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...
All these people on here who say, "oh but it's true! I'm artistic and I have all these mental problems," show exactly what's dangerous about depicting these so-called "geniuses" in this way... As some have reflected, we certainly have a cultural representation of artists as mentally unstable people (or, in more modern terms, "mood disordered"). So when people decide, for whatever reason, they want to be artists, this means they're also going to be inclined to perform this artistic role of mental instability.
Now I don't mean to call any of you "mentally unstable artist-types" out there liars, or anything. I know plenty of you. In fact, I'm one too. And I fully expect that you all absolutely believe what you're saying, and don't feel like you're just playing up to some role. Your depression/anger/mood-disorders are real, after all; they're really there, inside your head, and how can I deny that. But take some time to really think about it. The next time you feel like you're "depressed," see if you can pinpoint the actual feeling inside yourself that this word is supposed to represent. I'll bet $20 you can't find it, because depression is, ultimately, a performance. It's a way of acting, which people do for certain reasons and from which people get certain responses.
There's nothing wrong with that--that' just what depression is. But I do think there's something wrong with the cultural representations that encourage us to act in this way so we consider ourselves true artists. Polluck's obsession with "phoniness" in the movie might point to this very issue. He, like all of us, probably had this sense that maybe he's just performing these cultural codes (i.e. he was phony), but he, like each of us, tries desparately to convince himself that he is the REAL *beep* (unlike all those art critics and whatnot)--and was willing to drive himself into a tree to prove it. I hope the rest of us will be wiser.
Sadly there are just as many famous writers that are just as manic as the artists are.
I sometimes think that their talent comes from that darkness(or whatever a person prefers to call it), otherwise they would be normal people with careers and families. Doing the average Joe things in life.
They would not be famous if they were not different from the norm.
for every well known artist who was a strange fellow, there is always an equally well-known artist who is much more normal. Look at 20th C and late 19th C art history. The normal artists are not hard to find...
shareThey are not hard to find but I can't imagine too many movies or a lot of books being made about their lives because they are so normal that it would be boring.
shareI can certainly see why this thought might come to you, but the film "Pollock" is pretty darn accurate. It really isn't a stereotype since it's a bio of a real person.
Whether it adds to society's belief that all artists are weird, sick, drunk, etc would be more of a concern if the film were a "made up" account of a fictional painter.
Of course the movie romanticizes these problems; the image of a "bad" person is pretty dramatic and exciting; not necessarily good or bad, just exciting.
"Our ability to think is our greatest gift; our decision not to is our greatest crime."
This was a good movie and I enjoyed it.
But it drives me nuts to read that some posters think that there's a necessary link between genius and insanity. That is a major load of crap.
Yes, Pollock was an alcoholic. But perhaps he would have been an even greater and more prolific artist if he weren't. Beethoven was grumpy but not remotely insane. He was known to be quite good-natured into his twenties when he then began to suffer constant stomach pain and deafness. The story of Van Gogh cutting off his own ear is now in doubt: Van Gogh didn't remember doing it. The story was told to police by Gauguin, who was a trained swordsman, a drunk and a liar.
Yes, some artists are off the deep end, but many are not. In music, there are perfectly normal people like Bach, Brahms, Leonard Bernstein or Yo-Yo Ma. Frank Gehry is arguably the top architect in the world, and he strikes me as emminently likeable. Name any living novelist, director, dancer, painter, actor -- any artist off the top of your head. I guearantee you that they are NOT insane. They may be jerks, but nonetheless sane.
The movies I hate the most are ones like Shine, which took a worse than mediocre musician (Helfgott) and elevated him to the status of genius just because he fit the expectation of the suffering genius. But the reality is that he is a wretched musician. I listened to his recording of Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto and I was shocked at how bad it was. It was like listening to a high school student do a cold read of a Shakespeare soliloquy -- unbearable. But because he's wacked, people buy into the feel-good myth.
Artists are just like every other professional. The only difference is that they must be creative and expressive. But in terms of personality, they run the gamut like every other field.
I've noticed over the years having read many biographies of great people and knowing a few quite talented ones that generally, persons who are really good at one thing have a corresponding lack of ability in everything else- especially people skills. It just seems to bear out this way.
Greenbud
The movie does notthing of the sort. Pollock was really like that, as are a lot of artists including myself when I'm drunk (though I'm rarely as drunk as Jackson!) The movie doesn't glamorize his lifestyle; it shows it warts and all, as does "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" which also was chided for glamorizing something it merely potrayed.
share[deleted]
If you read a bit about Pollock, you would see how dead-on the depiction was.
shareLOL. Sometimes, I suppose, stereotypes come true. He had some major psychiatric problems including alcoholism and bipolar disorder.
I don't think the film romanticizes his problems. After all, his best art was when he was sober and taking medication; not when he was drinking.
Note, I'm talking about the film, I don't know if that was true in real life, but I have heard that he was sober during his greatest and most productive period of art.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
This film is an attempt at a portrait of Jackson Pollock's character, soul, art and the times he lived in. Nothing more. Anyone who extrapolates anything else other than the portrait of a single man and his long suffering and equally talented wife does so at their own risk.
share