Entertainment and Sports

#$&% Jackson Pollock

Pollock's works, like the man himself, are too self-centered and chaotic to enjoy.

By Kevin Somers
Published September 28, 2007

I just watched "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" a funny, lively, documentary about a feisty old lady who inadvertently buys a Pollock at a thrift shop for $5 and goes on a mission to have it authenticated. A scientist / art specialist from Montreal eventually proves, through fingerprints, paint samples, and style, that the canvas is, without doubt, a Pollock original.

Preposterous, pretentious wankers from the art world, who claim their expertise superior to forensic evidence, won't have it, though, and reject any notion the work is Pollock's. One "expert," who has millions tied up in Pollock's schlock, gets up close and personal with the canvas before saying, " ... it doesn't look like a Pollock, it doesn't feel like a Pollock, it doesn't sing like a Pollock."

Walter Pater said long ago, "All arts aspire to the condition of music," and there are plenty, living and not, who have made canvas sing. Jackson Pollock wasn't one of them. In fact, he hadn't a stitch of talent.

Pollock is often called one of America's greatest and most important painters and some of his work sells for over $100 million. His paintings and prints are coveted and library shelves sag with Pollock books; thousands of pages and millions of gushing words testifying to his genius and significance. Jackson Pollock climbed rarefied heights for an artist who, by his own admission, couldn't draw or use a brush well.

Hollywood played up the misunderstood genius shtick in a recent major motion picture, Pollock, starring Ed Harris. Harris, who is always good, started lean then grew a hearty beer belly for the role of Pollock, a cantankerous alcoholic. Harris received an Academy award nomination in 2000 for looking perpetually pained as Jack the Dripper.

Jackson Pollock is, of course, most famous for dribbling and pouring paint from the can directly onto a canvas stretched across the floor. It's something any first grader can do. One dribble painting is cute, sort of, but the man made a career and a legacy as a "painter" who couldn't paint. Pollock's success is a lot more interesting than his work.

Paul Jackson Pollock was born in Cody, Wyoming, in 1912, but the family moved to California when he was a baby. Brooding and quiet when sober, Pollock was a belligerent and quarrelsome drunk. Unfortunately, he was a heavy drinker most of his life and carried on miserably when full.

In 1950 - 1951, at the height of his fame, Pollock agreed to let Hans Namuth photograph him while he worked. It was supposed to happen once, but soon Pollock, who is reported to have been shy and reclusive, was posing, performing, and pouring for the camera week after week; addicted to adulation.

Pollock would also flick the brush, drip paint from a stick, or throw sand at the canvas to vary his products. When all this was captured by Namuth, Pollock's reputation as a tortured man who fell into a therapeutic trance while working added mystique to his "subconscious creations."

Eventually, Namuth had Pollock paint a sheet of glass while he photographed from underneath, giving us the canvas's perspective. The pop, vanity project gives a better insight to Pollock's narcissism than any of his dribbling. Using the photos, Life Magazine did a spread on Pollock, and made him flavour of the month.

Pollock enjoyed his time in the limelight, but as it faded, so did his vitality. He had virtually stopped working the last few years of his life and filled the void with drinking. The legend he created was killing him; the great frontiersman was stalled and could take his art no further. Jackson Pollock couldn't paint, after all, and how much dribbling can one planet, and one man, endure?

Pollock is credited with turning art inwards upon the self; by pouring his subconscious directly onto the canvas, he "broke it wide open." His unprecedented form of self-expression is meticulously examined; there are several dense, highly resourced textbooks that endeavour to explain how meaningful and significant each spill of Pollock's paintings are.

After a few pages, however, one begins to wonder about those who have the time, resources, and desire to analyze something so simple and so ridiculous so thoroughly.

On the surface, Pollock fits the bill of an artist; he was a fiery, temperamental drunk, who died young. It's a good sales pitch, but shouldn't looking at art be a more rewarding experience than trying to make sense of what is dribbled onto a canvas?

The object of a painting should be to sooth the soul of the viewer, not the painter. I don't care if Jackson Pollock was tortured. So what? Paint, homey.

Van gogh was tortured, but he could paint. Evidently the monkeys and elephants, who paint at the zoo, are tortured, as well.

Art is testimony to our significance; we should be awed with a sense of serenity when looking at it, not expected to suffer along with a poor, conflicted artist. Pollock's works, like the man, are too self-centered and chaotic to enjoy.

