Jackson Pollock

Despite having a major Hollywood production made about him and being one of the more recognized painters ever, Jackson Pollock's work is still hugely misunderstood. Yes there are absolutely a lot of artists who throw some paint on canvas add some gold leaf or other flair, call it abstract and get paid for what is cheesy crappy art. These are the artists that give true abstract expressionists a bad name. The work of Pollock believe it or not has forms, forms which you can see. The forms come out intentionally through a process of layering and action, muscle-memory and the brain in a trance like state through the poured paint process which Pollock perfected. If you have seen his work in person you can see the forms in the work. A kind of living brainwave imprint on the canvas if you will. The intense layered, process of Jackson Pollack's work is genius.

In Greenwich Village there's an annual sidewalk art show that features works by what my friend, the late Ed Gordon called, "Fingerpainters!" One year (ca. '63) he decided to compete by emulating Pollock in a (pre)Warholian sort of way. We went to the Village Pain Store (the T had fallen off the facade of the building, and management had sufficient sense of humour to leave it that way) and purchased several gallons of bright colored house paint (mostly cut priced mistakes). Then we went to the art supply store and bought a few dozen pre-stretched canvases, and to the drug store for rubber gloves. Back at our Bleecker Street coffee house, we stacked tables and chairs to free up floor space and arranged the first batch of canvases with room to walk among them. Then - after preparing each canvas with a coat of white - several of us donned the rubber gloves and began walking around dripping and splashing (two colors each). As soon as they were dry enough to move, these magnificent and e... Read more

I am sure that Pollock had a Lot of fun doing what he did, and I am sure that he enjoyed the money he made on his paintings. His works were definitely alive and Vibrant. And they were anything but dull, but it ends there. He was very successful selling his art to the Ruling class in the 1950's ( Some theories have that he was sponsored by the CIA to Supplant Paris, if any one digs conspiracy theories) Monetarily, he was a very successful artist, but I can not see anyone caring about his paintings a Century from now. I sincerely hope he enjoyed his fame, because he failed to secure his legacy as a talented artist. Now for the fun part: If anybody wants to see what it would be like to be a famous Hack artist, Click http://www.jacksonpollock.org/ and make your own art.

yuck-o

I don't understand the fascination of this style... anyone could do this. Why pay $600,000 for this???

See my review of Picasso and then just subtract the "he was talented" part.

If value were determined by quality, rather than than by commodity... ahhh... if only. Jackson just happened to be at the right place at the right time and came to the attention of the right people. He fit the bill for the "great american painter" during a time of cultural revolution (orchestrated by Rockefeller and his cronies). So if you're a fellow like Rockefeller, and you had bought up several paintings from a virtual unknown (at a very cheap price)... would it not benefit you a great deal to promote this unknown? Ah... you would want to include your friends in the sham... for a decent cut of the action of course... Update Let me clarify... Pollock was a drunken bastard who painted what he was told to paint by the equally bastard art critic "Greenberg" (who also stood to gain considerably by promoting an artist whose work he initially considered crap) amazing what profit and power will do to change ones mind...

I know some people consider him genius they even made a movie about him. I do not like this type of art. looks like you took a paint brush and stood back and splashed it at the canvas. I am sure he had his fans. but not me.

TOOO MUCH GOING ON FOR ME!! IT STRESSES ME OUT!!

Funny, as I was a District Manager for an Art Company, I am familiar with all of these artists...I NEVER really Got Pollock, or Dahli.. But LOVE Kandinski, Rothko, O'Keife...

Give a chimp a few buckets of paint....then watch as all the "intellectuals" call it genius.

Art as an investment or asset is an entirely different subject than art as a form of expression.  Once it leaves the artists studio it becomes a commodity that carries an entirely artificial value in the same way as diamonds or movie stars' salaries.  It's entirely a matter of what the market will bare and everyone who spends a lot of money on it is doing so on the assumption that somewhere out there is a greater fool who will pay even more than I did.  Some artists are complicit in this scam, some are plain baffled by it.  The smart ones understand the game and play it.  Pollock was at the forefront. Like a lot of people, I don't know much about art but I know what I like.  For people into Pollock what they like is money.

this crap never made any sense to me

They're ALIVE. Maybe not everyone can see it, but look at the motion, the energy, the endless play. There is always more to see, the longer you look; these paintings have the energy of life itself, raw and electric. Sometimes I feel if I touched one I would burn my hand.

I like his abstract art.

Having studied art and art history, no matter how I try to appreciate the uniqueness of his work and the mixtures of color, I simply cannot accept his work to be anything more than decoration. It might be fun to do, but it takes little talent to create his "art". I'd have more fun staring at a blank wall.

Creative and visually pleasing.

i'm drunk i'm nobody, i'm drunk i'm famous, i'm drunk i'm dead