My Art History II paper, if yr interested
So I was standing in front of a Jackson Pollock painting in the Metropolitan museum of New York, and I once again confirmed to myself that if you stand look at a painting long enough, then you’ll notice more people will start to look at it for longer than they otherwise would have, I figure that it’s because they wonder, maybe subconsciously or something, what’s so interesting about the painting that there’d be someone staring at it so intently, or maybe it’s just they look at it & think “Oh, this is supposed to be like some big famous artist or really important painting, right?” & flock to it ‘coz they’ll follow anything, or something along those lines. And that, in turn, leads more people to check out the work. Anyway, standing there for as long as I did, I caught a few reactions to it. A couple of ‘em were actually respectable, which’s always nice, but even more spoke about how they didn’t get it, understand it, think it was anything special, then there were those in some sort of blind reverence, talking like they knew they were supposed to like it for some reason, but didn’t really get it. Those people were the most annoying, ‘coz the few people who seemed like they actually appreciated & could relate to it spoke the least, & the ones who didn’t think it was art or relevant or any good, I wouldn’t wanna hold that against them, just ‘coz it didn’t strike a chord with them, it’s not fair to judge them for not being able to understand what Jackson Pollock was putting into his work & why it was relevant, ‘coz hell, there’re lots of different kinds of people with different experiences, feelings, lives, it’s not necessarily their fault that they can’t relate. Still, the ones that, when they spoke, wouldn’t shut up, are one of the reasons that sometimes I don’t have faith in people, or their opinions, & what makes it hard for me to respect a lot of my peers or just human beings in general before they seem to me as though they’re anything worth paying attention to, ‘coz when I hear as many of them just bullshit about how they understand a single thing when you know they’re just trying to impress & show how art savvy they are for whatever reason to whoever they’re with, or the other patrons of the museum, it just gets underneath my skin & pisses me off. ‘Coz they’re faking.
And getting it, having the painting not only hit you visually, but make sure that you really feel it, the energy, the intensity, the emotion, & understanding that a lot of times, how you say something can be just as important as what you say is such a huge part of Jackson Pollock. His work gets called “Action painting”, which relates to Abstract Expressionism, which he also gets classified under. I think a more accurate way to describe what Jackson Pollock was doing is to compare it to jazz music. Critic Ellen Landau wrote about the influence of jazz on the way that Pollock painted, saying ". . .'rocking and rolling' for days on end to Dizzy Gillespie, Bird, Dixieland, and bebop. What undoubtedly attracted him to this type of sound was not just its rhythm and tempo, but its naked presentation of honest and deeply felt emotion...Pollock could tell his wife that jazz was "the only other creative thing happening in the country." And Pollock was like a jazz musician, in that his painting stressed the importance of how you play or paint something as much as what it is that yr making.
Jackson Pollock's said of himself "My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting.", in addition to "When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well." In addition to working in a peculiar way (blasting jazz music, mind you), the zone that he's describing is a very meditative place, which is very similar to a saxophone player's headspace going on a particular solo.
For "Autumn Rhythm # 30" Pollock used only white, black, a turqoise, brown & tan paint, having a solid undercoat of tan in the back, & streaks & drips of the other colors in patterns and swirls and splatters of what seems to be a completely uncalculated mess. But if you look at it for as long as I did, whether they were actually there or not, there were moments in the painting that you could tell were intentional, where after a streak was made, it seemed like he went and put another dot here after a line of white paint interrupted this shape that was underneath it to fix it, so that's where the question of intentionality comes in. The colors, coupled with the name of the painting, create not a complete coherent thought, but more like a suggestion. Almost like he's subconsciously hinting at leaves falling, caught in a chaotic autumn wind, moving spastic yet calculated & precise at the same time, like the rhythm and movement of the jazz music that he let play while he painted, sprinkled with the tiniest suggestions of something pure & subtle with the absolutely miniscule & almost unnoticable amount of turquoise he put in, almost hidden seeing as how it's about as brilliant as the other colors. Or maybe he was feeling something completely different. Or maybe the person looking at the painting will feel something completely different.