Pollock was killed driving drunk and recklessly with his young mistress and her friend, Edith Metzger, in a convertible. In 1956, at the age of 44, Jackson Pollock died the instant his head hit a tree and, just as quickly, his art was worth a lot more.

Metzger, who was begging to be let out of the speeding car, is sometimes overlooked in the Pollock mania. She had only met Pollock hours earlier and was crushed under his big automobile. One book reads, "Although Pollock lived only to the age of forty-four..." and doesn't even mention Edith Metzger, who was 25. Beyond a fraud, Jackson Pollock was also a jackass.

Despite alcoholism and in-your-face indiscretions, Pollock's wife, artist Lee Krasner, was his greatest champion. From the first time they met, Krasner had faith she could sell her man to the public. When Jackson Pollock died, she made him a legend.

It's #$&% funny.

Related:

Kevin Somers is a Hamilton writer.

29 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By john milton (anonymous) | Posted October 01, 2007 at 09:23:51

Kevin:

You may have decided that you are only interested in art that leaves you "awed with a sense of serenity when looking at it", or that you are going to dismiss as "not art" anything seems intended to make you "suffer", or that was not produced by an artist who had mastered certain skills, weather or not they chose to use them in the piece in question.

This is all well and good, you are certainly free to deal with art in this way, and many other folks share your opinion, so what?

An artist creates a work, in some cases just to externalize something within themseleves, which is fine, but in most cases to try and communicate with others through the medium of the piece. If that communication happens then I'd suggest the process has "worked".

Variations on your narrow restrictive critique arise throughout the history of art every time a new medium or style comes along, and its a shame because it may get in the way of people who are new to art, and still lacking in confidence with regard to their judgement, being open to powerful new forms and ideas

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 01, 2007 at 10:36:19

Haha, Kevin. In many cases, the "artist" sets out to try to do something different and then "interprets" it afterwards. Besides, who's word are you taking when it's said that's what's on the inside? If a reclusive prickly drunk can make art by splashing canvas with paint then why can't I call my McD's fries art once I put my ketchup on them? After all, it is an expression of my hunger and inward desire to make my fries taste better.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bollocks (anonymous) | Posted October 01, 2007 at 11:41:22

No need to hate on Pollack's art. Maybe he couldn't paint a landscape or a portrait or still life, but his sense of colour and composition are undeniable. The idea was never to represent something tangible, but to evoke something more visceral and emotional, something below the surface of seeing and recognizing |things|. You're welcome not to like it, but it IS art.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted October 01, 2007 at 22:23:31

No, it IS not art: it's shtick and gimmickry by a talentless hack in a vainglorious attempt to become rich and famous.

Is yte 778(* wweruncvlxdut40v sp feeoo qd writing?

I feel bad that people are easily duped and / or have tragically bad taste, (40 % of Ontarians voted for Mike Harris, afterall,)but crap is crap.

People can spend their entire life look at Pollock, Pablo Picasso, or any other Pretender; I don't care, but I think it's funny.

KS

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By john_milton (registered) | Posted October 01, 2007 at 23:15:11

It's probably silly to think Kevin would spend 3 minutes on art history, but just in case, this is kind of a neat starting point which folks might enjoy I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_H...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 01, 2007 at 23:49:33

I'm gonna stick my neck out and hazard a guess that it wasn't the Jackson Pollack fans who elected Harris and Eves...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted October 02, 2007 at 04:15:40

What's with the "is it art" debate anyway?

It is much less art than it is marketing. But that's America. Even funnier is the rationalization that if successful, you must be good. Is there a name for that? Shamitocracy?

And for Metzger, her family and friends, and anyone with respect for human life, Pollock's actions are murder. In my mind this kind of overwhelms the "is it art" distraction.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By OLDCOOTE (registered) | Posted October 02, 2007 at 11:29:12

Let me guess Kevin. You always coloured inside the lines in Kindergarten.

You need to exercise the right side of your brain.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 02, 2007 at 15:42:10

I totally agree! Where do those uppity artists get off expressing themselves when their job is to soothe our souls!

