The Case for Jackson Pollock | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios

The Case for Jackson Pollock | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios


[MUSIC PLAYING] NARRATOR: In 1947,
Jackson Pollock started dripping,
flinging, scattering, and pouring paint onto canvases
spread across the floor. Some thought it was lunacy,
but the most influential voices thought it genius. That’s the legacy
that has prevailed. That’s why you’ve heard of him
and see his work in museums. That’s why a single
one of his paintings can sell for $50 million. But when you find yourself in
front of one of his paintings now, what do you do with it? How do you look at this and
derive some sort of something from it? Why does it matter? And what does it mean now? This is the case
for Jackson Pollock. Paul Jackson Pollock was born
in 1912 in Cody, Wyoming, moved around the
southwest with his family, attended high school
in Los Angeles, and landed in New York in
1930 to pursue art encouraged by his older brother Charles. Pollock studied at the
Art Students League under American regionalist,
Thomas Hart Benton, whose representational style he
would go on to react against. But his rhythmic
structure and contrast of light and dark, the
young artist internalized. His eyes were trained
on the usual suspects of European modernism,
including, of course, Picasso, who Pollock once cursed,
saying, “That bastard, he misses nothing!” He looked to the Mexican
muralists, like Jose Clemente Orozco and also David
Alfaro Siqueiros whose experimental workshop
Pollock joined in 1936. Siqueiros believed
the paintbrush to be an implement of hair
and wood in an age of steel and that revolutionary
art required new materials like
automobile lacquer and paint thinner and innovative
techniques like airbrushing, stenciling, flinging paint,
and controlled accidents. Pollock incorporated some of
these lessons at that time but drew from many sources. His southwestern childhood
had sparked his interest in Native American art. He visited MoMA’s 1941 show,
Indian Art of United States, several times attending a
demo of Navajo painting made by dropping colored
sand on the ground. In the early ’40s, Pollock
was making paintings with imagery derived
from mythology and from his knowledge
of Yuumei analysis. The surrealist interest
in the unconscious attracted him as well. And he was certainly
familiar with their embrace of automatism or yielding
control of the making process to let the unconscious
mind hold sway. So it wasn’t like Pollock’s drip
paintings came out of nowhere. Others were doing it too. Arshile Gorky dripped in 1944. Hans Hoffman did
around the same time. And Pollock was trying it
out in his paintings as well. But his first big
break came in 1942 with this kind of work,
which was selected for a show at Peggy Guggenheim’s
gallery, Art of this Century, having been judged by the
likes of Piet Mondrian who, having fled Europe
during World War II, claimed this was the most
interesting work he’d seen in America so far. Pollock’s first solo show
garnered much attention. His pictures
described as archaic, tribal, and of elemental power. Curator James Johnson
Sweeney described his talent as volcanic. It has fire. It is unpredictable. It is undisciplined. What we need is more young men
who paint from inner impulsion. Guggenheim also
commissioned this new talent to create a mural for
her New York townhouse. And he produced an epic
19-foot long canvas that cemented his
rising star status and gave a glimpse
of the rhythmic forms and loose brushwork
that would follow. Pollock’s other 1942 break was
meeting painter Lee Krasner. They married in ’45 and moved
out to Long Island near East Hampton where they
set up studios– hers in the house
and his in the barn. Pollock continued to
begin his paintings with totemic and
mythological subjects but painted over
them with layers so thick that the original forms
were mostly indistinguishable. By ’47, Pollock was spreading
his canvases on the floor. Sometimes his initial
layer involved brushwork, but successive layers
were built up with poured, dripped, and scattered paint,
artist oils, enamel house paint, and aluminum
radiator paint. He used sticks, trowels,
and palette knives. Sometimes string, sand,
or nails entered the mix. Narrative content
began to disappear until all that was
visible was the splatters and skeins of paint
we all now think of when we think of Pollock. The titles dropped away
too, and he began to number his paintings like
musical compositions. There was no
sketching in advance, but it wasn’t just paint
flung willy nilly, at least most of the time. To a considerable
degree, he controlled his flow of paint and
distribution of color. He knew what kinds of motions
and what tools and paints produce certain results. He decided what to cover over
and what to let show through. His all-over compositions betray
a keen awareness of the edges. And after jags of activity,
he would stop and take stock of what he’d done before
entering back in or deciding the work was resolved. Pollock once responded
to a critic’s remarks by telegramming Time
magazine saying simply, “No chaos damn it.” This new work did
have its critics. It was described as
a child’s contour map of the Battle of Gettysburg
and a mop of tangled hair. Then and now, people
likened his dripping to bodily spillage–
vomit, pee, ejaculate. But there were
many who championed this radical departure,
notably the Museum of Modern Art and art critic,
Clement Greenberg, who believed Pollock’s
drip paintings to be the culmination of
the advancement of art since the dawn of modernism,
charting “the dissolution of the pictorial into sheer
texture into apparently sheer sensation.” Pollock became a
larger-than-life figure thanks to media attention
and the revelatory images made by photographer Hans Namuth
of Pollock painting in 1950. Namath also made a short film