It's like an ink blot test. It's only a suggestion, and it's completely open and nothing's wrong, because it's not a yes or no, an exact coherent thought or idea. It's something purer, like a feeling or a dream. Which is why it doesn't bother me too much that it seems like so few people can truly get something important from Jackson Pollock's work, that he's still so misunderstood by people who won't let themselves open up & be vulnerable for a moment to really feel. That's because I almost feel like I'm one of the privileged few who really understand & find something beautiful in what he was saying. It's such a warm comfort, and it's so dear & honest & emotional to me that I don't mind not sharing, or bothering to let the others in. Jackson Pollock I'm keeping to myself.
i wrote that after having gone to the museum the day before, in under an hour before it was due, & i am so ridiculously sick right now that i can only think of spreading fear & hatred & misery among the general population.
oh, & if yr bored, check out www.myspace.com/mirrorlick - it's me new band, & tell me what y'think about it.
god bless you madmen & women.
And getting it, having the painting not only hit you visually, but make sure that you really feel it, the energy, the intensity, the emotion, & understanding that a lot of times, how you say something can be just as important as what you say is such a huge part of Jackson Pollock. His work gets called “Action painting”, which relates to Abstract Expressionism, which he also gets classified under. I think a more accurate way to describe what Jackson Pollock was doing is to compare it to jazz music. Critic Ellen Landau wrote about the influence of jazz on the way that Pollock painted, saying ". . .'rocking and rolling' for days on end to Dizzy Gillespie, Bird, Dixieland, and bebop. What undoubtedly attracted him to this type of sound was not just its rhythm and tempo, but its naked presentation of honest and deeply felt emotion...Pollock could tell his wife that jazz was "the only other creative thing happening in the country." And Pollock was like a jazz musician, in that his painting stressed the importance of how you play or paint something as much as what it is that yr making.
Jackson Pollock's said of himself "My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting.", in addition to "When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well." In addition to working in a peculiar way (blasting jazz music, mind you), the zone that he's describing is a very meditative place, which is very similar to a saxophone player's headspace going on a particular solo.
For "Autumn Rhythm # 30" Pollock used only white, black, a turqoise, brown & tan paint, having a solid undercoat of tan in the back, & streaks & drips of the other colors in patterns and swirls and splatters of what seems to be a completely uncalculated mess. But if you look at it for as long as I did, whether they were actually there or not, there were moments in the painting that you could tell were intentional, where after a streak was made, it seemed like he went and put another dot here after a line of white paint interrupted this shape that was underneath it to fix it, so that's where the question of intentionality comes in. The colors, coupled with the name of the painting, create not a complete coherent thought, but more like a suggestion. Almost like he's subconsciously hinting at leaves falling, caught in a chaotic autumn wind, moving spastic yet calculated & precise at the same time, like the rhythm and movement of the jazz music that he let play while he painted, sprinkled with the tiniest suggestions of something pure & subtle with the absolutely miniscule & almost unnoticable amount of turquoise he put in, almost hidden seeing as how it's about as brilliant as the other colors. Or maybe he was feeling something completely different. Or maybe the person looking at the painting will feel something completely different.
It's like an ink blot test. It's only a suggestion, and it's completely open and nothing's wrong, because it's not a yes or no, an exact coherent thought or idea. It's something purer, like a feeling or a dream. Which is why it doesn't bother me too much that it seems like so few people can truly get something important from Jackson Pollock's work, that he's still so misunderstood by people who won't let themselves open up & be vulnerable for a moment to really feel. That's because I almost feel like I'm one of the privileged few who really understand & find something beautiful in what he was saying. It's such a warm comfort, and it's so dear & honest & emotional to me that I don't mind not sharing, or bothering to let the others in. Jackson Pollock I'm keeping to myself.
i wrote that after having gone to the museum the day before, in under an hour before it was due, & i am so ridiculously sick right now that i can only think of spreading fear & hatred & misery among the general population.
oh, & if yr bored, check out www.myspace.com/mirrorlick - it's me new band, & tell me what y'think about it.
god bless you madmen & women.