Poor Kevin. I am so sorry that mean old Jackson Pollock upset your sensitive soul with all that visceral painting of his. Treat yourself to a hot cup of camomile and Wheel of Fortune, and for heaven's sake stay out of all those nasty galleries and theatres! God knows what you might learn!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 07:25:42

Hey Highwire:

You are obviously way smarter and much more enlightened than me! I'm humbled! Your sarcasm is, like Pollack, genius! I peed my pants reading your attack! And, although Strunk, White, and other masters discourage the overuse of exclamation marks, everything you write requires one!!

You should write for RTH and sign your real name!

Or share your gift and teach a writing course at Mac or Mohawk!

Or jump off the Skyway bridge.

Kevin

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bollocks (anonymous) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 08:14:09

Holy crap Kevin, put some armor on! You shouldn't write for the public if you can't handle criticism of your ideas. Telling someone to jump off a bridge is just. Not. Cool.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 11:55:59

My "attack"? Say, you ARE sensitve. But if you're going to write something like "the object of a painting should be to sooth the soul of the viewer, not the painter", you can expect a little pushback.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By smoothie (anonymous) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 11:59:15

"I don't know much about art but I know what I like"

That's my best chat up line. You can use it if you like.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 12:20:54

To appreciate art, sometimes you just have to look at it in a different light:

http://oomsa.com/node/456

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted October 03, 2007 at 21:55:16

I may be sensitive, but you're classic passive-aggressive. You made snide, condescending, sarcastic, ANONYMOUS remarks about my intelligence and being narrowed minded and get all prissy because you pissed me off. What did you expect?

I'll wager you're seperated or divorced.

As for you, bollocks, don't tell me what is cool or to get armour (you spelled it wrong) in a public forum. I don't tell you to stop being so self-righteous. Get a sense of humour or jump off the bridge with highlighter.

And, Ryan, I KNOW Pollack fans wouldn't vote for Harris. I'm not that stoopid. The humourless left are waaaaay to progressive; just ask any of them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bollocks (anonymous) | Posted October 04, 2007 at 08:12:27

Actually, Kevin, I'm American so I spelled "armor" just fine by my reckoning. I really think you need to accept that not everyone agrees with your definition of art and quit this argument before you end up looking even more ridiculous.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Rusty (registered) - website | Posted October 04, 2007 at 09:33:32

And everybody's getting all worked up over what... a few paintings? Art is supposed to be fun!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 04, 2007 at 10:42:37

Separated or divorced? Are you coming on to me? Sorry Kevin, this girl is happily married ;-).

This appears to be one of those cases when the tone and intent of an internet post are open to misinterpretation due to the lack of visual and aural cues. It was not my intent to be snide and condescending. Sarcastic, yes, but I saw it as an irreverent response to an irreverent essay. I figured someone with enough mettle to challenge one of the orthodoxies of modern art, wouldn't mind having the piss taken out of them.

In case you haven't guessed, I have an arts background. I have encountered the 'entertain me!/soothe my soul!' mindset all too often over the years. In my opinion it is destructive. It compartmentalizes the arts and turns artists into performing monkeys. It also smacks of egotism and entitlement. Whenever I heard someone say "I don't go to the theatre to learn something, I just want to be entertained!", I always thought "What makes you think you deserve to be entertained?" When you made the comment I quoted above, I thought "What makes you think you deserve to have you soul soothed, and what makes you think it's the artist's job to do it?" If my comment came off a little nastier than intended, perhaps it was because I was taking out some residual anger toward an entire mindset against you, an individual. For that I apologize.

Now, as for my anonymity. I prefer to think of it as pseudonymity. The majority of commenters on this site post pseudonymously. It is simply a convention, not something sinister, and something tells me you would not have been bothered by it if I had agreed with your premise. I do my best not to take advantage of the anonymity my pseudonym confers. In fact I try to take as much care to preserve the reputation of my pseudonym as I do my real world persona. If you think I'm not fully capable of making boneheaded comments in real life you are mistaken, and publishing under your real name certainly hasn't caused you to temper your remarks in any way. In any case, what good would it do to publish my real world name? Unless you happen to know me personally, I'd still be anonymous to you.

I intend to continue commenting on this site under my pseudonym, and other pseudonymous commenters should feel free to continue commenting as well. If you are uncomfortable with my anonymity, I'd be happy to meet you for a cup of joe at Bad Dog or Joe Dog's in Westdale.

