I once brought a friend of mine to the museum and showed her many works I liked, Giacometti, Pollack, Gorky and she could enjoy the colors and shapes and was open minded but I asked her do you feel the emotion of it. She said no. I then took another friend whose father had manic-depression and she suffered with depression and asked her and she said "this work is so emotional it vibrates". A lot of this work by abstract expressionists evoke a certain type of emotions that some won't get because they never experienced such emotion, and others will out right reject because they are deeply afraid of such emotions. The out right rejection of this art is an indication of how little many know of themselves and the degree to which a person can actually slow down to appreciate. More than ever before in history understanding our own subjectivity is of pressing importance. And certainly the abstract expressionists provide a window into their own subjectivity.
I've been an Abstract Expressionist (Ab-Ex), Impressionist, and Primitive Expressionist painter for about 7 yrs. I get a big kick out of people saying "I don't get it" regarding Ab-Ex works...or asking, "What is it supposed to be?". Consider this: it's NOT representational Art; there's nothing to "get". An Ab-Ex painting either will evoke some feeling in you, or it won't. You don't have to think about it. It will happen, or it won't. If it doesn't, that's okay. But just because it doesn't evoke any feeling (calmness, mystery, anxiety, inspiration, boldness, worry, fear, happiness, pleasure, sadness, etc.) in you doesn't mean that it won't in someone else. Institutional, formal artists hate it when someone says this, but it's true: Beauty (or Art) really is in the eye of the beholder...100%. Institutionalists will say, "No, no, no...it's not that simple...there are Standards...and Rules.". Here's a clue: Standards and Rules in Art merely are some group's opinion. Art, like Beauty, truly is in the eye of the beholder. Relative to Beauty, here's an example: I grew up in the age of Marilyn Monroe... considered beautiful by many, many people. I didn't think she was beautiful in the slightest...and I'm a heterosexual. Relative to Art, here's an example: I believe Pollock was one of the greatest painters ever, in the same class as Rothko, Kline, Miro, de Kooning, and a few others. From some of the comments here, obviously that's not a universal opinion. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Standards & Rules are for Institutionalists (or sheep), not Insurrectionists (or free thinkers). Happy Trails
You've achieved all this in 7 years! I've been working in 'art' for 15 years and I would never dare to presume or assume such 'status' as you do, despite a certain appreciation for what I do. But at the least , you are open minded to modern and contemporary art and you appreciate Pollock, whose wonderful work I've seen in various museums in Europe. What I found most impressive, despite what some of the public may deem as incongruous splashing, was a deliberate symphony and harmony of forms, lines and colours, which in turn, produced an orchestration of beauty in visual art and made him unique and original in the modern art of early 20th century.
Thanks for your input. I have no "status"; all I have is a sense of Logic and a degree of understanding of Aesthetics. As to time, I started in Art (part-time) in 1979, doing primarily pen & ink drawings. I've been a full-time painter for about 7 yrs. Thanks again for your comment. Happy Trails
Scott Haley Can you direct me to other artists? Famous and non-famous up and coming artists and famous artists in the past and under appreciated. I'm a fan of Gerhard Richter.
For Jason Jarvis... Here are just a few--- more recent: Allen N. Lehman, Susan Sadoury, Maxim Grunin. They all do Abstracts in addition to representational art. from the Past: Paul Klee, Perle Fine, Robert Motherwell, & Franz Kline. Thanks, and Enjoy.
Sad to see the negative comments about Jackson....it is well worth looking at the era that he did this ....he was born the year the `Titanic ` sank .....and died aged 44...I could perhaps understand the criticisms back in 1942 , but not now ....give him the recognition he deserves.
I was mesmerised looking at Jackson Pollock's art, I was reborn, I was enlightened, I was filled with energy and the purpose of life, I was told my verite, I was told what's good and bad, I was listened to too, this was incredible
We have Pollock's "Blue Poles" painting here at the art gallery in Canberra, Australia. It's my main reason for visiting Canberra. For me it expresses the thought process in the creation of a poem. A brilliant achievement !
I love Jackson Pollock's work. It's as if his muse was whispering in his ear "be free child, be reckless and wild, take risks and marvel at the novelty, be fearless.!"
Loved your appreciation of this marvellous artist, when I first saw is paintings I fell in love! Don’t have money to buy the real thing,but lots of books and and a few posters don’t let me forget this amazing,unhappy man.
Amazing the number of Philistines who take time out of their busy lives to make idiotic comments about a great artist, simply because they don't understand his work. I am no art critic, but I find Pollock "drip" paintings beautiful and full of energy.
Very insightful documentary, thanks. Didn't know so much about Jackson Pollock and his almost indecipherable work until now when it becomes totally decipherable in the scope of his life and inner turmoil. Patsy Southgate painted a perfect picture of the times as well and struck me as an incredible woman - even at her age here she radiates a beauty from deep within (oddly, there are no pictures of her anywhere). In the end these guys must be looking back from the beyond and smiling at the millions their work now commands. Retroactively and by our social definition, they have become bigger success stories than most other titans of lesser industry.
el maestro Pollock !! el creador de la Pintura en Accion , sin duda unos de los grandes maestros del Arte moderno !! GRACIAS MAESTRO POR TANTO ARTE !!!
Very interesting documentary. I am looking forward to seeing his work at DMA when it returns to Dallas, in November. Pollock is one of the few artists I find to be compelling.
First off, he was a notorious asshole. Second, he was a master who, along with greats like Clifford Still and Mark Rothko, brought abstract expressionism into the zeitgeist of the 20th century. He was a master.
Sometimes context is needed for the appreciation of art. Whether you like his paintings or not visually you can't deny he broke huge boundaries with his works, so to answer your question: yes, in my opinion a large part of his succes/fame is because he was (one of the) first painter(s) that produced this kind of art. I am more a fan of his less abstract works ("The Water Bull" is great) and I think those paintings show that he didn't paint at random and he actually had a lot of skill.
It's so sad that many of the famous artist from the past didn't live to see the great appreciation of their workings. All of the long hours, days, nights, and heart aches with very little to no reward. Then after they die someone else benefits financially from their hard work. It's just sad!
Thanks for posting! And to all those critics who say this is not art: let's keep repeating ourselves. We want 100 more Rembrandts, 200 extra Cezannes and 160 more Picasso's, that is what makes paintings interesting, copies of what we already have. Hence, from now on we are done with what made the originals so great: their courage to dare something new and to explore their technique and their inner drive. There shall be no more innovation in painting. All painters shall paint in the style of man's first artistic expression, the Lascaux cave paintings. I am looking forward to this. Or as a critic you could also say: this is not what I like and be done with it. You might even keep your mouth shut.
Pollock's drip paintings are amazing. Scientists have analyzed his drip printing using computers, and found something amazing; his paintings are based on fractal chaos theory. At almost any reasonable magnification, any part of his paintings maintain an almost identical composition, and are so consistent, computers can scan various parts of a painting, and at different magnifications, and resolve a consistent fractal dimensional number, or "D". No other painter of this style can do this. In fact, when a forged Pollock painting is scanned, it is easily mathematically found to be a forgery, despite looking identical in style.
I have seen Pollock's work in museums, and it's better than these photos, mostly due to the scale. But overall, his work is taken way too seriously. Read your art history; Janet Sobel was the first to experimented with this technique, and Pollock was aware of her work.
_"I AM nature."_ He was right. That always bugs me when people seem to have this notion that human beings, or some of the things they do, are somehow not part of nature. We are as much part of nature as a tiger in the wild, as is anything we think or do.
+Tinselbutt Explodia - If only everyone knew and understood this! But how many people on the planet today are as comfortable in nature as a tiger in the wild? Equally important: How much 'wild' is left? Obviously, not much, nor many tigers... Does any other part of nature destroy the wild? Does any other part of nature turn what was wild into something no longer recognizable as ''the wild'? Has any other part of nature tried to 'dominate' and control nature itself? Or ~seen itself as separate from nature~? I used to wonder why so many people would trash up their own habitat- home, neighborhood, etc... until it occured to me that until a short time ago everything humans tossed was either biodegradable or was stone. So long as they moved periodically any minor disturbance to the ecosystems they were a part of benefited from the presence of humans, just as the jungle benefits from the tiger. Many issues (likely most) humans face come from the fact that we in Western cultures have been trained to see ourselves as separate from Nature, and we live as though we are not a part of the natural world. As a species, we are just beginning to discover that in Nature everything is connected. Ah, one of the greatest questions of all time: What is Man's place in the world? (When capitilized 'Man' is gender neutral, as every educated person knew when the Declaration of Independance was written...)
i heard one of the biographers said of the painting as "they are big, great calm, not just feeling of grandness but also intimacy and quiet", then I looked at Pollock's paintings and boom........ nothing.... i thought of nothing... i couldn't relate the paintings to whatever the biographer said, except a confusion, a confusion as to why they are even called work of arts. If those paintings are arts then I don't understand arts. Don't have concept of art
his paintings are like poetry, if you can't feel the emotion behind these works of art, then you don't fully understand what being an artist is, maybe this because you don't fully understand yourself as a person, or other people...
