Moon Woman, 1942, oil on canvas, 69x43 in.
Shimmering Substance, 1946, 30 x 24 in.
Number One, 1948, oil on canvas, 68 x 104 in.
DETAIL, Number One
One, 1950, oil on canvas, approx. 9 ft. x 17 ft.
Autumn Rhythm, 1950, 105 x 207 in.
Lavender Mist, 1950, approx. 7 ft. x 10 ft.
Blue Poles, 1952, 7 ft. x 16 ft.
Shimmering Substance, 1946, 30 x 24 in.
Number One, 1948, oil on canvas, 68 x 104 in.
DETAIL, Number One
One, 1950, oil on canvas, approx. 9 ft. x 17 ft.
Autumn Rhythm, 1950, 105 x 207 in.
Lavender Mist, 1950, approx. 7 ft. x 10 ft.
Blue Poles, 1952, 7 ft. x 16 ft.
5 comments:
After talking about Pollock in class, and seeing his work in the Tate Modern in London, I have a new appreciation for his work. His large works with layers and layers of paint are a sight to see. He is another painter that thought outside the box and created new and original art. Pollock believed in painting as an action and painted in such a manner. His art certainly challenged the way art was viewed and the perceptions of art. After reading the article for class, I found it very interesting the way that Pollock talked about modern art. He said, " that new needs need new techniques...[and] each age finds its own technique"
I think some people find it very easy to say that Pollock just threw paint on a canvas and that anyone can do it, but these people don't realize the manner or context in which it was done. This was a new idea of art and a new technique of using a stick. Pollock was creating art and allowing for new means of interpretation and abstraction.
The great thing about Jackson Pollock was that his artwork was not just about the end product. He introduced the notion of artmaking as a performance. I remember reading that people would actually come to see him "perform," like get tickets and stuff, because it was just as part of the painting as the final product.
I remember one of my highschool teachers' father went to a Pollock "performance" where he was riding a tricycle through paint onto a canvas, and that when people saw it they were totally horrified. I just think that's interesting, the reactions and affects that the process of making art can do in comparison with the experience of viewing a work.
Pollock's paintings can be seen as vague and meaningless due to their abstract nature. I find the titles of the paintings really help the viewer to better understand meaning. In fact, the obscurity of his work auctually forces one to take a closer look at the underlying purpose. Pollock's innovative use of materials is also fascinating. Original new materials such as crushed glass add texture and tension to his work. The busy lines of paint that whir and zip across his canvases envoke strong emotional reactions that range from joy to bewilderment.
As Hannah mentioned, Pollock's paintings are sometimes viewed as vague or meaningless. This is interesting. I think there is something inherent in artworks that certain people are drawn to, inspired by, and can make sense of- while others do not care about or "get" the work at all (though this "something" seems to vary from piece to piece). When an artwork has a recognizable subject, those who do not connect with this "something" can still relate in some way to the familiar content present. However, with the work of someone like Pollock, in which we get no distinguishable subject, those who are not moved by the artwork are left feeling baffled.
Personally, I really love Pollock's work. When I'm with his paintings it always feels like they radiate some kind of energy. And I suppose this is curious, but I do find his paintings very familiar. They totally "make sense", even though they do not depict anything I am used to seeing and can make some kind of tangible association with.
Jackson Pollock, I have been thinking about how powerful the media was during this time of Action Expressionism. Names such as Peggy Guggenheim were so significant during his painting career. Her gallery, Art of This Century, showed the New York school pf artists to be as important as the European artist, who came to this country, thought they were.
In his career time of 1945-69 the Modernist movement had a brilliant period. Art criticism was very important during this period. So it seems that the media had a lot to do with his success?
Or would he have been just as successful with sales of his work, without this press coverage?
By the late 50's the art press so to speak, had a lot of readers in students, teachers, curators, collectors, patrons, gallery owners, as never experienced before in the world of art. Art criticism as writing had a national forum and strong national influence. More folks then ever before were involved in art. How did this impact his career would be worth a huge research project.
Does art make art, does criticism make it “art” for the general public? Where do they work together and where to they separate? Are they separate when an artist is not well liked? And my own final thought, what would he have been like as an artist if he was sober and not so hair fine difficult to get along with? Selene
Post a Comment