And no, I'm not coming on to you. I really am happily married:-).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 04, 2007 at 10:55:04

Hey Rusty! I'm having fun. Aren't you?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pacifica (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2007 at 13:30:45

I am writing a paper for a class, and am curious about Edith Metzger. Where was she from, does anyone know where she is buried? Where is her obituary? I have done every internet search known to mankind, and am unable to find anything.

All assistance is much appreciated!

Thanks!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By terisfind (registered) | Posted January 24, 2008 at 04:19:28

To Kevin Somers, I came across your artical on RTH, Sept.28,2007 regarding you having seen the movie "Who the @#$ is Jackson Pollock". I am the "feisty old lady",in the movie....Teri Horton. I want you to know how much I enjoyed your article. I commend you for your candid common sense view on the subject matter. You are "right on" in your view of the issues. You are 100% correct, when you said. "When Pollock died, his wife Lee Krasner made him a legend" Krasner, was a shrewd business women, Pollock is what he is today because of her. During my 15 years of research on the Pollock myth...one day I decided to try and find what it was that make people so goofy about his work. This is what I found..."People look at his drip paintings, because they want to feel his trauma that he was expressing on the canvas" My thought on this, "My God, don't they have enough trauma in their own life? Why would they want to experience the trauma of some other @#$% Kevin, stay true to your common sense guidance. Cheers, That, "Feisty old lady".... Teri

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HusbandOfTheHoundAuthor (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2008 at 15:39:00

It's always delicious fun when you point out that the Emperor's buttocks are fully exposed. As if startled by the overhead kitchen light at 3am, the 'cognisiti' scurry away from reason like cockroaches. "Sense of composition". Perhaps he possessed same; alas, if only he had employeed some of it while painting with random splashes and the odd banana peel (they're all odd, if you get right down to it). His artistic statement, if contemplated for a picosecond, is how hollow much of the rhetoric can be when attempting to elevate nonsense to high art. Ah, but wait, he makes us think. Well, so would a floater in a bowl of oil. That does not make it art. It's still a floater in a bowl of oil.

Tell it like it is Kevin. No prisoners.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By savetheta-tas (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2009 at 21:29:03

U all need to chill out. Ur gettin worked up bout CRAP! If u ask me everyone is entitled to their own opinion and other people need to ACCEPT IT! is anyone smart anymore! goodness

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By The Baron (anonymous) | Posted December 29, 2009 at 05:33:34

Most Americans misspell & mispronounce many English words, I wish they would start saying they speak American & then they can bastardise it to their hearts content.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ??????????? (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2010 at 22:06:40

As far as the Terri Horton doc goes, it already been pretty much proven that they were commiting fraud themselves. The "forensic" scientist in cahoots with Horton still refuses to open his work for crticism: a practice the forensic community lives by. And still forensic "science" is not science. There's still quite a bit of interpretation involved. That's why the community lives by an open forum policy.

There is one key point to the film that gets overlooked. Why was she so petulant against having it validated when she and her family had the chance to sell it for a healthy price? My opinion is she knew it was a fake and didn't want it to come back and haunt her and her family later. Besides it was already proven she herself is a liar by her bulls**t provenance story.

Another interesting point, a talentless painter (who's name escapes me but look it up), who lived in Florida at the time, believes the painting might be his? He asked to see it; Horton and crew adamantly refused. Hmm?

Personally, I love Pollock's work, and there is a vast difference between Horton's painting and an actual Pollock! I agree, it doesn't "sing" like a Pollock. There's flaws in the composition. And the close-up comparsion study done is pure schlock. The point is Pollock's work works as one compostional whole: the color, the rhythm and harmony -- not just a single close-up!

Funny thing is the filmmaker sided with Horton and has the same biases against the art world so many else have. Its a class issue. But the fact that so many have been DUPED by this documentary proves the power of art to influence and mold ideas.

As for the individual who started this thread, your critical aesthetic is very closely in-line with others that call modern art "degenerate." Check the white power forums to find some kindred spirits. Not a slippery slope just the truth.

Many think anyone can create Pollock's drip paintings: I would like to see them try. I don't think its as easy as the insolent claim. Besides, part of Pollock's aesthetic is the process he went threw to get to the point of his drip paintings. Only a fellow artist understands this. Simply put, art is a process.