People on here are silly. Only an artist can appreciate various forms of art. Art is energy that has been captured momentarily. The audacity and passion it takes to do something that hasn't yet 2 be done is art. So if u think u can do what he did and have the same effect is foolish. HE ALREADY DID THAT. Be the 1st you.
Pollock was an absolute genius. People need to remind that he made this kind of art in the 1930's and 1940's. I see in the comments there are a lot of discussion whether he is a genius or not:imagine how provocating his art was at the time! He showed that art does not need to contain any order or form and has there been ESSENTIAL for the development of other forms of art. By the way, about "everyone can do it" thing: it has been scientificly proven that people can't replicate Pollock's style.
This man changed the way I looked at art and I wish with my whole heart that I could have met him. As said "the most intelligent man I knew, without being particularly articulate." Every artist worth his salt is a roller coaster ride of emotions. That is why he/she creates art - to express and process those feelings. That's exactly what Pollock did.
I always thought during his drip paintings that he reached a level where he was literally painting the neurons in his brain. He had reached such a level of awareness that he could "see" them although he probably didn't realize it at the time, he "felt" it subconsciously, like his brain was saying "this is me". Like an acid trip, his consciousness went in and in and in and in till it was literally painting itself. Photos of the human brain under a microscope look just like Pollock paintings.
Alcohol AGAIN? Same ol story with so many great artists n their chemicals, not always of course, but too often too ignore! thanks for the upload, didn't know of him until it popped up on my feed
I stood in front of one of his paintings, almost exactly like the one at 50:00, and it was really intense, I stood right in front of it and it was just coming right at me, 3 dimensional and super alive. It was one of the best they had, at the museum of Modern Art in New York. His and the Picasso's really stood out to me as the most interesting and exciting in the entire museum
For those of you who think this isn't art, it is. That being said, it's the idea behind the work that makes it art. Yes it is very simple to drip paint on a canvas. But, this was a breakthrough in Modern Art. It broke conventional methods of painting thus changing what we consider art. That's what makes his work so monumental. That's why he is so famous. If you disagree, then please, tell me what art is and why this isn't art.
well, let me ask you the same question, specially: what is not art? Is anything art? I personally think art should and must have standards, just like any discipline, let's say music. Why is Motzart art? And why me being inspired and making random noises with my armpit isn't? And why are there bad singers in karaokes and not just singers? Or bad movies? etc. I think it's because we have more or less objective standards of quality that usually a body of experts can detect with detail and rigor. I think you need to be creative, innovate and make statements to make art, but that alone does not guarantee quality. I've saw a black solid square sold for thousands of dollars, is that genius or even original? I can make one of those, in fact I already did when I was 4 and other have too!, but I will never be able to paint a Rembrandt or compose a master piece like Beethoven's because I don't have the talent, experience and knowledge that are so hard to obtain and master.
Carlos Pérez That's a very good question, and I think most people are thinking the very same thing. Great artists are generally considered to be intellectuals. Their work reflects their ideas. For example, the Black Square you are referencing was originally created numerous times by The artist Kazimir Malevich. However, his Black Square wasn't a random act of artistry, it was a carefully constructed and revised idea that was based on an art movement called Suprematism, which he himself created. Suprematism was an abstract style of painting that focused on the supremacy of artistic feeling, most of the time illustrated through geometric forms. In terms of the idea, its quite comparable to the abstract expressionist movement, however if you were to compare the visuals of both movements, you probably wouldn't see any similarities. Now I understand what you mean when you ask "why aren't my armpit noises art". You could argue that they are, but in order to be taken seriously (in the art world), you would have to have a detailed reasoning as to why it was art. However, that is only if you are seeking approval from other people. A good example can be seen in Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionist paintings. He made them for himself even though people may have not taken him seriously, however, he had an understanding of art history and knew what it took to make "great" art work. It wasn't until after his death that he received any great recognition for his work. Today in the art world, quality means nothing, and by quality I mean technical skill. Art has been broken down so many times that urine on a canvas could be art, however unless the work has some well thought out idea behind it, it probably wont stand the test of time. It might receive 15 minutes of fame, but it won't go down in the history books. Art is very subjective and hard to understand. To read art you need to have a basic understanding of art history, which is why so many people don't understand why a painting of a black square is so important. I hope I answered your question. If I didn't please let me know.
Leifer Stieler, Even though art is subjective as beauty is subjective, I don't think subjective means arbitrary and without any lack of standards. Some smelly fat guy with back hair and no teeth may be good looking to some people, but won't win a beauty contest for a reason, and I think that reason is aesthetic standards. It seems to me that you yourself have standards of your own, which include: to have a detailed reasoning why something is art, feelings, ideas and emotions. But somehow I think the problem with modern art is just that, because the aesthetic part is left out, so it seems the art is in the thought and the intention, but not really in the painting itself. In that case I don't have an issue calling it "though art", but I do have an issue with having to convince people with words that something is art rather than convincing them solely by the final result and let the work speak by itself. think that is the reason why certain works have stood the test of time. The David has been considered great art regardless of movements for so many years, while I'm not sure a black square will have such an effect regardless of the well thought intentions behind it To say that skill means nothing it means to me that the art world is becoming less sensitive of aesthetics therefore becoming more elitist, potentially excluding people with great talent and very arbitrarily including people just because of their personalities This is not to say that I think all modern artists are bad, I do think some works are great, but the reason is that their work speaks by itself without any extra aid.
So if Im clear, what you're saying is that art should be purely aesthetic and highly technical. You referenced The Statue of David. A masterpiece that is both aesthetically remarkable and enviously technical, but is in fact a creation of an ideal David from the battle of David and Goliath. Without meaning that statue wouldn't exist. It's meaningful ideas that give art substance. Art, like the Statue of David, used to be made for the church or the state. Many important artists slowly began to break away from this notion, including Michelangelo (the guy who made the statue of David). Many of these artists were considered to be anarchists for going against the status quo. The modernist movement only came to be because of Artists like Michelangelo. You might not think that its important but Michelangelo and artists before him pushed for a day in art where it was okay to drip your feelings onto a canvas. It was Pollock who was brave and clever enough to actually do it. It may not meet your personal level of taste, but until you have a better understanding of history, your taste is irrelevant. However, there are many artists who agree with your perspective, and think that art needs to be much more technical, but at the same time they would agree with me that the meaning is by far more important than the technical side.
The problem in the art world is that collectors and critics, inflate the public's perception of an artist's talent, in order to (artificially) inflate the value of a collection. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to determine whether many prominent names, are the result of underlying talent(s), or a phony persona.
I love "Appalachian Spring" but I have always associated it with a green Pennsylvanian landscape rather than the desert. So why is it the background music to this story?
The uneducated individuals that describe Pollock's work as not even art are 100% idiots. What makes his paintings so great is that since he painted with the canvas on the ground, it allowed him to in a sense be a part of the painting, because it was on the same plane as him. They way he painted, he allowed the framework of the painting to develop in the air, instead of causing a pre-destined pattern to form. The drips that are spead across the canvas give one an impression and a sense of rhythm in the painting, which intrigues the viewer.
Jackson Pollock was a drunkard and a cad that stumbled into a career because someone influential perceived his garbage as art. That is why he was a genius. He saw an opportunity and he took it. His work is the most perfect example of analogical evidence supporting the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" logic. However to call him an artist is disrespectful to artists everywhere. That is like saying Miley Cyrus is an extraordinary composer, and I can assure you da Vinci turns in his grave every time Pollock is referred to as an artisan.
C.R.E.A.M. I get what you're saying, but I have to disagree. It sounds to me that you are comparing the technical skill of Pollock to great artists before him. If that is the case you are completely right. His skill doesn't hold a candle to Da Vanci or other incredible artists. However you have to understand that his art wasn't about technical skill. He broke down the art world even further in a time where it seemed like it couldn't be done. So maybe for you it isn't anything special, but it inspired millions and catapulted art to the next step in history. Oh and by the way, Da Vinci was quite the rebel and Pollocks avant-garde style of painting was quite rebellious. Da Vinci may not have liked his style or skill, but he would have loved that he was upsetting the establishment and would have likely cheered him on!
+Leifer Stieler From what I hear and what I've read, he's not the first person to try this technique of painting, he did it decades later (might be wrong, but oh well). So really he wasn't the one who broke anything down, he's simply the one who got popular (his work is now sold for insane amounts, and people call it "brilliance and art", while the others aren't even recognized). Modern art has become a competition between the rich, and it goes a bit something like this: "Check it, I've got Pollock's #5, boooooooyaaaaaaaaa suckers, it only cost me $140 million", then the other guy goes, "Oh fuck, I should buy a Pollock!?!?! Gimme' Pollock's #69 for $400 million! Booooyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I got Pollock's # 69, in all of your faces". Really the only reason he is known is because his art is sold for so much. He didn't invent the technique, nor is his work any more brilliant and mesmerizing than the other artists who have put paint on canvas that same way.
