Jackson Pollock: Demystifying America's Most Influential Painter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2022
- Understanding the painting of Jackson Pollock, an artist who shook the art world and came to symbolize the American spirit and even freedom itself.
Jackson Pollock is a difficult artist for many to appreciate. Understanding his influences & artistic process is key to understanding and enjoyment. Pollock was an artist fascinated with myth, and poetically, became a myth himself.
In his seminal essay, The American Action Painters, art critic Harold Rosenberg described the abstract expressionist as a “vanguard painter [who] took to the white expanse of the canvas as Melville’s Ishmael took to the sea.” In the public consciousness, abstract expressionism came to represent pure possibility. And no one benefited more from this myth-making than Jackson Pollock. Who cares if Rosenberg didn't have Pollock in mind when he wrote American Action Painters, or that Rosenberg disliked the mass media culture surrounding Pollock. Rosenberg gave the abstract expressionist a soul. He defined a will to power. Jackson Pollock's painting was now a heroic act.
References & Credits:
New Art City by Jed Perl
The Free World by Louis Menand
MOMA.org
New Yorker
Alliedworks.com
Wikipedia
Thomas Griesel
Music:
Singing Bowl Meditation: Humans Win
Classical Noble Strings: Bobby Cole
Film Theme: Spencer Rabin
Miles to Go: Gary Franks
Like Miles: Unknown Author
Jazz: Paul Whittle
Ambient Space Meditation: Malkovich Studio
What an amazing channel! Please come back.
Just recently found your channel and I love your content. Only problem with it is that there isn't enough of it. Other than that it's really great, and really inspires to think.
what a cool channel!
Incredible video, I've never appreciated Pollock more now that I know this perspective! Subscribed :) Keep up the great content!
Fascinating. Well done.
Beautiful
Thank you so much
Another great video
Putting art into context gives even the simplest work more complex associations and meanings. I wasn't a fan of Pollock's painting until I learned more about his history as a painter, about his relationship with Lee Krasner, and about Abstract Expressionism in general. Now I can appreciate how his moments of genius inspired the people around him. There are other AbEx painters I like better, like Helen Frankenthaler, but I have to admit that without Pollock we probably wouldn't have Frankenthaler, either. Really interesting video. Thank you!
Even janet solben before Jack the dripper began to dripp the color on the ground.
I consider myself an unintentionalist, which is not to say I exercise no intentions whatsoever, but that 80-90% of what I put down just comes, the rest at the end is making something of it and hoping I didn't spoil it. The mind subverts unconscious manifestation w/ pressure on oneself to "make" something. In this day and age of infinite design and production of "things", I make myself comfortable and smile spending even the least amount of time in a day in liberating my tensions and attentions by spilling out a surprise. Now I don't really have a clue what was in the mind of Jackson Pollock, but what I see in his work allows me to not give a shit. I think people just need some sort of answer from creative works, so what the hell does that mean? Get a life. Thank you for the journey here, seeing is believing.
He is inspiring
Amazing
Nice video, I'm a fan of your channel. I have to agree with the poster below that this kind of art seems exceptionally easy to reproduce and that almost anyone with a few cans of paint, a canvas, and a song to dance to could replicate. That being said, his work is beautiful and interesting to look at (in my opinion) which I think is more important than the process.
I take your point and basically agree. What makes this a sticking point for me is that it was precisely Pollock's process that was so influential. Creativity and originality are fairly modern values in art, but if you care about these things then Pollock should be considered an important figure. While I think Pollock definitely cared about the way his paintings looked, they were also meant to be symbolic. Beauty was not really the goal though many find beauty in them.
@@TheConspiracyofArt its about setting a precedent. we look back and think we could do the same after its just been done. as with many good ideas, they're simple. in art's trend towards non-figurative, abstract expression its had to cross this reductive threshold plenty of times. great video btw! glad i found ur stuff
I do this type of art, it helps purge inner pain and overthinking.
Unquestionably the best / the mastero at his excellence personified with no words to describe his individual strokes / he has no words left in the vocabulary for me to pay my respects to this great artist ❤ may he rip ameen /
“Look. Somebody framed a drop cloth!”
So far fromright you should be banned from commenting on art.
Why you don’t create more videos ? Great channel
It’s about the artist’s relation with the piece not the techniques that they used to create it and Pollock’s work is a great example of that
🔥🔥🔥
I think people hate on JP because they actually believe they could do it and as an artist who has tried, no you cannot.
Make more content
Pleaseeeeeeeee
POLLOCK IS AN ELEMENT - VERY FEW ELEMENTS IN THE VISUAL ART WORLD -
Make more videos
I’m always amused by the “Pollock (or any abstract painter) was pure garbage” commenters. The art they prefer is always so restrictive and locked-in to a narrow view of culture. There’s never any room outside their blinkered viewpoint for diversity.
