Revolucionario, anárquico, irascible y valiente, Jackson Pollock es sin duda el artista nativo americano más influyente en la historia del arte pictórico. Nacido el 28 de enero de 1912 en Wyoming, vivió una vida corta (murió en un accidente automovilístico a la edad de 44 años) pero libre de limitaciones y convenciones.
Su obra abstracta y furiosa fue la respuesta al intento soviético de condicionar el arte europeo para un retorno al realismo. Capaz de llegar con éxito al entendimiento de sus contemporáneos, inmediatamente tuvo una respuesta en el mercado, suficiente para aparecer en la portada de Life y ser presentado en la Bienal de Venecia de 1948 como el artista más influyente del momento.
Su acercamiento a la pintura tuvo lugar a principios de la década de 1930, cuando se acercó al socialismo mexicano realista de Diego Rivera y José Clemente Orozco. Después de la exposición de 1936 sobre el surrealismo europeo en Nueva York, y sobre todo después del descubrimiento de Picasso, se alejará de la tradición y comenzará a construir su verdadero estilo. El goteo es la técnica pictórica utilizada, haciendo que el color caiga del pincel, o directamente del frasco, sobre el lienzo colocado horizontalmente en el suelo, mientras el artista es libre de moverse: action painting. Así surge una maraña de signos y manchas ininteligibles, provenientes del inconsciente (Pollock se sintió atraído por el análisis junguiano) y de inspiraciones primitivas (probablemente provenientes de la pintura de arena navajo).
Alguien intentó “encerrar” su arte en la definición del Expresionismo Abstracto, un movimiento artístico estadounidense nacido después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, en el que el impulso violento de su estado de ánimo se traslada al lienzo, un espacio para expresar la libertad de pensamiento y acción del individual.
En 1950 fue el líder de los Irascibles, un grupo de 18 artistas llamado así por la contundente protesta realizada en el Metropolitan Museum de Nueva York: el museo había organizado una exposición dedicada al arte contemporáneo estadounidense, pero excluyó a los artistas más representativos de Abstract. Expresionismo. Esto provocó la reacción de los artistas, quienes enviaron una carta de disidencia al New York Times, dirigida al museo ya su presidente, Ronald L. Redmond.
La figura de Pollock hoy tiene un aura mítica alimentada por su biografía libre y dramática. Pero la mejor forma de descubrirlo (y redescubrirlo) es a través de sus cuadros.
[ezcol_1half]
Número 27
Realizado en 1950, el Número 27 está hecho de óleo sobre un lienzo de 124 x 269 cm, expuesto en el Museo Whitney de Arte Americano. Es la máxima expresión de la pintura de acción en la que la fusión de colores deja poco espacio al fondo blanco del lienzo. Como todas las pinturas de Pollock, el tema es indescifrable o está escondido en el inconsciente. Pollock, como dijo, comienza su trabajo con una imagen que luego será cubierta por la furia de los colores.
Niebla de lavanda número 1
Realizado en 1950, 221 × 175 cm, conservado en la Galería Nacional de Washington. El título fue agregado más tarde, recomendado por el crítico Clement Greenberg, quien notó una prevalencia de tonos lavanda. Un resumen de sugerencias olfativas y atmosféricas recorre todo el lienzo, para que la obra no tenga límite de espacio ni de tiempo sino que se vuelva al infinito.
[/ezcol_1half]
[ezcol_1half_end]
Polos Azules
Obra realizada en 1953, también esta de considerable tamaño (2 × 5 metros). Caótico laberinto sobre un fondo gris-negro metálico, en el que se entrelazan tonos rojos y amarillos. Del cuadro emergen ocho segmentos negros y son los que dan título al cuadro. Aunque se menciona en el título, el color azul (símbolo de paz y serenidad) está completamente ausente. Los polos negros retorcidos pueden interpretarse como una alegoría de los esfuerzos humanos por salir del caos de la vida.
La loba
Obra de pre-goteo creada en 1943, en la que se puede encontrar un tema pictórico: la loba mitológica que dio a luz a Roma, con los dos hermanos Rómulo y Remo. Como él dijo “” La loba nació porque tuve que pintarla “.