Is this art or isn't it? What a tired and useless question!!! You can argue the value from an art history perspective all you want, but I challenge anyone to go to the Museum of Modern Art and spend some time face to face with the several Pollock paintings that are there. Immerse yourself in them. Let them wash over you. Open yourself to the possibility that they might affect you emotionally. Take in their color and form and complexity and sensual movement. Allow yourself to feel what Pollock might have felt while he was pouring himself onto the canvas. Look for the places where his skin contacted the surface, where a booted foot stepped into the frenetic world he was creating. Let the image burn itself into your retinas and then shift perspective so the subtle fiery glow and complex patterns of nature become illuminated again. Anyone who opens themselves to the extraordinary brilliance of Pollock's paintings and remains unchanged is simply lazy and has no lifeforce.
I challenge you to tell me why anything painted by anyone ever, should be worth $148 million. Do you not see the absurdity in that number? Modern Art has become a symbol of brand naming (same as Apple, Armani, Ferrari, etc.), you're paying money for the artists name and their life, and not what the art actually represents (if it even represents anything at all): well there was a guy/gal who had a painful life, they were abused, an alcoholic, etc., then they painted some things. Then they died at an early age (or didn't). Millionaires and billionaires bought their work for millions upon millions as a collectors item and to be "one of the people that own that guys/gals stuff". It became popular and "brilliant art" then come along people like you who "challenge" everyone to go on this wonderful journey of submersion into his/her work. When those individuals that you challenged see nothing in his paintings, you tell them they're lazy, when in reality, they don't need to see anything in art (it's not a must, stop talking about it as if it's going to change the lives of the people who view the paintings). What I don't think you realize is that if his painting weren't bought for millions and millions of dollars and weren't the "it item" to collect and to own, you would not be spewing this kind of garbage all over the internet. Nor would you be telling people it's a must see, that people need to open up their minds, that they are lazy, etc.: actually you wouldn't even know who Jackson Pollock was, his existence would be irrelevant to you (since "art" has become a popularity contest, if you don't think so, you're a joke). Furthermore, I don't need to see this as art, nor is there anything wrong with me if I don't see anything in modern paintings. I am near certain that you would not be reacting this same way to an unknown artists abstract work that had no worth to it (nor would the majority of people who look at it, since his work wouldn't be worth millions). Honestly, the one thing that is "tiring and useless" is hearing people push their agenda of "art" onto the minds of others in a matter that is utterly subjective, and hearing people defend the idea of something subjective and relevant to each individual as being worth a numerical amount: as if that is something that is logical (it really isn't).
Mark Hayes There is perfection in his drip paintings. I do not feel the same at all with regard to the non-drip work. But the drip paintings are absolutely amazing. He leaves no emptiness. I just love them. I traveled to the National Gallery in Wash. D.C. to see Lavender Mist, my favorite painting in all the world. I broke out in tears before even seeing it, just knowing that it was just around a corner from where I stood. How can something affect a person like that? It is mind-boggling, isn't it? And to think how messed up he was. Man oh Man.
+Matthew Gonzales - Yes, the documentary does mention that Jackson was the youngest of five brothers. One of the interview is of his sister-in-law, as Jackson lived with her and her husband, his brother, when he first came to NYC.
Harry Cullum, (28:05) the master mechanic's interview is great! It is both valuable and entertaining for me hear his account of seeing Pollack paint. Hilarious!
Tomorrow I take for the 4th time the Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE) test..... I want to be an art teacher while I continue to work on my M.F.A degree in animation at S.C.A.D here in Atlanta. This documentary has giving me a better understanding of J. Pollock as an artist....well, wish me luck on Gace tomorrow I have prayed and studied....Off to the next documentary.
actuallu, no one can create a pollock as he has extreme skill in how he drips the paint, as if his body is also painting, thus a more primal, atavism in his art. of course people hate his art, but every great artist has to bear with ignorant fools...to control and express dripping paint takes incredible actually... this is art moving beyond mere representing and craft....as picasso said it took him a lifetime to learn to draw like a child..absolute freedom of expression with nothing held back is genius.
Some of you think he is over-rated? Possible, I just finished my paper about his work and I think he deserves all the credits. His progress is remarkable, but that depends, its subjective.
For the ones who think that anyone can do pollock's art: 29:55 Don´t give up on a simple view, saying that is just paint thrown randomly, just try to imagine the rhythm, the soul, and the creativity of these type of artists.
Yeah bro I watched that part about him comparing this art to a pianist (or someone playing the piano) Problem is, we all know the difference between Beethovens 5th....and well SMASHING THE KEYS AT WILL. Now I ask you everyone here, is Jackson Pollack more like Beethovens 5th...or SMASHING THE KEYS!! I know some of you will troll...oh what a great oppurtunity to troll. SO I don't care what you type...you the person reading this comment, you know in your heart which one you would pick if you knew getting the answer right would win you a million dollars on who wants to be a millionare. And even if you got it wrong...don't kid yourself, you'd still know in your heart which one is the right answer. If you said beethovens 5th lolololol omg you troll. Cmon get real. Here's why, beethoven's 5th is controlled key presses at precise times. A specific sound has to be played & misplaying a note is noticeable. Jackson Pollacks painting is all over the place there is zero control in it. He's painting every which way he wants to and he's even going over areas multiple times, he's filling the entire canvas with paint. To call it controlled movement is laughable. If he misses a dribble here or there nobody is going to notice. In fact what we all notice is that it's just splattered paint all over the freaking place. But hey "nobody has ever played piano like that in a live concert" is also an argument one could make. But to call Smashing the Keys the same as Beethoven HAHAHH haha hahahaha haha. P.S. beethoven was freaking def & he still created those masterpieces on the piano. But no no controlled random splattering of paint that's clearly on par. I still love Jackson Pollacks work, I think it's beautiful!! But do I think he's on the level of beethovens 5th haha hahahahah hahaha hahaha HAH ahha. He's not even on the level of beethovens freestyle. He's kinda on the level of your friend who doesn't really know how to play piano & is just feeling his way through a song. It sounds groovy, and cool and you had no idea he was gonna miss notes all the time...but sometimes it's good & then you kinda like the transitions a bit & feel if he put his mind to it maybe he could be beethoven. ANd jackson seems to be very good at this we have no idea what he's gonna paint...but it seems like he's gonna smash some keys & it'll sound good sometimes, painter. And not a lot of people are willing to smash keys like that...so it's interesting. But again lol. Just lol.
I'm sure you have a "couch size" painting hanging in your living room that you purchased at a Starving Artist Sale. " ... no painting over $29.99 no paintings over $29.99 ...... "
"A method of painting is a natural growth out of a need, i want to express my feelings rather than demonstrate them, technique is just a means of arriving at a statement" Hoffman: you are very talented, you should join my class but you don't work from nature, this is no good you will repeat yourself ,you work by heart not from nature Pullock: I am nature
First things first for philistines. There are no rules in art. Sure you dont like it or it looks crap, you can't understand it but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A genuine artist does it purely for himself and isn't too bothered by other peoples opinions. Other peoples opinions are what kills original art stone dead because they are based on things that have already been done. If its from an artist then it might be a good opinion, because they at least have a basic understanding People seem to either get it or not. I'm an artist and not a very good one but I do my own things so to me it's good and I know if my work is good or not . So far its crap but hey never mind. Thats why I keep doing it, to get better.
zenoist2 To say something is or isn't art, for me, is a tired debate and i realize that there is no definitive answer. The thing that makes me angry about this type of art, though, is that there is nothing to it that anyone couldn't do in their own backyard. There seems to be no skill involved. If i would come with that exact painting and an original name, i'd get shown the door (rightfully so), but if there's an established "artist" that makes that stuff, the entire painting of splashes or just a blank canvas with a single dot or a heap of shite would be praised by that community and tons of money would be given. Don't get me wrong, I'd complement the artist for their cunning, but it's the crowd that pisses me off.
sheogorath19 I agree actually. I bet lots of people were doing this type of thing back then. You just have to be lucky in being "found" and praised by people whose opinion carries some weight I reckon. Art critics do need artists or else they'd starve. The more outrageous it is the better as far as they are concerened, the caveat being it has to attract public attention to even get started. What better than a drunken artist who just splashes paint around that anyone could do? Pollock was lucky to be in the right time and the right place and with the right critics to promote him.
zenoist2 You're right about that. I just can't stand the pretension that goes on in the " art establishment" where i see total garbage in museums and art that takes effort on Deviantart...
sheogorath19 You be true to yourself and see what happens. Honesty is the best thing an artist has in my book. The "art establishment" can go and fuck itself as far as I'm concerned. I ilke some deviantart things as well. Theres some good art (and an awful lot of rubbish) on flickr too if you search date uploaded.
i was not familiar with Merzbow until a minute ago. do you like them / it / him / her? that is a good analogy. when i was younger, and my parents did not always care for the music i liked, i wondered how bad music would have to get in the future for me to complain similarly, i imagined what i now know to be Merzbow. in fact, when i studied music in college, i experimented with various styles, techniques, & instruments including electronic noise. i consider some of my electronic noise experiments to be junk. that's why i stopped doing that stuff. apparently Merzbow has seen fit to make many albums of such noise. i suppose some pretentious person will tell me what a moron i am for failing to recognize Merzbow's genius.