of Pollock at work outdoors and gave us the unforgettable
view from below of Pollock painting on glass. Art critic, Harold
Rosenberg, called this kind of work action painting. As Pollock was among
a number of artists at the time for whom the
canvas could be considered “an arena” in which to act,
the term abstract expressionism began to be used to describe
the work of these artists who pursued abstraction as a
means to convey emotion, each with their own distinctive
gesture and approach. World War II had been hell,
and for Pollock and his ilk, still lifes and portraits
were now insufficient. Echoing Siqueiros,
Pollock explained new needs need new techniques. Today, painters do not
have to go to a subject matter outside themselves. They work from a
different source. They work from within. He had a productive
pocket of years and would return
to representation with a series of
paintings from ’51 and ’52 made with black enamel
and a turkey baster, oscillating between
abstraction and figuration. But in his last years, he
made work only sporadically, struggling with the
alcoholism that plagued him throughout his life. Pollock was at the wheel when he
died in a car accident in 1956 at the age of 44, throwing
his mistress from the car and killing her friend. Then and now, Pollock’s
brief but brilliant career was emblematic of the post-war
American boom, a country no longer culturally
subservient to Europe but defining its own terms. Pollock symbolized American
fearlessness and freedom, so much so that his work
and that of his peers was promoted during
the Cold War as proof of what was possible
in a democracy– no matter that Pollock had
been a member of the Communist Party. There’s a tendency to think
of Pollock’s breakthrough as cutting the 20th
century into halves– a before and an after. In 1958, artist
Allan Kaprow wrote, “He created some
magnificent paintings, but he also destroyed painting.” Of course, he didn’t
destroy painting. He destroyed some sense a
painting as a grand progression of movements from this to that. The medium has persisted,
finding other innovations and other audiences. Kaprow saw Pollock’s legacy
as pointing the way forward from painting to
everything else, leaving us “at the point where
we must become preoccupied with and even dazzled
by the space and objects of our everyday life.” As Pollock reacted
against Benton, many artists reacted against
Pollock, against gesture, against expression. As quickly as it appeared,
Pollock’s signature mark making became clicheed, representing
an era in American history when the art was
macho and large. The art world was
insular and small. And the reputed artists were
almost all-male and white. But where does this
leave us today? When looking at
his work, Pollock recommended we “not look
for but look passively and try to receive
what the painting has to offer and not bring a
subject matter or preconceived idea to it.” Of course, no one comes to
art or to anything this way. But perhaps you might
appreciate the work he suggested “just as music is enjoyed. After a while, you may
like it or you may not.” Ornette Coleman likened his
own improvisational jazz to Pollock’s work and
said, “It’s not random. He knows what he’s doing. He knows when he’s finished,
but still it’s free form.” What happens in
the artist studio is almost always a mystery– training and expertise
and persistence synthesized over time
into a picture or a thing. But Pollock shows what happened
to get us here more distinctly than anyone had before. It’s clear that a person was
here and traversed this canvas. And now he’s not. Paint that was once liquid and
flowing now hardened and frozen in time. Pollock called it energy
and motion made visible and memories arrested in space. While the largeness of
his persona has faded, Pollock certainly isn’t
absent when you with the work. It’s fun and almost irresistible
to imagine being Pollock. There are lots of
things you can think about when looking at this
work– how a lot of painting tries to hide the
fact that it is indeed made of a viscous substance
while a Pollock allows the pain to revel in its
true liquid self. You can think about how
the picture plane is at once shallow and dense and
also overwhelmingly expansive, pointing to the infinity
that lies beyond. You can make note of the
variety of markings and textures and the tension between
planning and accident. What’s the difference really
between drawing directly on the canvas or in the
space just above it? Everything and
nothing it turns out. That bit of distance
relinquishes authorship and allows gravity and chance
and life to play a part. It’s in that distance that we
reside when with his work– in that nebulous area between
conscious and unconscious thought and action where so
much of life can be found. These pictures are
not easy to read. There is no beginning
and no end really– an idea Pollock
considered a compliment. In these lines and
layers and residues, there is new information
blotting out old. There are vast networks
of markings– what Kaprow called the endless tangle. Like an ocean or
a galaxy, we must settle to a great degree
in their inscrutability. In a similar sense,
we must also live with and struggle to grasp as
Pollock so desperately did the inscrutability within. The Art Assignment is funded
in part by viewers like you through patreon.com, a
subscription-based platform that allows you to support the
creators you like in the form of a monthly donation. We’d especially like to thank
our grand master of the arts, Indianapolis Homes Realty. If you’d like to
support our channel, check out our page at
patreon.com/artassignment. You can find cool rewards,
such as our limited edition Nathaniel Russell Prince. Starting your holiday shopping? Don’t forget we’ve got some
sweet, sweet The Art Assignment merch available at DFTBA.com. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Dereck Turner