Jackson Pollock ayrıca, damlayan fırçayı bu mini dünyaya başka bir boyut kazandırmak için eğriler ve dönüşler yaratan hızlarda ve yönlerde hareket ettirme konusunda çok yetenekli oldu. Bu nedenle, bazı eğriler pürüzsüz ve estetik olarak ‘hoş’ iken, diğerleri keskin ve uyumsuzdur. Bu, ruh hali yaratmaya ve aynı zamanda zihni bir analoji yönüne yönlendirmeye yardımcı olur.
museums allow people to see art and take it away from being the preserve of only those who can afford paintings. Of course museum’s collections are skewed to reflect the taste of those buying or are beholden to whatever is available for the limited funds museums are given to spend. I’d say the second example I’ve given is more accurate from the several directors of museums I’ve talked to. It’s not perfect but in a public gallery at least the curators change periodically so the collections can alter in focus. Maybe art is only a plaything for rich people but I don’t really believe that it should be – so museums fulfill a useful service.
A really good portrait – say by Lucien Freud – is itself far more than a photograph. A photo is a snapshot of a moment in time. A Freud portrait, with its layers of paint and depth, captures a deeper ‘for all time’ kind of truth – that also has resonance beyond the particular person painted. Contrast Rolf Harris’s painting of the Queen, painted from photographs – not bad, but lacking any interest beyond the moment caught by the photograph, and giving us no information except what the Queen’s expression was like at that moment. When allied to great visual skill in bringing out those layers, Freud’s project is a superb achievement and deeply satisfying to look at.
Blue Poles still looks fantastic, but I can still remember the controversy when the Australian Government bought it in the 1970’s. I’ve always thought his smaller pieces don’t work as well (such as most of those in Venice), but he was an amazing artist.
I like Pollock’s drip paintings, such as I’ve stood before at the American art blockbuster show some time back, or seen in reproduction. They suggest to me personally a bramble patch in winter, stems and odd leaves and raindrops or snow all catching the light and glinting, a fiery touch here, a dark stem there – that sort of thing. They paraphrase vegetational undergrowth more compellingly than any other artist’s work I can think of; maybe bird’s nests too; things in nature that are woven or entangled by instinctive processes.
Oh yeah – Jack the Dripper, he’s the man. I too saw the Tate show about 10 years ago, having seen one at the Guggenheim in Venice previously. The Tate show (never to be repeated, I guess) was stupendous. So interesting to follow his early, not particularly promising work, then suddenly that awesome moment of awakening with the gargantuan Mural, not yet in drips but already expressionist and influenced by tribal decorative patterns. And I agree with the author – Lavender Mist and Full Fathom Five are some of the brilliant drip works. And Blue Poles generates more sheer power than I think I’ve ever seen in a picture, except perhaps John Martin’s Escape from Soddom and Gommorah. And Summertime more simple, dancing pleasure.
There is so much to say about Pollock, but I can only disagree with Graham macKinlay – I find the skeins of dripped or directly brushed paint create a heightened emotional state (and no I wasn’t taking the tablets). Also a totally new use of colour where colour can create depth in a painting by bringing the net of lines into 3-D. Something hitherto I think only achieved in representational work where your experienced eye tells you the landscape, say, ought to have depth and the artist uses tonal variation to emphasise this.
I enjoyed some pieces, but disagree about those who think he’s a charlatan. Surely that’s an ‘abstract art’ thing, not a Pollock thing, isn’t it? Finally – I love Picasso, but surely Pollock was even more revolutionary. Quite a lot of Picasso’s ‘moment of modernism’ in 1907 and cubism thereafter had already been seen in the work of others such as Cezanne.
Not a huge fan of Jackson Pollock. I find his work too random and free of control. I reckon Franz Kline’s the one of the bunch that really pushed the boat out and will get remembered in the long run.
The misunderstandings surrounding Pollock’s work, both during his time and today, largely revolve around a lack of knowledge concerning his artistic background and how he arrived at the painting style that’s made him so famous and infamous.’ Lack of knowledge about Pollock’s artistic background and how he arrived at his painting style is largely irrelevent. The important point is how does his work stand up to scrutiny. After that, if one decides his work does stand up then added interest is added by the background of the work. You wouldn’t look at a dawb on a wall and then try to find out who had done it, what artist background they had and how they arrived at making the dawb on the wall before making an aesthetic decision about the dawb first. Having seen his exhibition at the Tate some ten years ago I found the paintings on display rather hit or miss. At their best they have an attraction of being very decorative, ideal for designers to break up large blank walls in New York appartments.(I can’t remember who originally said that)But beyond the purely optical effects of his paintings, which can be pleasureable, I fail to see anything else in them to hold my attention. Certainly any old dawb can be pleasingly aesthetic and pleasureable on the eye, maybe he has taught us this but beyond that, I would like to be enlightened as to what intellectual or spiritual or any other secrets his paintings might reveal. Or for that matter, any of the other abstract expressionists.