Trobtwillis It's completely okay to not be into harsh noise music! I am not the biggest fan of his, however, I find the noisescapes he creates to be interesting and captivating in an "art sound" type of way. There are definitely some tracks of his that I can listen to, but most of his discography is unfortunately forgettable.
I think people say the same thing about expressionists in music such as webern or schoenberg. Some mock serialism and such as "not music" and anyone could do it. Yes noone is ever going to hum their tunes and such and the harsh dissonances aren't liked by many, but it is still music and it is there to be analyzed and appreciated. From the outside it may seem like trash, but from the inside there is a lot of work put into their work to create what they have created. For me, I may not be a big admirer of his art, but I respect him for coming forth with his own style. Pollock, Schoenberg, etc. are revered for a reason.
I'm very pleased to come across this video! Must say Kligman didn't seem as genuine as those who have described her to be. She appeared phony. Anyways, thanks again for sharing!
People talking about art must have 'standards'. Supposedly they will be the one to dictate what they are. Well to those: Pollock is a standard and you are the one who doesn't want to adhere to them.
Excellent film. Pollack really was one of the world's greatest artists. Unfortunately, I think, he was a prisoner of intensity. He didn't seem to be able to shift down into less intense expressions. Some of his black and white paintings are stunningly expressive and less intense. I couldn't believe that they didn't sell when first shown. I think he might have caught a second wind if he had used his famous technique in a more representational fashion, because when he does, occasionally, the results are really arresting and more accessible than the denser canvases.
boycompass The misspelling was the result of a tendency to type phonetically and sometimes miss the spell check reminder. It has nothing to do with esthetics or art appreciation. But you knew that didn't you? The word "expert" is thrown around loosely. I do know quite a bit about art and am confident of my opinions. I gather that annoys you.
+ironpirites Yes, I'd agree that some of his simpler, less dense creations have greater graphic impact on the viewer , interestingly. I've seen a couple of his early drip paintings, in color, and small, that read marvelously...to me. I prefer them to the later, more developed large canvasses for which he is so famous.
Making a comparison between Pollock and Tolstoy is ludicrous. Pollock made a small, and often considered dubious, contribution to modern art - like a one-trick pony. And don't forget, Pollock wasn't even the first to employ the "drip" technique. On the other hand, Tolstoy was a huge influence on literature and mankind; he was million times more than Pollock.
Thank goodness the GREAT perception of Peggy Guggenheim was at least given some small mention. She kept Pollock in funds for some years...behind the man...always a woman....or two...or three...((
Whats more interesting than the Documentary are all the comments from self proclaimed art experts/fans/fanatics/scholars et cetera arguing how their opinion is valid and others are not. Or how the work of Pollock is garbage because they deem it so. Or because it doesn't "speak" to them it is trash and he had no talent. Thats the real entertainment.
What most do not understand is that art changed after Freud published his findings about the human psyche. Along with Erik Erikson, and most notably, Carl Jung, came a different way of living. Now, life was becoming oriented more and more towards exploring what is inside, as opposed to what was outside only. The Romantic poets truly began to give voice to this phenomenon as well, long before it took the world by storm. That is why art changed so radically around the turn of the 20th century. Sculptures appeared, no longer always in human form, but also in strange, unidentifiable forms. This was about the BRAIN. The human mind was the new frontier, and Jackson Pollock was representing what he FELT and EXPERIENCED instead of just what he saw. Music began to change too. Long improvisations of Jazz began, culminating in rock and roll’s The Beatles doing “Revolution no.9”. Poets began confessional poetry, which was pioneered by Robert Lowell, and Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton. Novels began to change. Many appeared by writers such as James Joyce and Djuna Barnes that had little to do with traditional plot structure and often meant absolutely nothing except that which you brought to the piece. If you hated it, then you hated yourself. If you loved it, then you appreciated the complexity within yourself. Psychology was being wrung from these works. It was all about artists being opened to the workings of the internal machine. Zen and Mikkyō Buddhism and Yoga…as a culture we have access to an entire world’s philosophies now. With industry, I can get on a plane and be in Tokyo to meditate with the masters for a few hours, then jet home. Life has changed, and today’s art is about reflecting that which is going on! I am an artist of this type as well. As a poetess and authoress from the 20th-21st centuries, my works have been moving towards a deeper understanding of the internal meeting the external. Anyways, if you understand why Pollock did what he did, then you can begin to appreciate it, and in the process, learn to appreciate that you both have the same minds, thoughts, feelings, and a life and a death. You must open yourself up, and then it will resonate.
I love Abstract Expressionism but I have to say that I'm glad that the Pop Artists came along and turned the tough, drunken cowboy, John Wayne with a paintbrush ideal into a subject of mockery. That sort of insecurity about maintaining a sense of manhood in what was considered an effete profession is just really a massive waste of time and energy. The AbEx painters had a lot of great ideas and I wish people would have focused more on their philosophies and not on how rowdy and aggressive they were when they drank.
At glich509, you should look up Rothko you'd love him, he paintings have sold for tens of millions of dollars. You need to blank out everything else when looking at art and identify the emotion you feel, not just dismiss it because its shapeless
I do think there is a huge hole in the segment of his death in that it fails to mention that Edith Metzger was also killed in that accident. It makes his death less tragic and more a stupid & selfish act. Having read biographies of both Pollock & Krasner - it is an important element to the story of his life - his death was not his alone.
I've noticed over the last 2+ years that several people here seem to believe that in my comment back then I was touting Abstract Expressionism TO THE EXCLUSION of (or as superior to) all other styles of painting. That certainly was not my intention; I appreciate more than a few different styles, and anyone surely can see that here: fineartamerica.com/profiles/scott-haley It's true that some people believe only Figurative (Representational) paintings should be considered genuine Art; I don't agree with that view, and that was perhaps my primary point in the original comment. A big thanks to those of you who agreed with me and supported that viewpoint. To those who don't agree, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Happy Trails, and Paint On
You need to step into your consciousness through your subconscious realm to know what this man, artist and revolutionary person started and created for the world of art. He place the United States ahead of the rest of the world in the world of the Arts. An abstract expressionist is one who inquires the blessed skill of freedom, unrestricted.
The people who don't understand it think the people who do understand it are just trying to be pretentious. Honestly why do people get so mad about art, sure maybe it is overpriced, but it's not your money so why get all frustrated. And on the flip side there's people who say the art sold for tons of money so it must be good but of course the people who buy it get into a bidding war and whoever wants it the most will pay the most so maybe it's true value really is what people are willing to pay for it. Abstract expressionism changed the way people looked at art and Jackson Pollok did it in a seemingly sincere way where he really didn't know if what he was doing could be called art. Others have done it more as a joke which is a little easier to pick up on, like that one art contest that let anybody send something in and they would display it so someone sent in a urinal as a joke and of course they displayed it so people weren't really sure what to make of it some thought it was a statement and the non artists looked at it like some kind of travesty that artists were so full of themselves they were calling urinals art now and how low they had sunk when it really wasn't that at all.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I once brought a friend of mine to the museum and showed her many works I liked, Giacometti, Pollack, Gorky and she could enjoy the colors and shapes and was open minded but I asked her do you feel the emotion of it. She said no.
I then took another friend whose father had manic-depression and she suffered with depression and asked her and she said "this work is so emotional it vibrates".
A lot of this work by abstract expressionists evoke a certain type of emotions that some won't get because they never experienced such emotion, and others will out right reject because they are deeply afraid of such emotions.
The out right rejection of this art is an indication of how little many know of themselves and the degree to which a person can actually slow down to appreciate.
More than ever before in history understanding our own subjectivity is of pressing importance. And certainly the abstract expressionists provide a window into their own subjectivity.
I've been an Abstract Expressionist (Ab-Ex), Impressionist, and Primitive Expressionist painter for about 7 yrs. I get a big kick out of people saying "I don't get it" regarding Ab-Ex works...or asking, "What is it supposed to be?". Consider this: it's NOT representational Art; there's nothing to "get". An Ab-Ex painting either will evoke some feeling in you, or it won't. You don't have to think about it. It will happen, or it won't. If it doesn't, that's okay. But just because it doesn't evoke any feeling (calmness, mystery, anxiety, inspiration, boldness, worry, fear, happiness, pleasure, sadness, etc.) in you doesn't mean that it won't in someone else. Institutional, formal artists hate it when someone says this, but it's true: Beauty (or Art) really is in the eye of the beholder...100%. Institutionalists will say, "No, no, no...it's not that simple...there are Standards...and Rules.". Here's a clue: Standards and Rules in Art merely are some group's opinion. Art, like Beauty, truly is in the eye of the beholder.
Relative to Beauty, here's an example: I grew up in the age of Marilyn Monroe... considered beautiful by many, many people. I didn't think she was beautiful in the slightest...and I'm a heterosexual.
