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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment