Jackson Pollock: Hume's Shining Example

To be honest, my first impression of Jackson Pollock’s work was not a good one. Jackson Pollock’s paintings initially come across as something that a kindergartner, who just graduated from finger painting, created. To the untrained eye, his canvases look like nothing but wild splatters, splotches, and streaks; a chaotic war between all the various colors of the spectrum. However, as one learns more about Jackson Pollock and is exposed to more and more of his works, it becomes easier to appreciate them. I personally began to notice this transformation while watching the film about Teri Horton and her potential Pollock find.

At first, I could not understand how the so called “experts” of the art world could dismiss Teri’s painting so quickly. Her painting looked just like the same random paint mess that characterizes any of Jackson Pollock’s works. However, after listening to some of Pollock’s friends and other various “Pollock specialists” describe why they thought Teri’s painting was a fake, I really began to see the complexity behind his work and what made it so unique. Pollock painted with a great deal of depth. His colors were chosen very carefully, and he applied them to the canvas in a strict order, following certain patterns he had in his mind. Yet at the same time there was also a lot of improvisation in Pollock’s work. It was his ability to mix structure with improvisation that was, in my opinion, what made him such an amazing painter. His paintings are both turbulent and harmonious at the same time, which is likely why many people love them so much. However, there are also a lot of people who do not like Pollock’s paintings (such as Teri’s friend from the film). For this reason, I was reminded of David Hume’s discussion of art.

Hume was the theorist who believed that tasteful art was based on sentiment and since sentiment “has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it”, it takes only one person to decide if something is tasteful. This theory directly applies to Pollock’s work. While there are many people who dislike his paintings, Pollock’s works have none the less become tasteful (as well as famous) because of the people who do like his paintings. Granted the more people who find sentiment in your work, the more famous and successful you will be, but it only takes one person to make you an artist (and Pollock certainly has at least one fan). If no one else, I know that I have become a Pollock fan, but I’d wager that at least the guy who dropped $140 million on a Pollock is one too.

Art: The Medium Through Which Many Become One

At first glance, it can be quite easy to view Tolstoy’s and Nietzsche’s explanations of art to be two completely different things. It is important not to let the complexity of their writings fool you into thinking such things however. Upon taking a closer look one can see that the authors’ two different approaches to describe art actually end up meeting at similar conclusions.

Tolstoy talks about art in terms of how “infectious” it is. To most people, the word “infectious” generally has very negative or bad overtones. This is not the case for Tolstoy’s description of art. He uses the word as a way to rate how much a piece of art can channel the feeling, emotions, and experiences of the artist to anyone who views it. On page 179 Tolstoy writes, “All this, if only the boy when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through, and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what he had experience—is art.” The better the work is able to convey these feelings and experiences onto the viewer, the higher the quality of that art.

Nietzsche on the other hand, describes art in a different manner. He believes that art is defined by its ability to collapse the principium individuationis. The term principium individuationis is latin for “the principle of individuation”. This principle upholds the importance of being an individual (i.e. being self-reliant and having personal independence). Nietzsche says that art breaks down this individualism. The method in which it does this is what makes Tolstoy and Nietzsche so similar.

Both philosophers believe that the infectiousness or the collapsing of the principium individuationis originates from a very primal instinct within man or as Nietzsche put it, “…wells from the innermost depths of man…” (164). Since art effects all people, all the way down to their core, it has the ability to momentarily erase our individualism and unite us together. Tolstoy says this another way when he writes, “If a man is infected by the author’s condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected this is art” (179). While Tolstoy and Nietzsche differ on the vehicle in which to describe art, they still manage to observe the same effect art has on people. Both men understand that art has the power to break down barriers between people, and can if only for a split second, bring us all together as we gaze at something beautiful.

Can He Fake It?

Personally, I strongly dislike reality television. Most reality shows are petty and play off of the superficial obsessions of modern society. I mean, how many times must we watch Paris Hilton parade around and show America how rich and spoiled she is? However, every once in a while I’ll run across a reality show that really sparks my interest and not only has substance, but provides some degree of a life lesson as well. The BBC program “Faking it”, is one of these shows.