As far as his personal life is concerned, sure he had his problems but should that destroy his credibility as a great artist? I hope not as most movers-and-shakers of his caliber have skeletons in the closet and crosses to bear. Average is dumb, but the dumb don't understand that.

P.S. If Pollock and Krasner were such con-artists, you should be impressed by their ability to dupe the art world which you seem to rage against.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TheCool (anonymous) | Posted June 19, 2010 at 15:37:52

Kevin should stay away from art all together...it's people built like him...or her, that impedes self-expression. Do me a favor, give me a link to something you created. This argument posted here is infantile as well as malicious/spiteful, are you lonely Kev? Are you mad because you have no ability? Not even the ability to write objectively, or even well for that matter, as exemplified in this post.

Jackson Pollack may not have had an outlined/structured plan for his pieces, executing it with professional style and talent...but why shouldn't someone express their true feelings in any way they know how.

You "paint" Pollack as a vain individual and a hack, I guess you've met him,right? He expressed his vanity to you in a personal conversation I suppose. Your insight is well thought out and formulated Kev-o, too bad it was filtered with hate and bias instead of journalistic inquiry.

If writing/journalism is your "art" you're as undeveloped and novice as you claim Pollack to have been, and there is no room for you. Not anyone like you, you specifically Kev-dawg. "Just paint, homey"....well, you're garbage, homey

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Chop Down the Narcissus (anonymous) | Posted July 06, 2011 at 11:43:47

The idea that the painting should be about the viewer is correct, friend, but LONG GONE as an idea in this culture of self-centered, self-congratulatory, showy, attention-starved bourgeois boors masquerading (in masks made of something "shocking," I'm sure) as artists.

Pollock's works are an embarrassment. Not to him--he's dead!--but to the tragic crowd of art enthusiasts who never seemed confident enough to tell the Emperor--or the editor of the New York Times' arts section--that there wasn't a stitch of clothing in sight.

Pollock as a "phenomenon" is even more shameful as a "meme of academe," so to speak, than he was as an artist...The art critics in Pollock's day raved about his messes, gullible middle class (pseudo)intellectuals pretended to agree and now art teachers must pretend to find merit in his work and TEACH that lie! And a new generation of middle class intellectuals (if any are left) have to pretend to appreciate it.

The intellectual mess made by "non-representational" art is even bigger than the messes made on those poor, abused canvases.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MrMikeludo (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2012 at 20:20:51

There does actually exist a scientific reason why Pollock's drip paintings eventually became the accepted definition of art.

At one point in time there was no such thing as what we think of as an “artist” today, and artists held the same position in society as carpenters, blacksmiths, or any other skilled craftsman. At this point in time, prior to the Renaissance, the masses could not read, so painters were employed by the church to paint murals; to teach their lessons to the masses, and by the rich to paint their portraits, and while artists stilled were not considered “fine art” practitioners, as the fine arts were mathematics, music and science.

Then, in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci did produce a literal visual musical equivalent, and which is the pictorial equivalent to musical notation, and which also requires an understanding of the language to be “experienced” by the viewer. But, because it is a literal visual musical equivalent, it has the intrinsic ability to affect the variety of biochemicals that only music can induce, of serotonin and endorphins, and which music induces because of the articulated cadences of music.

But there is another biochemical which abstracted: devoid of intellectual structure, musical sounds can induce, called dopamine. Except, dopamine is a mindless, and base animalistic, biochemical, which is also the definition of sex, or any physiological indulgence, and which can also be induced because of the environment that music would have been heard “in” for centuries; of the grandiose music halls, and of the: granite – marble – plush carpeting – gilded woodwork – etc.

And people can become capable of experiencing a literal cognitive degradation; over the course of time, and become capable of “confusing the map with the territory,” or actually confusing the intelligence: “territory,” of music, and also the serotonin and endorphins, with the stimulus: “map,” of music: the dopamine affect of the environment, and the abstracted musical sounds. The patrons of the musical fine arts: from 1480 to 1880, were the exact same patrons of the visual fine arts, and were also the exact same ones who had become incapable of experiencing the intelligence of music, and the serotonin and endorphins, and became only capable of experiencing the dopamine affect of music, because of the abstracted musical sounds in conjunction with the grandiose environment.

