of alcoholics that never accomplish anything, much less putting the entire art world on it's side.

reply

Well, that's how Jackson Pollock REALLY was. He just wasn't a nice guy.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

reply

This is true. And I didn't find that the movie romanticized any of it.


~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

Stereotypes come from a place of truth. It made me feel better about myself, because I always felt like a freak when I would drink myself into a stupor and go raging around. I felt like nobody would take my art seriously because of it. Now, I've realized that I am the artist stereotype.

reply

Well, exactly, rooball. Who wants to be a stereotype?

Today, no one does--not if you want to be a successful, full-time, professional artist. Not unless you want to do your art part-time and sporadically, and work as a barista or waiter or busboy all your life.

Pollock and his ilk managed to survive and become successful because there were a lot of stable women and stable men to help him do so. He left the business side of his art to others. Without them, he'd never have made it.

Not so today. Today, the Pollocks of the world are less likely to succeed. Partly this is true because of women's lib (few women are willing to take care of their talented male partners to the degree that Pollock's wife did, if at all); partly this is because alcoholism, addiction, and mood disorders can be controlled; and partly this is because the art world and the public at large expect artists TO control their problems.

That's my problem with the stereotype: Not only is it uber-male, it is old-fashioned and incorrect for the times.

If you want to be successful in the art world of today, you have to be together enough to present a formal portfolio, to deliver work on a regular and timely basis, and to be show up to your openings and artist talks reasonably sober and social. I've worked for galleries, and the one thing they detest most is the artist who is too screwed-up to be counted on. Most galleries--and I include the cutting edge and non-profit/non-commercial galleries--will choose a mediocre but reliable artist over a great but messy talent. They don't want to have to babysit their artists, and I don't blame them.

Now, granted there is a lot to be said for the correlation between creativity and mood disorder (I know from experience, too!), but I know of no successful contemporary artist who is as stereotyped as Pollock (et al.). (I'm not counting art students, because the vast majority of them never go anywhere after graduation. Or, they teach.)

Successful contemporary artists I know, and know of, may be quirky, eccentric, a little off--yes. They may have mood disorders, too. But they are also, more or less, in control of their lives, and their problems. They have to be, or they wouldn't be successful...

reply

It's true that I probably will not be "successful", because I don't have the control that many people do, and because I doubt that anyone wants to stand by my side and help me.

I don't see what's bad about being a stereotype. It's not my fault that all of those things fall into that category. I didn't ask for any of this. You are what you are, and there's no point in wishing that you were something else.

Also, just so you know, I'm female. Anger, mental problems, and alcoholism are not soley male attributes.

I'm not gonna say anything else, because I'm pissed off, and probably have no reason to be.

reply

Snap the hell out of it! Oooooh, you're a tortured artist.... Ooooohh. You get a pass from the responsibilities of life... oooooohhhhh..

Not impresssed.


reply

[deleted]

I too am an artist, but come from the music field. I perform, but more often, present artists of all sorts. I've been priviledged to present some of the most recognizable names in the music world.

One of my colleagues occasionally rambles on about "artistic ego" referring to the eccentricities of many of the artists we encounter. The simple fact is I've observed one thing about artistic temperament that I have come to firmly believe. Great artists exist in a world in which their art, regardless of genre, reigns supreme. In the best artists there is an unshakable dedication to the production of their art. My job in presenting them to the public is to create a bubble in which they can feel safe to concentrate on the art they are there to produce - one in which they are safe from the intrusions that could break that concentration. When that safety zone is violated, that's when I see the irritation come out.

I do not think all artists are tortured, except by their own standards and dedication. I DO think and studies have shown that many great artists have suffered from personality, mental and addiction disorders. Tchaikovsky and Schumannn both attempted suicide. Beethoven's ravings are legendary. Wagner had one of the most repugnant personalities of any artist of any time. No one can deny the genius of their works. The studies have suggested that the manic-depressive behaviors may actually have been related to many artists' ability to produce their most sublime work, and for a reason - anyone who has ever been around someone with an emotional disorder knows that they experience emotions like a child - in their purest form and as if the emotion of the moment is the only one they will ever again experience.

Perhaps experiencing and translating that hyper-purity of emotional states is exactly what separates their work from that of others, whose restraint or convention inhibits their own ability to express as clearly.

reply

I felt compelled to respond, 11 years after you posted this comment, as I feel it contains a lot of truths about modern Modern artists.

I should clarify: I am an artist, I have BPD -- used to have an acute psychosis earlier in my life (delusions, hallucinations et al).

The first thing you said is so on point.


