#$&% Jackson Pollock

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

By Kevin Somers
Sep. 28, 2007

Entertainment and Sports

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 the author of a satire, I'm Gretzky, You're Gretzky (find it here). He is the editor of The Hobo Line, a magazine by and for Fred Heads. He also writes about fashion for The Women's Post.

Submit this Article
blinklist - del.icio.us - digg - furl - myweb - newsvine - reddit

Discuss This Article

Read Comments

By john milton
Posted 10/1/2007 9:23:51 AM

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)

By Frank
Posted 10/1/2007 10:36:19 AM

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)

By Bollocks
Posted 10/1/2007 11:41:22 AM

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)

By kevin
Posted 10/1/2007 10:23:31 PM

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)

By john_milton
Posted 10/1/2007 11:15:11 PM

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-_Hxs

(Permalink)

By Ryan | http://www.raisethehammer.org
Posted 10/1/2007 11:49:33 PM

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)

By Ted Mitchell
Posted 10/2/2007 4:15:40 AM

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)

By OLDCOOTE | http://www.oldcoote.blogspot.com
Posted 10/2/2007 11:29:12 AM

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

You need to exercise the right side of your brain.

(Permalink)

By highwater
Posted 10/2/2007 3:42:10 PM

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)

By kevin
Posted 10/3/2007 7:25:42 AM

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)

By Bollocks
Posted 10/3/2007 8:14:09 AM

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)

By highwater
Posted 10/3/2007 11:55:59 AM

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)

By smoothie
Posted 10/3/2007 11:59:15 AM

"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)

By nobrainer
Posted 10/3/2007 12:20:54 PM

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

http://oomsa.com/node/456

(Permalink)

By kevin
Posted 10/3/2007 9:55:16 PM

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)

By Bollocks
Posted 10/4/2007 8:12:27 AM

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)

By Rusty
Posted 10/4/2007 9:33:32 AM

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

(Permalink)

By highwater
Posted 10/4/2007 10:42:37 AM

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)

By highwater
Posted 10/4/2007 10:55:04 AM

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

(Permalink)

By Pacifica
Posted 10/5/2007 1:30:45 PM

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)

By terisfind
Posted 1/24/2008 4:19:28 AM

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)

By HusbandOfTheHoundAuthor
Posted 6/8/2008 3:39:00 PM

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)

Post a Comment

To post a comment:

Log into RTH Account
Username
Password
Post Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply five and one? (type the numeral)
Leave this field blank
Comments
SP@M TEST (Please Leave Blank)

Account Management

This Issue
Sep. 28, 2007

Accidental Activist

Commentary

Cranespotting

Digital Kayak

Editorial

Entertainment and Sports

Fiction

Ideas

Interviews

Opinion

Site Tools

Archive

RSS Feed Newsfeeds

ISSN: 1715-1554