What you say makes a lot of sense. It’s ultimately how the art holds up on its own that matters. Still, I believe that an understanding of the artist’s journey helps reveal aspects of his work that can greatly enhance the experience and in some cases bring it into focus.
I’ve been drawn to Pollock’s work since I first saw it many years ago. As I learned more about the man and how he found his voice I became even more enamored with his work–because I was able to use this knowledge to probe more deeply into what i was seeing and feeling.
I think we’re both right–it just depends on the angle one approaches things.
Thanks for posting, by the way. This side of the blog seems to have much fewer readers than others and it’s nice to know that people are reading my stuff.
My first posting sounds more negative than I thought. I’m somewhat schitzophrenic about Pollack, I lurch from liking him a lot to thinking he is tickling me somewhere inappropriately. RW I guess the fact that he can be argued over, says his reputation, if not necessarily his paintings have made an impact. I have to admit, if his paintings had been better edited and he had destroyed a few it is possible I might be more easily convinced by him. The Tate exhibition was somewhat eratic in quality.
De vez en cuando un pintor tiene que destruir la pintura. Cezanne hizo eso. Picasso yambien lo hizo con el cubismo. Y despues Pollock arruinó la idea de una imagen al corno.
Pollock’s paintings were created on the floor but hung on a wall. The point being that if the paint had been dripped while the canvas was on the wall it would have just dripped…and run. The fact that the paint is suspended gives the work a kind of energy.
It is odd but everyone always seems to forget Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner. He would have been nothing without her influence. She was the one responsible for introducing him to collectors and galleries and basically taught him what contemporary art was all about.
The Case for Krasner is also on our to-do list, but I felt it made more sense to present a take on Pollock first. We probably should have made mention of her influence and connections in this context, however, and I appreciate your bringing it up here.
Revolucionario, anárquico, irascible y valiente, Jackson Pollock es sin duda el artista nativo americano más influyente en la historia del arte pictórico. Nacido el 28 de enero de 1912 en Wyoming, vivió una vida corta (murió en un accidente automovilístico a la edad de 44 años) pero libre de limitaciones y convenciones.
Su acercamiento a la pintura tuvo lugar a principios de la década de 1930, cuando se acercó al socialismo mexicano realista de Diego Rivera y José Clemente Orozco. Después de la exposición de 1936 sobre el surrealismo europeo en Nueva York, y sobre todo después del descubrimiento de Picasso, se alejará de la tradición y comenzará a construir su verdadero estilo. El goteo es la técnica pictórica utilizada, haciendo que el color caiga del pincel, o directamente del frasco, sobre el lienzo colocado horizontalmente en el suelo, mientras el artista es libre de moverse: action painting. Así surge una maraña de signos y manchas ininteligibles, provenientes del inconsciente (Pollock se sintió atraído por el análisis junguiano) y de inspiraciones primitivas (probablemente provenientes de la pintura de arena navajo).
Alguien intentó “encerrar” su arte en la definición del Expresionismo Abstracto, un movimiento artístico estadounidense nacido después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, en el que el impulso violento de su estado de ánimo se traslada al lienzo, un espacio para expresar la libertad de pensamiento y acción del individual.
En 1950 fue el líder de los Irascibles, un grupo de 18 artistas llamado así por la contundente protesta realizada en el Metropolitan Museum de Nueva York: el museo había organizado una exposición dedicada al arte contemporáneo estadounidense, pero excluyó a los artistas más representativos de Abstract. Expresionismo. Esto provocó la reacción de los artistas, quienes enviaron una carta de disidencia al New York Times, dirigida al museo ya su presidente, Ronald L. Redmond.
La figura de Pollock hoy tiene un aura mítica alimentada por su biografía libre y dramática. Pero la mejor forma de descubrirlo (y redescubrirlo) es a través de sus cuadros.
[ezcol_1half]Número 27
Realizado en 1950, el Número 27 está hecho de óleo sobre un lienzo de 124 x 269 cm, expuesto en el Museo Whitney de Arte Americano. Es la máxima expresión de la pintura de acción en la que la fusión de colores deja poco espacio al fondo blanco del lienzo. Como todas las pinturas de Pollock, el tema es indescifrable o está escondido en el inconsciente. Pollock, como dijo, comienza su trabajo con una imagen que luego será cubierta por la furia de los colores.
Niebla de lavanda número 1
Realizado en 1950, 221 × 175 cm, conservado en la Galería Nacional de Washington. El título fue agregado más tarde, recomendado por el crítico Clement Greenberg, quien notó una prevalencia de tonos lavanda. Un resumen de sugerencias olfativas y atmosféricas recorre todo el lienzo, para que la obra no tenga límite de espacio ni de tiempo sino que se vuelva al infinito.
[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Polos Azules
Obra realizada en 1953, también esta de considerable tamaño (2 × 5 metros). Caótico laberinto sobre un fondo gris-negro metálico, en el que se entrelazan tonos rojos y amarillos. Del cuadro emergen ocho segmentos negros y son los que dan título al cuadro. Aunque se menciona en el título, el color azul (símbolo de paz y serenidad) está completamente ausente. Los polos negros retorcidos pueden interpretarse como una alegoría de los esfuerzos humanos por salir del caos de la vida.
La loba
Obra de pre-goteo creada en 1943, en la que se puede encontrar un tema pictórico: la loba mitológica que dio a luz a Roma, con los dos hermanos Rómulo y Remo. Como él dijo “” La loba nació porque tuve que pintarla “.
Avery Capitano
December 23, 2021
[/ezcol_1half_end]PrisioneroEnArgentina.com
Diciembre 23, 2021
I am not an expert, but Pollock’s works are beautiful to me
I can honestly say i don’t like his work.
Jackson Pollock ayrıca, damlayan fırçayı bu mini dünyaya başka bir boyut kazandırmak için eğriler ve dönüşler yaratan hızlarda ve yönlerde hareket ettirme konusunda çok yetenekli oldu. Bu nedenle, bazı eğriler pürüzsüz ve estetik olarak ‘hoş’ iken, diğerleri keskin ve uyumsuzdur. Bu, ruh hali yaratmaya ve aynı zamanda zihni bir analoji yönüne yönlendirmeye yardımcı olur.
Que puedo decir, arte es la definicion de lo que tus ojos perciben
I live in the Los Angeles area. Other than a one-off piece, I only get to see Pollock’s works when I travel or when an exhibition blows thru town.
museums allow people to see art and take it away from being the preserve of only those who can afford paintings. Of course museum’s collections are skewed to reflect the taste of those buying or are beholden to whatever is available for the limited funds museums are given to spend. I’d say the second example I’ve given is more accurate from the several directors of museums I’ve talked to. It’s not perfect but in a public gallery at least the curators change periodically so the collections can alter in focus. Maybe art is only a plaything for rich people but I don’t really believe that it should be – so museums fulfill a useful service.
A really good portrait – say by Lucien Freud – is itself far more than a photograph. A photo is a snapshot of a moment in time. A Freud portrait, with its layers of paint and depth, captures a deeper ‘for all time’ kind of truth – that also has resonance beyond the particular person painted. Contrast Rolf Harris’s painting of the Queen, painted from photographs – not bad, but lacking any interest beyond the moment caught by the photograph, and giving us no information except what the Queen’s expression was like at that moment. When allied to great visual skill in bringing out those layers, Freud’s project is a superb achievement and deeply satisfying to look at.
Blue Poles still looks fantastic, but I can still remember the controversy when the Australian Government bought it in the 1970’s. I’ve always thought his smaller pieces don’t work as well (such as most of those in Venice), but he was an amazing artist.
I like Pollock’s drip paintings, such as I’ve stood before at the American art blockbuster show some time back, or seen in reproduction. They suggest to me personally a bramble patch in winter, stems and odd leaves and raindrops or snow all catching the light and glinting, a fiery touch here, a dark stem there – that sort of thing. They paraphrase vegetational undergrowth more compellingly than any other artist’s work I can think of; maybe bird’s nests too; things in nature that are woven or entangled by instinctive processes.