100 thoughts on “The Case for Jackson Pollock | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios

  1. fumofu says:

    Best example of degenerate art. Those who can see 'meaning and beauty' in this mess are either psychos or trolls.

  2. Mulan 121 says:

    This channel usually convinces me of the greatness of the artist, but I think my opinion of Pollock can never change. Just like Warhol, I think he was a wannabe who met the right people and got propelled to a level where only bullshit could hide his lack of vision or talent.

  3. George Barnes says:

    I was doing this before i heard of Pollock, laid canvas on floor, etc. Yet i believe my spontaeous splashings created pictures from th subconscious, much like cloud watching, when u move your eyes a differant object was visualized, so when i look at other artist works, i imagined what the artist was gettig at, possibly, and when i looked at a fuzzy picture, i thought, this guy is going blind, too much turpentine, is what happens when you suck on a brush, am i just hungry ( the starvin' artist ?! ) … king Georgie from Socorro N.M. , just sayin' just playin'

  4. Akash says:

    Really intersting but waaaaay to fast. Would be nice to be given more than half a second to see each painting.

  5. Christian Egon Bärnthaler says:

    super art 1111

  6. neXxsuss says:

    – that was an amazing close.

  7. kev3d says:

    The case for messy nonsense made by an angry, mean-spirited drunk.

    No thanks.

  8. Tony Fox says:

    We're find out now that Pollock invented fractals.

  9. Michael Daugette says:

    As an artist myself I think whatever you do is your own expression but I can never take away anything from his art other than he found a sucker that would by his crap or hoped they would , you could say this was art but i remember Andy Warhol's brother cashed in on his brothers fame after he died by having his chicken make chicken foot prints on a canvas and selling that as art , okay art is what you make of it but art is one of the biggest rackets out there , I love different kinds of art but I never have considered this to be art , its just a waste of paint no matter what any museum curator or art connoisseur or art historian says its still just a lot of nonsense but i guess people enjoy it anyway , i know my art teacher punished a student for doing something like this saying if he ever wasted paint like that again he would have to pay for it himself . Basically that it was just a waste of paint and i totally agree that was in 1987 at my high school art class !

  10. Paul Carter says:

    Great insight to the history of the infamous artist🎨 Thank you for creating this time capsule for all generations

  11. Alicia says:

    I'm still not a fan of his work as a whole. Knowing more about him makes me even more soured on his work. There were a few pieces I saw that caught my attention, but I still get very little out of his paintings. I appreciate this video though.

  12. St 789 says:

    Its often difficult to distinguish between talent and lazy hunger for money. I have personally never liked Pollock, but that's obviously just my opinion. I always thought artists like Picasso and Edvard Munch were amazing despite their seemingly nonsensical paintings because they had shown real artistic talent in previous works. But Pollock has never shown me any talent in traditional painting that I could admire.