I accept the "garbage" comments as long as they are prefaced by something like "this is what I value in art," otherwise the comments are basically meaningless. But then the comments section is not a good place to slug-out this sort of stuff - though I still try from time to time.
Nah I think this kind of pretentious, hyperinflated, overrated americanoid abstract art is pure CIA, neoliberal garbage. And my view of art is clearly not restrictive. I deeply identify with Jung's ideas about the unconscious and Jackson's work just seems like nonsensical lazy junk.
nah .... fare thee well @@adamiadamiadami
One cannot decry or even insult - others work and even thinking - if one as viewer - is always an outsider.
One may criticise fairly and with restraint - for that marks one's - own character.
Heart and mind - balanced - and hopefully inspired - by the art - in whatever form.
May the joy be with you. Fare thee well.
PS: Pollock is so special and inspiring. @@TheConspiracyofArt
@@TheConspiracyofArt "In the 50s abstract expression was interpreted as American freedom and individualism" which contradict the fact that black people were 2nd class citizens. I value art but it shouldn't distort history.
So how many Pollocks did CIA buy?
Disappointed you didn't cover the CIAs well documented involvement and massive spending on abstract expressionist art as a way to generate an American art movement as part of the Cold War.
I made another video about this. I am also working on an extended version as well.
@@TheConspiracyofArt So you did, fair play to ya. Looking forward to the extended version!
Your correct, the major art critiques were all on the C.I.A. payroll.
Hopper is more approachable
I wouldn't argue with that.
What exactly does approachable mean in this situation?
The best person to 'demistify' Pollock is Pollock. He hated bullshit.
I don't understand. A while ago you put out a video explaining how the CIA pushed and funded abstract expressionism as an elbow in the ribs to the soviet union. With a bit of deductive reasoning, would it be unfair to say Jackson Pollack owes much of his fame to his "secret" supporters? After all, there were many great abstract expressionist at the time. They just didn't have the rough and tough personality the CIA was looking for.
3:25 The Automatic Drawings remind me a lot of AI generated art, in a good way.
I think they're literally opposites. Automatic drawings are often abstract shapes that reveal the human soul while AI generated art usually consists of more literal images that only present the surface thoughts of the user.
@@cosmodious1755 Exactly, I agree also with you
AI generated art always has a concept there but it is hidden, whereas the automatic drawings come from a place which may not be visible but the viewer creates the concept, which is the original intent as well, bridging the threshold between artist, subject, and audience
Hmmm yea I’ll never like Pollock. The black and white ones are kinda okay to look at. I’ve seen a few in person and they always seems dull and lifeless. Perhaps it’s because he was an alcoholic and his energy was one of low frequency. His wife was more interesting. The connection to CIA though definitely makes me suspicious 😂 The abstract expressionists were just controlled opposition
That was my point as well. The CIA could have pushed Ronald McDonald as an expressionist, and people would now be paying millions of dollars for pictures of big yellow clown shoes.
I have never gotten drunk enough to be successful at copying his work.
I don’t like Pollok,
Michelangelo Merisi for ever
His dripping paintings are "funny" the first time, but loses their juice too quickly, in the end there´s not too much to them, rather than decorative random patterns, aesthetically pleasing yes, but lacking depth. Mural, is is best work.
I actually like his earlier works(which I didn't know existed till this video) but his splatters just looks like he just got lazy and stopped caring. The justification for the splatters just sounds like overhyped junk created after-the-fact to me
I like his earlier work too but the paintings weren't original like the later drip paintings. I would say though, that where some see "hype," others see "meaning."
@@TheConspiracyofArt If an art can replicated by someone with little art experience, then it is an overhyped piece of canvas I say
There's plenty of legit criticism of Pollock, but I don't think this is fair. Pollock's innovation had a huge impact on 20th century art. It's fine to not like it. Late Picasso's are easier to replicate. So are Warhol's and so on. I could play Sex Pistols' songs when I was 14 and not very good at guitar. But I didn't write the music.
@@TheConspiracyofArt Yeah, I'm not an art person so Idk about "what art is" so I'm not calling his paintings not art but just saying to me, if it looks like I can do it and it's not even pleasing to the eye, it doesn't deserve even half of the praise that Pollock's stuff gets
I actually prefer hearing the opinions of non-art people. I just think people get more irritated with visual art than with say music. If someone doesn't like a popular song, they say "I don't like that song," or they accept that hype is part of the game in popular culture.
The problem I have with him is that he stole his famous art technic from a female painter.
Pollock was the artistic expression of putting lipstick on a pig.