Oh yeah – Jack the Dripper, he’s the man. I too saw the Tate show about 10 years ago, having seen one at the Guggenheim in Venice previously. The Tate show (never to be repeated, I guess) was stupendous. So interesting to follow his early, not particularly promising work, then suddenly that awesome moment of awakening with the gargantuan Mural, not yet in drips but already expressionist and influenced by tribal decorative patterns. And I agree with the author – Lavender Mist and Full Fathom Five are some of the brilliant drip works. And Blue Poles generates more sheer power than I think I’ve ever seen in a picture, except perhaps John Martin’s Escape from Soddom and Gommorah. And Summertime more simple, dancing pleasure.
There is so much to say about Pollock, but I can only disagree with Graham macKinlay – I find the skeins of dripped or directly brushed paint create a heightened emotional state (and no I wasn’t taking the tablets). Also a totally new use of colour where colour can create depth in a painting by bringing the net of lines into 3-D. Something hitherto I think only achieved in representational work where your experienced eye tells you the landscape, say, ought to have depth and the artist uses tonal variation to emphasise this.
I enjoyed some pieces, but disagree about those who think he’s a charlatan. Surely that’s an ‘abstract art’ thing, not a Pollock thing, isn’t it? Finally – I love Picasso, but surely Pollock was even more revolutionary. Quite a lot of Picasso’s ‘moment of modernism’ in 1907 and cubism thereafter had already been seen in the work of others such as Cezanne.
Not a huge fan of Jackson Pollock. I find his work too random and free of control. I reckon Franz Kline’s the one of the bunch that really pushed the boat out and will get remembered in the long run.
The misunderstandings surrounding Pollock’s work, both during his time and today, largely revolve around a lack of knowledge concerning his artistic background and how he arrived at the painting style that’s made him so famous and infamous.’ Lack of knowledge about Pollock’s artistic background and how he arrived at his painting style is largely irrelevent. The important point is how does his work stand up to scrutiny. After that, if one decides his work does stand up then added interest is added by the background of the work. You wouldn’t look at a dawb on a wall and then try to find out who had done it, what artist background they had and how they arrived at making the dawb on the wall before making an aesthetic decision about the dawb first. Having seen his exhibition at the Tate some ten years ago I found the paintings on display rather hit or miss. At their best they have an attraction of being very decorative, ideal for designers to break up large blank walls in New York appartments.(I can’t remember who originally said that)But beyond the purely optical effects of his paintings, which can be pleasureable, I fail to see anything else in them to hold my attention. Certainly any old dawb can be pleasingly aesthetic and pleasureable on the eye, maybe he has taught us this but beyond that, I would like to be enlightened as to what intellectual or spiritual or any other secrets his paintings might reveal. Or for that matter, any of the other abstract expressionists.
What you say makes a lot of sense. It’s ultimately how the art holds up on its own that matters. Still, I believe that an understanding of the artist’s journey helps reveal aspects of his work that can greatly enhance the experience and in some cases bring it into focus.
I’ve been drawn to Pollock’s work since I first saw it many years ago. As I learned more about the man and how he found his voice I became even more enamored with his work–because I was able to use this knowledge to probe more deeply into what i was seeing and feeling.
I think we’re both right–it just depends on the angle one approaches things.
Thanks for posting, by the way. This side of the blog seems to have much fewer readers than others and it’s nice to know that people are reading my stuff.
My first posting sounds more negative than I thought. I’m somewhat schitzophrenic about Pollack, I lurch from liking him a lot to thinking he is tickling me somewhere inappropriately. RW I guess the fact that he can be argued over, says his reputation, if not necessarily his paintings have made an impact. I have to admit, if his paintings had been better edited and he had destroyed a few it is possible I might be more easily convinced by him. The Tate exhibition was somewhat eratic in quality.
De vez en cuando un pintor tiene que destruir la pintura. Cezanne hizo eso. Picasso yambien lo hizo con el cubismo. Y despues Pollock arruinó la idea de una imagen al corno.
Pollock’s paintings were created on the floor but hung on a wall. The point being that if the paint had been dripped while the canvas was on the wall it would have just dripped…and run. The fact that the paint is suspended gives the work a kind of energy.
It is odd but everyone always seems to forget Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner. He would have been nothing without her influence. She was the one responsible for introducing him to collectors and galleries and basically taught him what contemporary art was all about.
The Case for Krasner is also on our to-do list, but I felt it made more sense to present a take on Pollock first. We probably should have made mention of her influence and connections in this context, however, and I appreciate your bringing it up here.
I agree completely and wish Lee Krasners work would get more respect. Sfmoma has a lot of great krasners, lover her work.