“Faking it” is quite enjoyable to watch because of how applicable it is to everyday life. At some point, just about everyone finds themselves in a situation where they must learn something new and be scrutinized for their performance. The first day of a new job is a perfect example of this. Paul, the main character from “Faking It”, essentially goes through this experience and of course, has difficulties with the transition. Paul must go from being a commercial painter to artist in one month and produce a final painting that is good enough to convince critics that he is in fact a real painter. Paul’s task is more of an undertaking than one might think. Painting a house is quite different from painting a masterpiece that is to be hung in a gallery and judged by art critics; a painting so much more than simple brush strokes. It must speak volumes about the artist’s thoughts, experiences, and emotions. I’ve really enjoyed watching the initial part of the show where Paul begins to learn the basics of art and art theory because it reminds me of my journey through UH 440 and how I have been learning much of the same stuff. Like Paul, I knew hardly anything about art. To me, if it looked pretty then it was good. However, I am finally starting to realize how there is so much more than just aesthetics to art. In my opinion, Paul will learn that too by the end of the show.

If I had to make a prediction as to whether or not Paul will be able to trick the critics into thinking he’s a real artist, I would have to say he will most definitely succeed. By merely attempting to create a painting, you could be considered an artist. Paul is going to have a great deal of training and experience by the time he is to be judged. I think that if I can become an art critic within a few months of UH 440, Paul can certainly become an artist. Already viewers can tell that he is really pouring his heart and soul into the paintings he’s created. Once he has gotten all the basics down, he should truly be able to create a wonderful work of art.

Art: The Real Money-Maker

Throughout history, one can look at countless instances of commercialization. Farming is a perfect example. At first, farming was done solely for subsistence. People farmed for themselves and for their families. Then, once it developed into a source of income, collectivization kicked in and farming was no longer a personal activity. Art, in many ways, has also undergone this transformation. The rise of corporations like Art Capital or brand names such as Thomas Kinkade, depict this change.

When one thinks of art, the term expression is often paired with it. This is because traditionally, that is what art has always been; a way of expressing yourself through some kind of medium. In today’s modern society however, particularly in America, people have become so consumed with the acquisition of wealth that even art is in danger of becoming a commodity. Ian Peck and Baird Ryan, co-owners of Art Capital, have built a business around this commercialization of art. They, on a very basic level, issue large loans to people who wish to use art as collateral. Now from a business stand point, this seems like a good deal. Art hardly ever has sudden shifts in value. If a client defaults on their loan, the company knows they will still receive something of value regardless. In today’s economy that type of solubility is quite rare, especially with the way the housing market looks right now. However, from an artistic point of view, there is a net loss in value during such a transaction. The message conveyed in a work of art loses strength when it is circulated as currency. People stop looking at the work for its meaning and more for the monetary gain they can receive from it. Most artists create their art without a price tag in mind. However, even that commonality is changing through the work of Thomas Kinkade.

Thomas Kinkade is in many ways, just like the consumer who views art as a commodity. He has turned the production of art into an assembly line, in which he can pumped out the most amount of “paintings” in the least amount of time. There is no reason for this other than to make a lot of money. The standard Thomas Kinkade isn’t even really a painting anymore. His company devised a way to create elaborate prints of his originals (through use of oil highlights and peal-able ink that is applied to canvas) which are then sold for thousands of dollars. Kinkade’s paintings are almost void of anything meaningful at this point. He essentially uses a formula so that in almost every one of his works there is either some kind of a cottage, or lighthouse, or marina in it. His works follow this formula so as to ensure that to some degree there will always be an aesthetic appeal of the consumer. There is no message or meaning behind a Kinkade painting only the motive to acquire wealth.

As with all commercialization, emphasis is put on quantity not quality. Companies like Art Capital or Thomas Kinkade, make a living off quantity. As a result, art becomes this commodity that is bought and sold. It becomes just another form of currency. With that in mind, can one even call it art anymore if it has lost its meaning? It would seem not.