So, after the musical fine art performance was over, and during which the patrons had only experienced the dopamine affect, the patrons would walk out of the musical art building, and walk right back into a visual art building, and experience another dopamine biochemical induction: because of the grandiose environment, and then say:”You see, the 'affect' we feel in here is exactly the same as in the musical art building, so this too must be 'art.”

Except, this dopamine affect is fleeting, and it is inversely affected. So the dopamine affect needs to be supplemented. And which it can be because dopamine can be induced inside a person's mind whenever we experience something “unexpected,” the example the scientists use is a “car running a red light,” or whenever we “see” something we have never seen before. And which explains this phenomenon:

“Infant Perception and Cognition: In the 1950's and 60's studies began to appear that measured heart rate and sucking (in infants), as well as visual fixation. A group (of) investigators (presented) visual stimuli to infants (and found) a pattern of physiological and behavioral changes to the presentation of novel stimulus...”

Young children: infants, become “excited” every time they are presented with a “novel stimulus,” or something they have never seen before.

So, this one particular demographic: the patrons of the fine arts, had experienced a literal degradation, and had become capable of only functioning: as applicable to processing sensory input information, as infant children, who become excited every time they are shown a “novel stimulus,” and/or something they have never seen before.

So then, along came Pablo Picasso, with all of his brand new, and never seen before, novel stimulus, and all of the patrons: who were behaving like infants, became excited because of there being shown the novel stimulus, created by Pablo Picasso.

So then this: creating a picture of some never before seen thing, became the definition of early 20th century art. And all of the artists painted pictures of all of the “things” that no one had ever painted a picture of before. The Cubists painted cubist things, the Impressionists painted impressionist things, the Fauvists painted fauvist things, the Minimalists painted minimalist things, and over the course of the early 20th century everyone painted every “thing,” and there was actually nothing left to paint a picture “of.”

So then Jackson Pollock painted pure “thing”: he painted “every” “thing,” and because he painted pure abstract “color.” And which: “color,” is defined as:

“One of the physical attributes of mass.”

Pure “mass”: pure “thing.”

Except, this dopamine affect too is fleeting. And so then, the “art world” began to create pure, “uncut,” dopamine, and/or “hype.” Because, as the scientists explain:

“Dopamine can be induced by a hug; a kiss, a word of praise.”

Dopamine can be induced by hype, and/or by conning the world into believing that all of the “artists” who had painted all of the pictures of all of the never before seen things, and/or the “novel stimulus,” were defined “geniuses,” according to all of the con-artists.

Except, because of these scientific facts, we can now know, for a fact, that no they were not geniuses, they were simply con-artists.

And so we can know, for a fact, that the Emperor is indeed naked.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PanchoCisco (registered) | Posted August 23, 2015 at 22:11:01

Although I don't care what people paint, I am bothered much by what is cheered. Keith Haring was a cartoon doodler, and that's fine. But many began to call him "great." No. He was not. A good critic referred to his work as "fast food," and "fun on Saturday night." But great? No. Then there was Basquiat who painted the same picture over and over and over again. He was called "great," and he was called "the Black Picasso." Basquiat didn't even come close to Picasso, neither in talent nor in the number of works he created. And now Pollock. This man was presented to the public as a man of action, a man driven, of man of unique vision. He was none of the above. He was one of the people who was responsible for the present-day "everyone-is-an-artist" mindset, who helped create the false idea that "everything is art." No, it is not. But there was much money to be made, which is all the art industry cares about. So he was sold to the public as a "genius" and the prices of his work today show us that people bought that idea. Articles on his art continue to appear, continue to do their best to convince us that there was some sort of "underlying meaning" in his work. One day either in the late 1940s or early '50s, he was going through a book of Picasso reproductions and then suddenly threw it down, yelling, "*&%$#@!, that guys missed nothing!!" Yes, he was frustrated, he'd run out of ideas. And then, not long after that, he began dripping paint ... something that anyone can do. It's totally surrealistic to me that his works hang in museums today and that they sell for so many millions of dollars. This "proves" to many people that his work is "great." But, no, it only proves that he was well- promoted and that the galleries made and continue to make a great deal of money from his paintings. Be your own Pollock: Spread a large canvas in your backyard, grab some cans of automobile lacquer, some sticks, and then start walking around dribbling paint onto the canvas. Do this for several days, for several weeks. Let dry. Sign your name. Find a promoter. You see? It's not so difficult and not as mystical as some believe ...

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds