Jackson Pollock has an interesting style of painting. I really don’t see what is so special about it but I guess maybe that’s just me since he is in our textbook. I like his artwork but it’s nothing that I would take a special trip to a museum to see or pay a lot of money for. I could easily replicate it on my own. I do think that it represents abstract expressionism but that’s about it. I think that what I like most about it is that there is no meaning to be gained from it. At least from my point of view I don’t get any meaning from it, I think that it is just something to look at and admire.
Pollock’s new method known as action painting interested me. I like the fact that he is able to view his work from all angles and directions. He could also walk all the way around the painting which puts a new spin on things. On page 87 of the textbook is shows one of his paintings Number 1, 1950 (Lavender Mist). The description says “compositions like this one anticipated some of the photographs of outer space taken in the mid 1990s by the Hubble space telescope.” I don’t believe that Pollock had any intention of trying to depict outer space. I honestly think he was just splattering paint on a canvas.
I have to agree with you in that this style of painting doesn't seem to take much artistic talent to produce. It reminds me of Kandinsky in chapter 32 just a bunch of paint strewn over the canvas, or even Mondrian and Malevich who painted things so plainly. The one thing I think they all have in common is that my little brother can paint just like them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the same as you did about Pollock's paintings. I feel like anyone reproduce his works, so I'm not sure why he's famous. I see no meaning in his paintings, so I guess they are just there to look at. Maybe he's a great artist and I just don't see it, but I doubt it.
ReplyDelete