  13. Bauman says:

    I love his work

  14. Master Adjuster says:

    There is a large amount of composition going on. His last paintings are some of my favorites. They seem to be the first layer if you will.

  15. J R says:

    Crazy how many people comment "oh anyone can do this."

    If that is the case, go do it. Try to recreate and you will see the genius. I like the comparison to improv jazz. Evokes very much the same feeling of ordered chaos as Pollock's paintings. People forget we are just people existing in a chaotic universe. Appreciate the art we have.

  16. Kikoe Art says:

    Thanks for making these videos – really nice information and I like your way of presenting things. ….I still think Pollock's paintings are mostly random, they are sometimes pleasing to look at but so is a wall with chipped paint….not sure if I grasp his intentions really.

  17. cole wilson says:

    I think I'm particularly hard to please with talking about Pollock, so I hope this doesn't come across as nitpicky, but I have a few things that I hope for in talk about Pollock and Greenberg. On the one hand I love his work (fractal analysis of his early work is fascinating) on the other hand I think attributing him with this canonical value, even while recognizing to some degree where he got his ideas, like indigenous sand paintings and lee krasner, doesn't really get at the hierarchies of value that have contributed to his legacy of status. Pollock had to be a heteronormative masculine white man. This greenberg era modernist thinking had an intrinsic supremacy and fetishizing view of the natural world. All this talk of purity, rationality, flatness, fetishizing and appropriating "primitive" art forms and practices to appeal to a white critical elite. They embraced freudian automatism and rejected looking at their unconscious bias. I think this is an essential part of why pollock did what he did, not only why we know about it, which is arguably more important to developing a critical awareness of the flaws in art history. I know most people need to be convinced to like Pollock's work before it's very productive to criticize pollock (magbe vice versa too, Idk), so maybe this is like the tortured artist videos where it was best to do a for and an against, yknow? I do think there's value in using the most commonly known art historical figures to introduce broader interests in art, but the canon is too often presented without the necessary scope of criticism. That being said I do appreciate this series and I respect the ambition and passion you bring to this work

  18. University Plaza Press says:

    Nice presentation, but this is the first time we heard that Pollock was a member of the communist party, could you cite your source on that please?

  19. EveryTimeV2 says:

    4:57 From this angle, it looks like trees. You know how they have lighter top parts with the leaves and dark under? It looks a lot like that.

  20. mightisright says:

    OK, now let's see the case against Pollock.

  21. rick prol says:

    Another excellent job done!!! Bravo!!! It's not easy and this is Spot On!!! Not one comment is off. Usually this stuff is filled with BS. Not here.

  22. T.G. Moody says:

    I don’t derive value from this art, but it is an interesting cultural phenomenon.

  23. Hustling Monk says:

    ITS PLANNED COLOR THEORY. THATS WHY POLLOCK PAINTINGS ARE AMAZING! Look, Color is not arbitrarily thrown in, its carefully or instinctively chosen. Its significantly different than other modern art out there because this type of work LITERALLY takes effort!

  24. Pika Rose says:

    So… in editing out the pauses between your sentences, so that there is no rest in the monologue, an endless onslaught of information and analysis (albeit informative), you are simulating a Pollock painting in words. But I find the audio a little relentless, while the paintings are rather calming.

  25. Sir Oliver says:

    This is just bad art..

  26. Johann Brandstatter says:

    He ought to come toy the North of England.( In a manner of speaking). They'd correct his name to the proper spelling – Jackson f….Bollocks ! The bottom of a bird cage looks more attractive than his works !

  27. LEaVe.Me.aLoNe • 189 years ago says:

    Is it art? I guess
    Did it require any talent…. No anyone could do it so it shouldn't be millions of dollars

  28. andybaldman says:

    Good god, please cut down on the vocal fry. Your voice makes this almost unlistenable.

  29. David Gonzalez says:

    I read somewhere tha tPollock was paid by the CIA to create this type of Art

  30. Al Green - Light Through Glass says:

    'free form but not random' – 'energy made visible' – yes

  31. spellbound111 says:

    Pollock was not original in this type of painting like so many people claim. One of the reasons they give for admiring Pollock is that he was the first person to produce this kind of work.  Janet Sobel and others were doing this before Pollock and when he saw their work he tried it out for himself because he knew he had no artistic talent for anything better.
    He became prominent, not because his work was artistic but because he had excellent connections in the art and business world that could launch him to fame.
    It is called the emperor's new clothes syndrome.

  32. Mario P says:

    7:57 question, are you implying that being white male artist back then was a bad thing?

  33. Prasad Malgaonkar says:

    oh god I am not understanding these paintings

  34. QNetX says:

    Thank you for such a wonderfully scripted, illustrated, and narrated video. I increased my knowledge and was thoroughly entertained.

  35. najihishamkv says:

    Or call it artistic diarrhea… Whatever

  36. mueez adam says:

    I had no idea he was driving drunk that night. I just lost a huge amount of respect for Pollock. RIP that poor friend.

  37. Laura Aole says:

    Wow! Really good job! Thank you.

  38. NathMainA99 says:

    dont be brainwashed this is not art, this is not 50 million

  39. Michael Boylan says:

    Sorry there is no case for Pollock, You ask ,,,,what does it mean now? What is IT? The furore the scandal the notoriety the publicity? Nothing to do with art, We all know now the CIA promoted Pollock and others as past of a Cultural Cold War,

  40. Maxwell Bergen says:

    They're crap, its just American's desperately trying to have a master painter of their own. Any 4 year old could paint a Jackson Pollock.

  41. Filippo P says:

    Anyone knows what's the name of the books that showed at about 0:16?

  42. David T says:

    Love the work of Jackson Pollock.

  43. Pat W says:

    thanks for explaining his paint splatters

  44. Ha Nhuan Dong says:

    Does anyone know where to find the mindmap of art movements at 7:18?

  45. Mehrdad Mohajer says:

    JP and MJ( Michael Jackson) for example, one GENIUS as the other but, IN DIFFERENT FIELDS. That means : you´re born to be an Artist. As a matter of fact : Receiving ART, MAKES YOUR VISION CLEAR THERE AFTER. So if you get my point, Our comprehension of Worlds around us is : Explosion of Knowledge , better said : The Borns of StarS.

  46. Mark E. says:

    He started off doing good stuff…then came the b.s. dribbling..he got lazy and convinced them flinging paint on a canvas with nothing But that technique was a new art direction…from 1947 til his death….junk.

    The whole reason why painting is highly regarded as a skill of an artist is partly that not just ANYONE can do it. Twirling , splattering and blobbing paint onto any surface isn't technique that shows a high degree of skill..and isn't meant to be ONLY for its own sake…its to be used in combination with other techniques inconjuction with a subject for the artwork…otherwise a throw rug from painting a house with different colors is "art"….thats b.s.

  47. Ricardo Montanez says:

    So much words. You can simply say they super cool.

  48. Mike Hubbard says:

    I think Pollack's inspiration could have been illustrated ; "Let's give them something to talk about". LOL

  49. Mario Oldani says:

    Cas

  50. Jade Zee says:

    trying to describe art…which you are doing here…will never satisfy….either you accept the viewers interpretation……or there is no art.

  51. adel makram says:

    This is not even art, it is just missing with colors in near random and he called it the art of subconsciousness. You can not fool the true human perception of the art and beauty.

  52. Gerry says:

    Andy Goldsworthy is my idea of a true artist. His work is often of a very temporary nature and cannot be owned and sold for millions of dollars. http://www.morning-earth.org/ARTISTNATURALISTS/AN_Goldsworthy.html

  53. Isaiah Edwin says:

    Thank God for this channel ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

  54. James anonymous says:

    how do you suppose Pollock knew when to stop pouring the paint, when the can was empty ?

  55. Tubal Cain says:

    Maybe his work looks dated because he used auto and industrial paints, the color palettes for which are agreed periodically by manufacturers, e.g. Avocado and Harvest Gold for appliances.

  56. Thomas Sommerfeld says:

    Pollock … most overrated artist ever. wait. He was no artist at all. And do not come up with the oh he put his heart into his art shit. Still everybody else can paint better.

  57. Tamonduando says:

    "these pictures are not easy to read" well maybe he did his job right, huh?

  58. pjc1954 says:

    This is such an enjoyable series of films. Thanks for them.

  59. Fernando Garcia says:

    Trash

  60. peanut12345 says:

    Get a 5 year wild, call a blah bah in NYC, make MIllions.

  61. Bethanie Petitpas says:

    I've always thought they should show Pollock paintings on the floors. Like they were painted.

  62. John Romero says:

    where can i find that chart at 7:20

  63. Abhilash Kesav says:

    I didn't know who did that our understood what the scribbler had in mind, when I first saw his painting. It was breathtaking.

  64. asdabir says:

    To be honest I love the colorful drips of paint. I don’t even care about the explanation or the backstory of the artist. Certain colors coming together with that paint-y texture gives me a lot of joy and I cannot explain it any further than that.

  65. Chiba City Blues says:

    I’m still not a fan of Pollocks work, but I can appreciate it more. Though I still personally believe that Lee Krasner was the more talented of the two. Either way a great video as always!

  66. Vladislav Overchuk says:

    does anyone know where this scheme at 7:18 comes from? is it a reliable source?

  67. Saoirse O'Reilly says:

    My 3 year old insisted that Jackson Pollock is her boyfriend…

  68. Mister E. says:

    I'm sorry, its garbage. It's the kind of thing that could only come with civilizational decline, after exhaustion of the higher things. It's no surprise he was a degenerate who died young and why Jews, the agents of chaos /rootless modernism, promoted abstract expressionism. You, narrator, are a silly childlike person.

  69. Wintergust says:

    Pollock is a legend

  70. Katarzyna Szyffer says:

    An off topic question, but it is nagging me: why does she force her throat so much at the end of each sentence??? Is it a Californian accent or something? If so, why did it evolve in such way? Is it a new phenomenon or it had been there long before? Isnt it straining your larynx/throat? Isnt it a teenage accent or something? So mamy questions! So few answers!
    Thanks!

  71. Tsetsi says:

    There is no way you could buy a Bob Ross painting, but these cost millions

  72. Daniel Johnson says:

    I heard all this before. And common sense. Gee.

  73. Forest Pepper says:

    If you want to spend $5000000 for a Pollock "painting", that's fine by me. Perhaps in another 10 years, its price will be up to $6000000, so it might be a great investment. But if you just want it as pure "Art", I would suggest spending $20 on a few cans of paint, which you can then "drip" onto your own canvas, and achieve about the same effect, with the added bonus of saving yourself about $5000000. I'm pretty sure the result will be every bit as "visually engaging" as an actual Pollock "painting".

  74. JW Pev says:

    An artist could look at Pollock's painting and connect immediately. The average person might struggle to understand.

  75. Vaclav Haval says:

    The purpose of Pollock's "paintings" are totally not for illegal payoffs, blackmail, bribes, etc. and totally not used to scam the nouveau riche.

  76. notnek202 says:

    Jackson Pollock is a fraud and the idiots who buy his art have been duped.

  77. Cynewulf Scrivener says:

    the earliest pollacks look awesome but I cannot escape the impression that the latter half is entirely cynical

  78. rishikesh jadhav says:

    I would sae Bob ross is highly skilled an highly understated artist and better than pollock !

  79. Old Man from Scene Twenty Four says:

    I've heard all the explanations regarding Pollock and other Abstract artists. They spew all kinds of social-psycho babble (man's interaction with …, humanity's struggle against …, etc.), it's all bullshit. Pollock and the rest simply had nothing to say. They sold the Patrons and the Public a bag of shit and no one is willing to admit it.

  80. BearPapa1990 says:

    The way her sentences end with a gravely tone is quit annoying

  81. T Jacobs says:

    I firmly believe that many of Pollock's admirers don't appreciate his work quite as much as they appreciate the IDEA of appreciating it.

  82. SuperMich66 says:

    call it what you want, looks like crap to me….BOB ROSS RULES !!!!!!