Well, exactly, rooball. Who wants to be a stereotype?... no one does... Not unless you want to do your art part-time and sporadically, and work as a barista or waiter or busboy all your life.


In the first few years of my career as an artist I noticed that coming across as a normal, reliable guy helps if you want to go further. I two years I had multiple exhibitions and displayed work in two museums -- the perfect start for a wannabe future
art star.
But I couldn't keep up appearances. I'm not a sociable person, I'm a loner. I don't enjoy talking with people, networking etc. I don't even enjoy promoting my art.
After a while I reverted back to type. I just made art in my studio, and nobody saw it because I didn't show anyone. And I wasn't concerned.
If I had a dedicated team of promoters behind me doing all of the business I know that my name/brand would carry a lot more weight in the art world.

It comes down to what you want out of it. If you really want fame and/or acknowledgment then you have to conform -- or at least have a network of people around you who are dedicated to you.
If you just want to create and don't care about recognition then you needn't do a thing except that.
Problem is unless you are already independently wealthy you're going to have to work as a barista or waiter or busboy all your life in order to fund your practice.
And this is where many creatives truly struggle to find their conviction. Many end up just quitting.

reply

I don't see how the movie romanticizes these things---although I'm open to your explaining to me how it does that and thus changing my mind. As it is I'm not sure it contributes to that stereotype. This is a true story; not that all artists are like that, but Pollock certainly was.

reply

And indeed, his wife, who was also an artist, is not shown as a drunk, or a maniac, or arrogant, or any of these things. So I think it makes it pretty clear it's just Pollock.

reply

The silly "drumming" on the dinner table and the drunken rolling on the stairs at the beginning seemed a bit of a contentious opening to me - but turned into major disappointment when, apart from the few minutes of the actual process of painting, Pollock's awful personality ended up becoming the central subject of the film! "But that's what he was really like!" - some say. Hmm, even if it really was 99% aggravation and drunken stupor - does that really justify such uncharitable treatment? Of anyone? There have been more generous depictions of serial killers and war criminals!

Despite all the claimed meticulous precision of mannerisms and visual likeness, it still utterly failed to present a convincing artist with any kind of a soul - perhaps the makers of this one were too keen to appeal to a wider audience, gambling that the arty crowd would go to see such a rare beast (film about a painter!) anyway, so better bolt on a feminist angle and pad it out with as much scandal as possible - to increase its appeal? Which would be fair enough in moderation - but they appear to have lost all sense of proportion.

Does that explain the bias? Or was it someone's idea of what "proper" "warts and all" "cruel realism" is supposed to be like? Someone must have fought really hard to keep as much art out of this film as possible:

- how about we show some more of his paintings? this one's rather nice!
- **** the paintings! We gotta show a MONSTER! Have him break some furniture!

reply

i'm sure alot of movies about artists dwell on their personalities because to an audience of non-artists, watching someone actually painting, cleaning brushes, stretching canvases, etc might seem a bit boring, even if the end result is visually exciting
i am a painter and would love to see a movie about a painter that didn't portray artists as crazy or tortured or whatever. and there were alot of artists who were stable and geniuses: degas, monet, rembrant, el greco and others.
as far as pollock goes, from what i've read about him, he wasn't a nice man and was a drunk. i think the movie could have shown a bit more of lee krasner working because she was an artist in her own right even though she supported pollock.
if any one would like to have a good read about this sort of thing- you should read "the painted word" by tom wolfe.

reply

I'm going to go with this being a movie about Pollock's problems and instability because, essentially, that's what defined abstract expressionism, and more specifically Pollock's work.

The whole idea of abstract expressionism is that internal conflict itself is what creates the artwork. And by showing this internal conflict, and by showing who Pollock really was (a really screwed up person) you can come to understand his artwork a little bit more.

reply

If Pollock comes off as mean-spirited and ill-tempered, it's because he was. From his interview on Inside the Actor's Studio, it is obvious that Ed Harris has the utmost respect for Jackson Pollock. I'm sure he tried his best to objectively portray Pollock.

reply

I think there's a definite tie between genius and insanity.

I see it in myself in a very small way. I'm a painter - no genius, mind you, and by no means on the level of Pollock or anyone else mentioned here. I'm also clinically depressed. I have found that my work is better - at the very least much more creative - when I've forgotten to take my medication.

It's not just artists, though. Many, many brilliant people are "not quite right." Look at Einstein.

But in the end, Pollock was an a$s and the film portrayed him that way. Surprise!





Trust the Toad
Favorite emotie ever:

reply