Relative to Art, here's an example: I believe Pollock was one of the greatest painters ever, in the same class as Rothko, Kline, Miro, de Kooning, and a few others. From some of the comments here, obviously that's not a universal opinion.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Standards & Rules are for Institutionalists (or sheep), not Insurrectionists (or free thinkers). Happy Trails
You've achieved all this in 7 years! I've been working in 'art' for 15 years and I would never dare to presume or assume such 'status' as you do, despite a certain appreciation for what I do. But at the least , you are open minded to modern and contemporary art and you appreciate Pollock, whose wonderful work I've seen in various museums in Europe. What I found most impressive, despite what some of the public may deem as incongruous splashing, was a deliberate symphony and harmony of forms, lines and colours, which in turn, produced an orchestration of beauty in visual art and made him unique and original in the modern art of early 20th century.
Thanks for your input. I have no "status"; all I have is a sense of Logic and a degree of understanding of Aesthetics. As to time, I started in Art (part-time) in 1979, doing primarily pen & ink drawings. I've been a full-time painter for about 7 yrs. Thanks again for your comment. Happy Trails
Scott Haley Can you direct me to other artists? Famous and non-famous up and coming artists and famous artists in the past and under appreciated. I'm a fan of Gerhard Richter.
For Jason Jarvis...
Here are just a few---
more recent: Allen N. Lehman, Susan Sadoury, Maxim Grunin. They all do Abstracts in addition to representational art.
from the Past: Paul Klee, Perle Fine, Robert Motherwell, & Franz Kline.
Thanks, and Enjoy.
thanks
Sad to see the negative comments about Jackson....it is well worth looking at the era that he did this ....he was born the year the `Titanic ` sank .....and died aged 44...I could perhaps understand the criticisms back in 1942 , but not now ....give him the recognition he deserves.
As an original artist with The Drip paintings; yes, he holds a place.🧑🎨♾️🎭♾️🇺🇸
I was mesmerised looking at Jackson Pollock's art, I was reborn, I was enlightened, I was filled with energy and the purpose of life, I was told my verite, I was told what's good and bad, I was listened to too, this was incredible
We have Pollock's "Blue Poles" painting here at the art gallery in Canberra, Australia. It's my main reason for visiting Canberra. For me it expresses the thought process in the creation of a poem. A brilliant achievement !
I love Jackson Pollock's work. It's as if his muse was whispering in his ear "be free child, be reckless and wild, take risks and marvel at the novelty, be fearless.!"
Loved your appreciation of this marvellous artist, when I first saw is paintings I fell in love! Don’t have money to buy the real thing,but lots of books and and a few posters don’t let me forget this amazing,unhappy man.
Pollock's paintings are incredible. I love how destructive art can be. I get more out of his stuff than seeing 18th century portaits.
Amazing the number of Philistines who take time out of their busy lives to make idiotic comments about a great artist, simply because they don't understand his work. I am no art critic, but I find Pollock "drip" paintings beautiful and full of energy.
Well I never,!
Very insightful documentary, thanks. Didn't know so much about Jackson Pollock and his almost indecipherable work until now when it becomes totally decipherable in the scope of his life and inner turmoil. Patsy Southgate painted a perfect picture of the times as well and struck me as an incredible woman - even at her age here she radiates a beauty from deep within (oddly, there are no pictures of her anywhere). In the end these guys must be looking back from the beyond and smiling at the millions their work now commands. Retroactively and by our social definition, they have become bigger success stories than most other titans of lesser industry.
el maestro Pollock !! el creador de la Pintura en Accion , sin duda unos de los grandes maestros del Arte moderno !! GRACIAS MAESTRO POR TANTO ARTE !!!
Very interesting documentary. I am looking forward to seeing his work at DMA when it returns to Dallas, in November. Pollock is one of the few artists I find to be compelling.
First off, he was a notorious asshole. Second, he was a master who, along with greats like Clifford Still and Mark Rothko, brought abstract expressionism into the zeitgeist of the 20th century. He was a master.
Sometimes context is needed for the appreciation of art. Whether you like his paintings or not visually you can't deny he broke huge boundaries with his works, so to answer your question: yes, in my opinion a large part of his succes/fame is because he was (one of the) first painter(s) that produced this kind of art.
I am more a fan of his less abstract works ("The Water Bull" is great) and I think those paintings show that he didn't paint at random and he actually had a lot of skill.
Superb 1980s documentary with the important people still alive and interviewed.
This sort of
thing that pollock painted is perfection in art, I can hardly wait to
see his paintings, the greatest artist of all time
It's so sad that many of the famous artist from the past didn't live to see the great appreciation of their workings. All of the long hours, days, nights, and heart aches with very little to no reward. Then after they die someone else benefits financially from their hard work. It's just sad!
Thanks for posting! And to all those critics who say this is not art: let's keep repeating ourselves. We want 100 more Rembrandts, 200 extra Cezannes and 160 more Picasso's, that is what makes paintings interesting, copies of what we already have. Hence, from now on we are done with what made the originals so great: their courage to dare something new and to explore their technique and their inner drive. There shall be no more innovation in painting. All painters shall paint in the style of man's first artistic expression, the Lascaux cave paintings. I am looking forward to this. Or as a critic you could also say: this is not what I like and be done with it. You might even keep your mouth shut.
Pollock challenged the definition of conceptualized aesthetics
There’s one thing you can say for Jackson Pollock. He never licensed a Paint-By-Number kit.
He a pro at painting, he doesn't need one.
Pollock's drip paintings are amazing. Scientists have analyzed his drip printing using computers, and found something amazing; his paintings are based on fractal chaos theory. At almost any reasonable magnification, any part of his paintings maintain an almost identical composition, and are so consistent, computers can scan various parts of a painting, and at different magnifications, and resolve a consistent fractal dimensional number, or "D". No other painter of this style can do this. In fact, when a forged Pollock painting is scanned, it is easily mathematically found to be a forgery, despite looking identical in style.
I have seen Pollock's work in museums, and it's better than these photos, mostly due to the scale. But overall, his work is taken way too seriously. Read your art history; Janet Sobel was the first to experimented with this technique, and Pollock was aware of her work.
_"I AM nature."_ He was right. That always bugs me when people seem to have this notion that human beings, or some of the things they do, are somehow not part of nature. We are as much part of nature as a tiger in the wild, as is anything we think or do.
+Tinselbutt Explodia - If only everyone knew and understood this! But how many people on the planet today are as comfortable in nature as a tiger in the wild?
Equally important: How much 'wild' is left? Obviously, not much, nor many tigers... Does any other part of nature destroy the wild? Does any other part of nature turn what was wild into something no longer recognizable as ''the wild'?
Has any other part of nature tried to 'dominate' and control nature itself? Or ~seen itself as separate from nature~?
I used to wonder why so many people would trash up their own habitat- home, neighborhood, etc... until it occured to me that until a short time ago everything humans tossed was either biodegradable or was stone. So long as they moved periodically any minor disturbance to the ecosystems they were a part of benefited from the presence of humans, just as the jungle benefits from the tiger.
Many issues (likely most) humans face come from the fact that we in Western cultures have been trained to see ourselves as separate from Nature, and we live as though we are not a part of the natural world. As a species, we are just beginning to discover that in Nature everything is connected.
Ah, one of the greatest questions of all time: What is Man's place in the world? (When capitilized 'Man' is gender neutral, as every educated person knew when the Declaration of Independance was written...)
i heard one of the biographers said of the painting as "they are big, great calm, not just feeling of grandness but also intimacy and quiet", then I looked at Pollock's paintings and boom........ nothing.... i thought of nothing... i couldn't relate the paintings to whatever the biographer said, except a confusion, a confusion as to why they are even called work of arts. If those paintings are arts then I don't understand arts. Don't have concept of art
his paintings are like poetry, if you can't feel the emotion behind these works of art, then you don't fully understand what being an artist is, maybe this because you don't fully understand yourself as a person, or other people...
People on here are silly. Only an artist can appreciate various forms of art. Art is energy that has been captured momentarily. The audacity and passion it takes to do something that hasn't yet 2 be done is art. So if u think u can do what he did and have the same effect is foolish. HE ALREADY DID THAT. Be the 1st you.
Pollock was an absolute genius. People need to remind that he made this kind of art in the 1930's and 1940's. I see in the comments there are a lot of discussion whether he is a genius or not:imagine how provocating his art was at the time! He showed that art does not need to contain any order or form and has there been ESSENTIAL for the development of other forms of art.
By the way, about "everyone can do it" thing: it has been scientificly proven that people can't replicate Pollock's style.
This is great. Thank you for uploading.
This man changed the way I looked at art and I wish with my whole heart that I could have met him. As said "the most intelligent man I knew, without being particularly articulate."
Every artist worth his salt is a roller coaster ride of emotions. That is why he/she creates art - to express and process those feelings. That's exactly what Pollock did.
I always thought during his drip paintings that he reached a level where he was literally painting the neurons in his brain. He had reached such a level of awareness that he could "see" them although he probably didn't realize it at the time, he "felt" it subconsciously, like his brain was saying "this is me". Like an acid trip, his consciousness went in and in and in and in till it was literally painting itself. Photos of the human brain under a microscope look just like Pollock paintings.
Alcohol AGAIN? Same ol story with so many great artists n their chemicals, not always of course, but too often too ignore! thanks for the upload, didn't know of him until it popped up on my feed
I've never seen his early 1940's pre- Abstract Expressionist work, or the later black and white stuff before. I like them a lot.
I stood in front of one of his paintings, almost exactly like the one at 50:00, and it was really intense, I stood right in front of it and it was just coming right at me, 3 dimensional and super alive. It was one of the best they had, at the museum of Modern Art in New York. His and the Picasso's really stood out to me as the most interesting and exciting in the entire museum
Very good. I hope to resume watching this later, 11 minutes in.
For those of you who think this isn't art, it is. That being said, it's the idea behind the work that makes it art. Yes it is very simple to drip paint on a canvas. But, this was a breakthrough in Modern Art. It broke conventional methods of painting thus changing what we consider art. That's what makes his work so monumental. That's why he is so famous. If you disagree, then please, tell me what art is and why this isn't art.
Thank you.
well, let me ask you the same question, specially: what is not art? Is anything art? I personally think art should and must have standards, just like any discipline, let's say music. Why is Motzart art? And why me being inspired and making random noises with my armpit isn't? And why are there bad singers in karaokes and not just singers? Or bad movies? etc. I think it's because we have more or less objective standards of quality that usually a body of experts can detect with detail and rigor. I think you need to be creative, innovate and make statements to make art, but that alone does not guarantee quality. I've saw a black solid square sold for thousands of dollars, is that genius or even original? I can make one of those, in fact I already did when I was 4 and other have too!, but I will never be able to paint a Rembrandt or compose a master piece like Beethoven's because I don't have the talent, experience and knowledge that are so hard to obtain and master.
Carlos Pérez That's a very good question, and I think most people are thinking the very same thing. Great artists are generally considered to be intellectuals. Their work reflects their ideas. For example, the Black Square you are referencing was originally created numerous times by The artist Kazimir Malevich. However, his Black Square wasn't a random act of artistry, it was a carefully constructed and revised idea that was based on an art movement called Suprematism, which he himself created. Suprematism was an abstract style of painting that focused on the supremacy of artistic feeling, most of the time illustrated through geometric forms. In terms of the idea, its quite comparable to the abstract expressionist movement, however if you were to compare the visuals of both movements, you probably wouldn't see any similarities. Now I understand what you mean when you ask "why aren't my armpit noises art". You could argue that they are, but in order to be taken seriously (in the art world), you would have to have a detailed reasoning as to why it was art. However, that is only if you are seeking approval from other people. A good example can be seen in Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionist paintings. He made them for himself even though people may have not taken him seriously, however, he had an understanding of art history and knew what it took to make "great" art work. It wasn't until after his death that he received any great recognition for his work. Today in the art world, quality means nothing, and by quality I mean technical skill. Art has been broken down so many times that urine on a canvas could be art, however unless the work has some well thought out idea behind it, it probably wont stand the test of time. It might receive 15 minutes of fame, but it won't go down in the history books. Art is very subjective and hard to understand. To read art you need to have a basic understanding of art history, which is why so many people don't understand why a painting of a black square is so important. I hope I answered your question. If I didn't please let me know.
Leifer Stieler, Even though art is subjective as beauty is subjective, I don't think subjective means arbitrary and without any lack of standards. Some smelly fat guy with back hair and no teeth may be good looking to some people, but won't win a beauty contest for a reason, and I think that reason is aesthetic standards.
It seems to me that you yourself have standards of your own, which include: to have a detailed reasoning why something is art, feelings, ideas and emotions. But somehow I think the problem with modern art is just that, because the aesthetic part is left out, so it seems the art is in the thought and the intention, but not really in the painting itself. In that case I don't have an issue calling it "though art", but I do have an issue with having to convince people with words that something is art rather than convincing them solely by the final result and let the work speak by itself. think that is the reason why certain works have stood the test of time. The David has been considered great art regardless of movements for so many years, while I'm not sure a black square will have such an effect regardless of the well thought intentions behind it
To say that skill means nothing it means to me that the art world is becoming less sensitive of aesthetics therefore becoming more elitist, potentially excluding people with great talent and very arbitrarily including people just because of their personalities
This is not to say that I think all modern artists are bad, I do think some works are great, but the reason is that their work speaks by itself without any extra aid.
So if Im clear, what you're saying is that art should be purely aesthetic and highly technical. You referenced The Statue of David. A masterpiece that is both aesthetically remarkable and enviously technical, but is in fact a creation of an ideal David from the battle of David and Goliath. Without meaning that statue wouldn't exist. It's meaningful ideas that give art substance. Art, like the Statue of David, used to be made for the church or the state. Many important artists slowly began to break away from this notion, including Michelangelo (the guy who made the statue of David). Many of these artists were considered to be anarchists for going against the status quo. The modernist movement only came to be because of Artists like Michelangelo. You might not think that its important but Michelangelo and artists before him pushed for a day in art where it was okay to drip your feelings onto a canvas. It was Pollock who was brave and clever enough to actually do it. It may not meet your personal level of taste, but until you have a better understanding of history, your taste is irrelevant. However, there are many artists who agree with your perspective, and think that art needs to be much more technical, but at the same time they would agree with me that the meaning is by far more important than the technical side.
The problem in the art world is that collectors and critics, inflate the public's perception of an artist's talent, in order to (artificially) inflate the value of a collection. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to determine whether many prominent names, are the result of underlying talent(s), or a phony persona.
I love and like Jackson Polluck. I see the beauty and genius in his work!
I love "Appalachian Spring" but I have always associated it with a green Pennsylvanian landscape rather than the desert. So why is it the background music to this story?
The uneducated individuals that describe Pollock's work as not even art are 100% idiots. What makes his paintings so great is that since he painted with the canvas on the ground, it allowed him to in a sense be a part of the painting, because it was on the same plane as him. They way he painted, he allowed the framework of the painting to develop in the air, instead of causing a pre-destined pattern to form. The drips that are spead across the canvas give one an impression and a sense of rhythm in the painting, which intrigues the viewer.
I'm a viewer, and it intrigues me as a piece of shit. But don't get offended, because nowadays even shit is considered art, in a literal sense.
Jackson Pollock was a drunkard and a cad that stumbled into a career because someone influential perceived his garbage as art. That is why he was a genius. He saw an opportunity and he took it. His work is the most perfect example of analogical evidence supporting the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" logic. However to call him an artist is disrespectful to artists everywhere. That is like saying Miley Cyrus is an extraordinary composer, and I can assure you da Vinci turns in his grave every time Pollock is referred to as an artisan.
C.R.E.A.M. I get what you're saying, but I have to disagree. It sounds to me that you are comparing the technical skill of Pollock to great artists before him. If that is the case you are completely right. His skill doesn't hold a candle to Da Vanci or other incredible artists. However you have to understand that his art wasn't about technical skill. He broke down the art world even further in a time where it seemed like it couldn't be done. So maybe for you it isn't anything special, but it inspired millions and catapulted art to the next step in history. Oh and by the way, Da Vinci was quite the rebel and Pollocks avant-garde style of painting was quite rebellious. Da Vinci may not have liked his style or skill, but he would have loved that he was upsetting the establishment and would have likely cheered him on!
Leifer Stieler Touché
+Leifer Stieler From what I hear and what I've read, he's not the first person to try this technique of painting, he did it decades later (might be wrong, but oh well). So really he wasn't the one who broke anything down, he's simply the one who got popular (his work is now sold for insane amounts, and people call it "brilliance and art", while the others aren't even recognized). Modern art has become a competition between the rich, and it goes a bit something like this: "Check it, I've got Pollock's #5, boooooooyaaaaaaaaa suckers, it only cost me $140 million", then the other guy goes, "Oh fuck, I should buy a Pollock!?!?! Gimme' Pollock's #69 for $400 million! Booooyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I got Pollock's # 69, in all of your faces". Really the only reason he is known is because his art is sold for so much. He didn't invent the technique, nor is his work any more brilliant and mesmerizing than the other artists who have put paint on canvas that same way.
when you see his work in the flesh it has a real power and presence
Is this art or isn't it? What a tired and useless question!!! You can argue the value from an art history perspective all you want, but I challenge anyone to go to the Museum of Modern Art and spend some time face to face with the several Pollock paintings that are there. Immerse yourself in them. Let them wash over you. Open yourself to the possibility that they might affect you emotionally. Take in their color and form and complexity and sensual movement. Allow yourself to feel what Pollock might have felt while he was pouring himself onto the canvas. Look for the places where his skin contacted the surface, where a booted foot stepped into the frenetic world he was creating. Let the image burn itself into your retinas and then shift perspective so the subtle fiery glow and complex patterns of nature become illuminated again. Anyone who opens themselves to the extraordinary brilliance of Pollock's paintings and remains unchanged is simply lazy and has no lifeforce.
I challenge you to tell me why anything painted by anyone ever, should be worth $148 million. Do you not see the absurdity in that number? Modern Art has become a symbol of brand naming (same as Apple, Armani, Ferrari, etc.), you're paying money for the artists name and their life, and not what the art actually represents (if it even represents anything at all): well there was a guy/gal who had a painful life, they were abused, an alcoholic, etc., then they painted some things. Then they died at an early age (or didn't). Millionaires and billionaires bought their work for millions upon millions as a collectors item and to be "one of the people that own that guys/gals stuff". It became popular and "brilliant art" then come along people like you who "challenge" everyone to go on this wonderful journey of submersion into his/her work. When those individuals that you challenged see nothing in his paintings, you tell them they're lazy, when in reality, they don't need to see anything in art (it's not a must, stop talking about it as if it's going to change the lives of the people who view the paintings).
What I don't think you realize is that if his painting weren't bought for millions and millions of dollars and weren't the "it item" to collect and to own, you would not be spewing this kind of garbage all over the internet. Nor would you be telling people it's a must see, that people need to open up their minds, that they are lazy, etc.: actually you wouldn't even know who Jackson Pollock was, his existence would be irrelevant to you (since "art" has become a popularity contest, if you don't think so, you're a joke). Furthermore, I don't need to see this as art, nor is there anything wrong with me if I don't see anything in modern paintings.
I am near certain that you would not be reacting this same way to an unknown artists abstract work that had no worth to it (nor would the majority of people who look at it, since his work wouldn't be worth millions). Honestly, the one thing that is "tiring and useless" is hearing people push their agenda of "art" onto the minds of others in a matter that is utterly subjective, and hearing people defend the idea of something subjective and relevant to each individual as being worth a numerical amount: as if that is something that is logical (it really isn't).
Aaron Richards I disagree. I say he's the modern version of hitler.
Mark Hayes There is perfection in his drip paintings. I do not feel the same at all with regard to the non-drip work. But the drip paintings are absolutely amazing. He leaves no emptiness. I just love them. I traveled to the National Gallery in Wash. D.C. to see Lavender Mist, my favorite painting in all the world. I broke out in tears before even seeing it, just knowing that it was just around a corner from where I stood. How can something affect a person like that? It is mind-boggling, isn't it? And to think how messed up he was. Man oh Man.
Nonja Buisniss Thanks for your arguments. I needed some help wording mine to someone i'm having this exact argument with :)
Mosbender: I agree, Lavender Mist is gorgeous. I feel the same way about Newman's monumental paintings.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have been doing some research, and found that Pollock was the youngest of 5 brothers. However, very helpful.
+Matthew Gonzales - Yes, the documentary does mention that Jackson was the youngest of five brothers. One of the interview is of his sister-in-law, as Jackson lived with her and her husband, his brother, when he first came to NYC.
the last minute is the most beautiful part of the documentary
The pollock video was not available
Someone had to reflect the powerful atomic dynamism which was the United States and POLLOCK DID IT!
everyone can say something is bad. but not everyone can appreciate how something is great
You have to see his art in person to appreciate it. The photos and prints don't quite capture it.
What year was this documentary produced? With all the prominent figures still alive, I'm guessing late 1970s?
You can paint boats, too, and make that art as well. Nothing wrong with that. Art boats. Its great.
"Americans as leaders of the new art world" is a pretty bold statement...
Harry Cullum, (28:05) the master mechanic's interview is great! It is both valuable and entertaining for me hear his account of seeing Pollack paint. Hilarious!
Dang, I've thrown out a few of my own paint drop cloths that might have been art show material!!
Tomorrow I take for the 4th time the Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE) test..... I want to be an art teacher while I continue to work on my M.F.A degree in animation at S.C.A.D here in Atlanta. This documentary has giving me a better understanding of J. Pollock as an artist....well, wish me luck on Gace tomorrow I have prayed and studied....Off to the next documentary.
actuallu, no one can create a pollock as he has extreme skill in how he drips the paint, as if his body is also painting, thus a more primal, atavism in his art. of course people hate his art, but every great artist has to bear with ignorant fools...to control and express dripping paint takes incredible actually... this is art moving beyond mere representing and craft....as picasso said it took him a lifetime to learn to draw like a child..absolute freedom of expression with nothing held back is genius.
Some of you think he is over-rated? Possible, I just finished my paper about his work and I think he deserves all the credits. His progress is remarkable, but that depends, its subjective.
For the ones who think that anyone can do pollock's art: 29:55
Don´t give up on a simple view, saying that is just paint thrown randomly, just try to imagine the rhythm, the soul, and the creativity of these type of artists.
Yeah bro I watched that part about him comparing this art to a pianist (or someone playing the piano)
Problem is, we all know the difference between Beethovens 5th....and well SMASHING THE KEYS AT WILL.
Now I ask you everyone here, is Jackson Pollack more like Beethovens 5th...or SMASHING THE KEYS!!
I know some of you will troll...oh what a great oppurtunity to troll. SO I don't care what you type...you the person reading this comment, you know in your heart which one you would pick if you knew getting the answer right would win you a million dollars on who wants to be a millionare.
And even if you got it wrong...don't kid yourself, you'd still know in your heart which one is the right answer.
If you said beethovens 5th lolololol omg you troll. Cmon get real.
Here's why, beethoven's 5th is controlled key presses at precise times. A specific sound has to be played & misplaying a note is noticeable.
Jackson Pollacks painting is all over the place there is zero control in it. He's painting every which way he wants to and he's even going over areas multiple times, he's filling the entire canvas with paint.
To call it controlled movement is laughable. If he misses a dribble here or there nobody is going to notice. In fact what we all notice is that it's just splattered paint all over the freaking place.
But hey "nobody has ever played piano like that in a live concert" is also an argument one could make. But to call Smashing the Keys the same as Beethoven HAHAHH haha hahahaha haha.
P.S. beethoven was freaking def & he still created those masterpieces on the piano. But no no controlled random splattering of paint that's clearly on par.
I still love Jackson Pollacks work, I think it's beautiful!! But do I think he's on the level of beethovens 5th haha hahahahah hahaha hahaha HAH ahha. He's not even on the level of beethovens freestyle.
He's kinda on the level of your friend who doesn't really know how to play piano & is just feeling his way through a song. It sounds groovy, and cool and you had no idea he was gonna miss notes all the time...but sometimes it's good & then you kinda like the transitions a bit & feel if he put his mind to it maybe he could be beethoven.
ANd jackson seems to be very good at this we have no idea what he's gonna paint...but it seems like he's gonna smash some keys & it'll sound good sometimes, painter. And not a lot of people are willing to smash keys like that...so it's interesting.
But again lol. Just lol.
I'm sure you have a "couch size" painting hanging in your living room that you purchased at a Starving Artist Sale. " ... no painting over $29.99 no paintings over $29.99 ...... "
+stan smith Yes, i have a collection of 33568889 of the paintings you are talking about. 😊
what's with the knocking noise?----- very disturbing.
"A method of painting is a natural growth out of a need, i want to express my feelings rather than demonstrate them, technique is just a means of arriving at a statement"
Hoffman: you are very talented, you should join my class
but you don't work from nature, this is no good you will repeat yourself ,you work by heart not from nature
Pullock: I am nature
does anyone know when this film was made please?
First things first for philistines.
There are no rules in art.
Sure you dont like it or it looks crap, you can't understand it but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
A genuine artist does it purely for himself and isn't too bothered by other peoples opinions.
Other peoples opinions are what kills original art stone dead because they are based on things that have already been done.
If its from an artist then it might be a good opinion, because they at least have a basic understanding
People seem to either get it or not.
I'm an artist and not a very good one but I do my own things so to me it's good and I know if my work is good or not .
So far its crap but hey never mind.
Thats why I keep doing it, to get better.
zenoist2 To say something is or isn't art, for me, is a tired debate and i realize that there is no definitive answer. The thing that makes me angry about this type of art, though, is that there is nothing to it that anyone couldn't do in their own backyard. There seems to be no skill involved. If i would come with that exact painting and an original name, i'd get shown the door (rightfully so), but if there's an established "artist" that makes that stuff, the entire painting of splashes or just a blank canvas with a single dot or a heap of shite would be praised by that community and tons of money would be given. Don't get me wrong, I'd complement the artist for their cunning, but it's the crowd that pisses me off.
sheogorath19 I agree actually.
I bet lots of people were doing this type of thing back then.
You just have to be lucky in being "found" and praised by people whose opinion carries some weight I reckon.
Art critics do need artists or else they'd starve.
The more outrageous it is the better as far as they are concerened, the caveat being it has to attract public attention to even get started.
What better than a drunken artist who just splashes paint around that anyone could do?
Pollock was lucky to be in the right time and the right place and with the right critics to promote him.
zenoist2 You're right about that. I just can't stand the pretension that goes on in the " art establishment" where i see total garbage in museums and art that takes effort on Deviantart...
sheogorath19 You be true to yourself and see what happens. Honesty is the best thing an artist has in my book.
The "art establishment" can go and fuck itself as far as I'm concerned.
I ilke some deviantart things as well.
Theres some good art (and an awful lot of rubbish) on flickr too if you search date uploaded.
+sheogorath19 lol "effort"
Love this film, very insightful into his process and his work
Make no mistake; this man knew exactly what he was doing.
Pollock to art is Merzbow to music.