  83. nunya biznez says:

    Here is my sole experience with Jackson Pollock and my rebuttal for this video.When I was in high school I went on a class trip to a widely known art museum.   While there I explored a room devoted to modern artists and tried to fathom what made them popular.   I was a fan of the works of Rembrandt and Rockwell and da Vinci.  I did not then nor do I now like most modern art.    I came upon a painting by Jackson Pollock.  It was not of impressive size.  I think it was maybe around 16 inches tall and a bit more than twice that wide.   It was of course covered in paint splatters.   I stood there for several minutes attempting to understand why this was art and not a waste of perfectly good canvas.   Then it hit me.  Not the truth.  I had to sneeze and could not hold it in.  Before I was able to turn away, I sneezed a rather large and nasty booger right onto the upper left quadrant of the painting which had been hung so that the average man would view the upper half directly and the average woman would view the lower half directly.   Bashfully I backed away hoping nobody would notice that I had sneezed on a painting worthy of a famous museum and as stealthily as I could left the room.  No security guard confronted me on my way out so I breathed a sigh of relief and rejoined my class.   The entire incident had been forgotten by me over the years.   Then, thirty seven years later, a friend invited me to accompany her to that same museum.  I had not been back since high school and was curious how it might have changed.  I had still completely forgotten about the Jackson Pollack and the sneeze right up until my friend and I entered a room and there it was still hanging there in about the same spot I suppose.  I looked at it and recognized it immediately as the one I had sneezed on though it looked different than I remembered and that when I realized that it was now upside down or perhaps it was upside down before and now it was right side up.  In any case I remembered my sneeze and looked around and then realized, they never cleaned it.   For there, on the lower right quadrant of the painting, was a 37 year old dried up bugger exactly where I'd left it that day long ago.   I burst out laughing and told my companion what I was laughing at.  She didn't believe me at first knowing my distain for modern art and then examined it closely (not too closely since they have now installed security measures) and she looked at me and burst out laughing as well.  We later visited the gift shop which had a book for sale including an image of that Jackson Pollack and if you look at the image carefully you will see my booger.  In fact I have since found that image on the internet several places also depicting my more or less intact booger on the Jackson Pollack.  I do not wish to divulge which Jackson Pollack sports my booger or what museum it hangs in.   I would rather not be sued or worse yet arrested for vandalism though most likely the statute of limitation's has long run out on such things.   In case the point of my story is lost, I shall merely say that one has to wonder the legitimacy of a work of "art" when one cannot tell the difference between it and a booger.

  84. ramjam25 says:

    I declare pollocks art bullocks

  85. Yousip Toma says:

    It was a piece of shit and it will be, every thing above that is in our mind happening not in that childish doodling.

  86. DEAD GRATEFUL says:

    the jack kerouac of painting

  87. John Blyth - Composer, writer says:

    Excellent presentation. Thank you.

  88. Roy K. says:

    I believe that the closer art comes to representing the unconscious the further it gets from ownership. How can you claim to have created something you weren't even aware of while creating it.
    That's why the more expressionist and automated Pollock's work became the less responsible he became of creating it. So saying: "I could have done that", in this case at least, is irrelevant because what we see isn't so much the creation of an individual but of a collective subconscious.
    This video has taught me a lot, I've learned to appreciate this artform as a raw form of expression.

  89. The Southern Lady says:

    That is not art. That is a mess and an experiment with people's acceptance of what they're told.

  90. Wally Jaik says:

    Cartoon is better

  91. JiveDadson says:

    Just move along. Nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving.

  92. Sohanxdcoolproboy says:

    I’ve did me this art at school

  93. Vodkahouse 666 says:

    i love pollock

  94. Fe Simco says:

    I really don't see it, I tried. I'll try again in a couple years.

  95. Juan Rodriguez says:

    His work sound like Japanoise…

  96. Etienne 777 says:

    And today he is in hell because he died drunk without Jesus……and we sell his work for millions of $'s…..view bill wiese.

  97. Hunter Terrell says:

    Where's John green

  98. Hunter Terrell says:

    It's upside down

  99. Seta-San says:

    That's not art.

  100. Derick Van Dusen says:

    Pollock's pieces are alive even after death. His imaginings inspire the machinations of the novice. They are gently and often callously pushed beyond their comfort and lead to grow in amazing ways. I sat with a Pollock at Crystal Bridges in Bentonville Arkansas and was so taken with it that was temporarily absorbed by it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *