I chose a piece of Jackson
Pollock, first of all because I find this kind of art interesting, but also
when I was in elementary school I saw a piece of his, and was fascinated with
it. But I have never really looked into who he was.
Jackson Pollock started
his art career at Students Art League in New York in 1929. Where from there on
out become one of the best abstract artist. Jackson Pollock’s painting No.5, 1948,
is a very abstract piece that, as of 2006, was sold at one of the highest prices
known for people to pay for art. It was sold at $140 Million. (New York Times; 11/11/2006, p8, 0p)
Jackson Pollock, as it says in the Art History book, page
1075, was a very trouble kid who had alcohol problems at a young age and in
general was self-destruction. I think this bit of knowledge really helps you
understand his art, but it is also said he paintings were about the universe. I
suppose it’s a matter of opinion. It is also said that his paintings had a strong
influence of surrealism, and Mexican mural artists. (http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock
- /jacksonpollock.html)
He claims that a painting has a life of its own, but that
when he paints he becomes completely absorbed in the painting. Which, looking
at his paintings, I feel like many of them could be a representation of his
past, what he has gone through. He also said he was inspired by the ritualistic
procedure took by primitive art; apparently it was looked favorably upon to be
“in” and be a part of paintings while painting them. He said “…primitive does
not think consciously, but that thoughts appear” (Mythical
Overtones in the Work of Jackson Pollock, page 368) Pollock talks a lot about how he
is not painting that painting, but rather is with the painting, not totally
aware of what he is painting until it is done.
There is not obvious direction to his paintings, no obvious
sense of time, and no definite structure. Sigfried Giedion, a European
historian and critic, says Pollock’s art has a mythical time, he also claims
that his paintings were not the attention of men, but rather about the
universe. I understand where he gets his mythical theory, but I also think some
of Pollock’s paintings come from his past.
His painting technique was not popular at the time, but he
poured and dripped his paint onto his canvas. He experimented with and without
color, and with and without primed canvases. He would change it around every
few year. (http://www.jackson-pollock.com/biography.html) He also did most of
his paintings on a very large scale. For example this painting, No.5, 1948 has the dimensions of 95.98"
x 47.99".
I
think his painting are fascinating, and I think I could look at them forever.
Although no distinguishable shape or content, they are still memorizing.
It blows my mind hearing you talk about how he produced his work. All too often artists get tied up with their notions of how they should produce their art and why. He is different though and instead allows the painting to form itself. Ad you said there is no real time or structure resulting from his absorption into the painting. This is a really cool concept and now knowing this I feel like i would look at works like this in a totally different manner.
ReplyDeleteI like that you discussed how Pollock experimented with different things. He definitely wasn't a traditional artist, even in the sense that he used commercial-grade enamel paint (instead of the oil paint that was traditionally used in Western art).
ReplyDelete-Prof. Bowen
I agree with you that his work is mesmerizing. I feel like I could like at his artwork for long periods of time and never get bored because there are so many lines and colors to follow. I think it is very interesting that he says "primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear." I feel as if he is saying each individual will have their own thoughts appear when viewing his artwork and that his artwork will mean something different to each individual.
ReplyDeletePollocks work always reminds me of the drips and spatters of paint left on a paint palette or drips on the floor when when painting a house, or of painters drop cloths. There is no rhyme or reason to what he was doing, he wasn't painting anything discernible. I have never connected to his art yet I completely understand the joy he probably got when making it. I wonder if the act of painting for him was a way of dealing with his troubled past and dealing with his own demons. The result of his painting is colorful and maybe even playful however I just don't connect to it, its too chaotic for me to look at its too electric and like my own internal chaos which is not appealing at all to see. His work leaves me slightly unsettled. I do love the idea of the universe because I can sort of see that the universe is something to immense to contemplate and in many ways that is how his work strikes me there is just too much visually to take in at one time.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that he went through a time of self destruction with alcohol. I find this stereotypically true for many artists in the studio world and musically. I also find it interesting that a painting with no real sense of up and down can at one point not be favored and is now very popular. I find his art interesting but not aesthetically captivating to me. I like your descriptions though, it gave me a broader outlook on his work and background.
ReplyDelete