Interesting comparison. I've always liked to compare Borbetomagus to Pollock's drip paintings.
i was not familiar with Merzbow until a minute ago. do you like them / it / him / her?
that is a good analogy. when i was younger, and my parents did not always care for the music i liked, i wondered how bad music would have to get in the future for me to complain similarly, i imagined what i now know to be Merzbow. in fact, when i studied music in college, i experimented with various styles, techniques, & instruments including electronic noise. i consider some of my electronic noise experiments to be junk. that's why i stopped doing that stuff. apparently Merzbow has seen fit to make many albums of such noise. i suppose some pretentious person will tell me what a moron i am for failing to recognize Merzbow's genius.
Trobtwillis It's completely okay to not be into harsh noise music! I am not the biggest fan of his, however, I find the noisescapes he creates to be interesting and captivating in an "art sound" type of way. There are definitely some tracks of his that I can listen to, but most of his discography is unfortunately forgettable.
pollock somehow always felt more like jazz to me.
great painter and great work....
I think people say the same thing about expressionists in music such as webern or schoenberg. Some mock serialism and such as "not music" and anyone could do it. Yes noone is ever going to hum their tunes and such and the harsh dissonances aren't liked by many, but it is still music and it is there to be analyzed and appreciated. From the outside it may seem like trash, but from the inside there is a lot of work put into their work to create what they have created. For me, I may not be a big admirer of his art, but I respect him for coming forth with his own style. Pollock, Schoenberg, etc. are revered for a reason.
I hope to pick this up again, 34 minutes in.
I'm very pleased to come across this video! Must say Kligman didn't seem as genuine as those who have described her to be. She appeared phony. Anyways, thanks again for sharing!
Thanks for posting
If somebody sneezing on a canvas is enough to be considered "just a copy" than honestly how good was the original it copied from?
What fucking part of Appalachan Spring is playing in beginning....???
People talking about art must have 'standards'. Supposedly they will be the one to dictate what they are. Well to those: Pollock is a standard and you are the one who doesn't want to adhere to them.
The piece I really like of his is called Green Silver.
Excellent film. Pollack really was one of the world's greatest artists. Unfortunately, I think, he was a prisoner of intensity. He didn't seem to be able to shift down into less intense expressions. Some of his black and white paintings are stunningly expressive and less intense. I couldn't believe that they didn't sell when first shown. I think he might have caught a second wind if he had used his famous technique in a more representational fashion, because when he does, occasionally, the results are really arresting and more accessible than the denser canvases.
+ironpirites - Wow, you sound like quite the expert. That might explain why you spelled his name wrong.
boycompass The misspelling was the result of a tendency to type phonetically and sometimes miss the spell check reminder. It has nothing to do with esthetics or art appreciation. But you knew that didn't you?
The word "expert" is thrown around loosely. I do know quite a bit about art and am confident of my opinions. I gather that annoys you.
ooh- looks like I've been schooled.
boycompass Excellent. Now clean the erasers and try not to be so lippy next time.
+ironpirites Yes, I'd agree that some of his simpler, less dense creations have greater graphic impact on the viewer , interestingly. I've seen a couple of his early drip paintings, in color, and small, that read marvelously...to me. I prefer them to the later, more developed large canvasses for which he is so famous.
from what year was this docu?
Making a comparison between Pollock and Tolstoy is ludicrous. Pollock made a small, and often considered dubious, contribution to modern art - like a one-trick pony. And don't forget, Pollock wasn't even the first to employ the "drip" technique. On the other hand, Tolstoy was a huge influence on literature and mankind; he was million times more than Pollock.
I appreciate his intensity and how it must of felt for him to be working while inebriated. I enjoy his work but I don't understand it.
Thank goodness the GREAT perception of Peggy Guggenheim was at least given some small mention. She kept Pollock in funds for some years...behind the man...always a woman....or two...or three...((
Whats more interesting than the Documentary are all the comments from self proclaimed art experts/fans/fanatics/scholars et cetera arguing how their opinion is valid and others are not. Or how the work of Pollock is garbage because they deem it so. Or because it doesn't "speak" to them it is trash and he had no talent. Thats the real entertainment.
This is as much a documentary about Pollock as it is about cigarettes. They are second only to the art.
thx for uploading :)
a talentless hack is someone who can't recognize original creative art. he's the most important artist of the 21st century
Thank you, great film !
An art historian once told me that Pollock carefully planned his drip-paintings, that *none of them* were done spontaneously...
What most do not understand is that art changed after Freud
published his findings about the human psyche. Along with Erik Erikson, and most
notably, Carl Jung, came a different way of living. Now, life was becoming
oriented more and more towards exploring what is inside, as opposed to what was
outside only. The Romantic poets truly began to give voice to this phenomenon
as well, long before it took the world by storm. That is why art changed so
radically around the turn of the 20th century. Sculptures appeared,
no longer always in human form, but also in strange, unidentifiable forms. This
was about the BRAIN. The human mind was the new frontier, and Jackson Pollock
was representing what he FELT and EXPERIENCED instead of just what he saw.
Music began to change too. Long improvisations of Jazz began, culminating in
rock and roll’s The Beatles doing “Revolution no.9”. Poets began confessional
poetry, which was pioneered by Robert Lowell, and Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton.
Novels began to change. Many appeared by writers such as James Joyce and Djuna
Barnes that had little to do with traditional plot structure and often meant
absolutely nothing except that which you brought to the piece. If you hated it,
then you hated yourself. If you loved it, then you appreciated the complexity
within yourself. Psychology was being wrung from these works. It was all about
artists being opened to the workings of the internal machine. Zen and Mikkyō Buddhism
and Yoga…as a culture we have access to an entire world’s philosophies now.
With industry, I can get on a plane and be in Tokyo to meditate with the masters for a few
hours, then jet home. Life has changed, and today’s art is about reflecting
that which is going on! I am an artist of this type as well. As a poetess and
authoress from the 20th-21st centuries, my works have
been moving towards a deeper understanding of the internal meeting the
external. Anyways, if you understand why Pollock did what he did, then you can begin
to appreciate it, and in the process, learn to appreciate that you both have
the same minds, thoughts, feelings, and a life and a death. You must open
yourself up, and then it will resonate.
Spanish, portuguese or english captions, please :/
I love Abstract Expressionism but I have to say that I'm glad that the Pop Artists came along and turned the tough, drunken cowboy, John Wayne with a paintbrush ideal into a subject of mockery. That sort of insecurity about maintaining a sense of manhood in what was considered an effete profession is just really a massive waste of time and energy. The AbEx painters had a lot of great ideas and I wish people would have focused more on their philosophies and not on how rowdy and aggressive they were when they drank.
At glich509, you should look up Rothko you'd love him, he paintings have sold for tens of millions of dollars. You need to blank out everything else when looking at art and identify the emotion you feel, not just dismiss it because its shapeless
Pollocks view points on art are so basic, and understanding. One of the most influential.
i want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them... i usually paint on the floor, i feel nearer more a part of the painting.
I do think there is a huge hole in the segment of his death in that it fails to mention that Edith Metzger was also killed in that accident. It makes his death less tragic and more a stupid & selfish act. Having read biographies of both Pollock & Krasner - it is an important element to the story of his life - his death was not his alone.
I've noticed over the last 2+ years that several people here seem to believe that in my comment back then I was touting Abstract Expressionism TO THE EXCLUSION of (or as superior to) all other styles of painting. That certainly was not my intention; I appreciate more than a few different styles, and anyone surely can see that here: fineartamerica.com/profiles/scott-haley
It's true that some people believe only Figurative (Representational) paintings should be considered genuine Art; I don't agree with that view, and that was perhaps my primary point in the original comment. A big thanks to those of you who agreed with me and supported that viewpoint. To those who don't agree, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Happy Trails, and Paint On
Amazing Artist, a great loss to the art world..
Very curious how many sigarettes were smoked during the making of this documentary
I love Jackson Pollock. He's beautiful!
You need to step into your consciousness through your subconscious realm to know what this man, artist and revolutionary person started and created for the world of art. He place the United States ahead of the rest of the world in the world of the Arts. An abstract expressionist is one who inquires the blessed skill of freedom, unrestricted.
Is that Pollock or Bollock?
Basquiat is not overrated. His use and control of color is remarkable. Basquiat was a "colorist".
The people who don't understand it think the people who do understand it are just trying to be pretentious. Honestly why do people get so mad about art, sure maybe it is overpriced, but it's not your money so why get all frustrated. And on the flip side there's people who say the art sold for tons of money so it must be good but of course the people who buy it get into a bidding war and whoever wants it the most will pay the most so maybe it's true value really is what people are willing to pay for it. Abstract expressionism changed the way people looked at art and Jackson Pollok did it in a seemingly sincere way where he really didn't know if what he was doing could be called art. Others have done it more as a joke which is a little easier to pick up on, like that one art contest that let anybody send something in and they would display it so someone sent in a urinal as a joke and of course they displayed it so people weren't really sure what to make of it some thought it was a statement and the non artists looked at it like some kind of travesty that artists were so full of themselves they were calling urinals art now and how low they had sunk when it really wasn't that at all.
I break boundaries, who wants my art??? I'm not dead yet that's why.
Thank you