Jackson Pollock and Abstract Expressionism

Hey everyone, it's been awhile. I'm going to start posting bits and pieces I've written for school to try and get more conversation going on these forums. Right now I'm taking a summer course at YorkU called Culture, Form, and Meaning. We have to write a short journal every week about each lecture. I figured I would repost my journal articles here and perhaps ppl could respond and discuss each topic - if any are of anyone's interest.

While reading, keep in mind that they are informal and are written within the context my course, so occasionally if I reference 'students in our lecture', I am referring to students in my class. Also, it is trimmed due to having to keep it confined to two pages.

g004_pollock_32_1950.jpg
Response to Jackson Pollock and Abstract Expressionism - June 28th, 2011 - Chris Hammond

Walking away from last week’s discussion about the film Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock (Moses, 2006), I felt a little disappointed by my fellow liberal arts students who I thought, for the most part, would see through many stereotypes and who were more adamant about challenging the status quo and mainstream rather than conforming to it. Nonetheless, when it came to the art of abstract expressionism, a method of art whose essence rests in challenging traditionalism due to its rebellious nature, was largely criticized with little understanding about the movement. In particular, the artist Jackson Pollock and his work was disapproved of by many students, with several arguing it was art that anybody could create, and as a consequence, its value, monetary value particularly, was overstated. Nonetheless, such harsh judgments and assumptions are a showcase of the naivety, as will be argued in this journal.

To begin, the argument put forward by several students after the screening, Jackson Pollock’s work, as well as several other pieces of abstract expressionist art (i.e. a “yellow dot” on a large canvas), was criticized as being art that anybody could create. While it is true that anybody may paint a yellow dot on a canvas, or in Pollock’s case, lay a canvas on the floor and come at it with various types of paint, the problem rests in that those who say anybody may create such works have yet to do so themselves. More importantly, those who have argued anybody could create this type of art have never thought to actually create an abstract expressionist piece until they had already come across other artists of this genre. Surely, anybody may scatter paint across a canvas, but most people would have never thought to. And herein is where the essence of abstract expressionism lays, in its ability to challenged traditional art by turning inward in an attempt to depict the human psyche and subconscious (Paul) resulting in works such as Pollock’s. As with most movements, it began with a small group of people who originally thought of the idea, before it was popularized.

In addition, several students thought Pollock’s work was simply ‘ugly’ – this was what Teri Horton thought of Pollock’s work as well as seen in last weeks screening. This type of negative reaction to abstract expressionism may be a consequence of the fact that most people have an inherent trait to appreciate that which is organized and structured. Accordingly, that which is unorganized is generally unappealing. We appreciate what is organized because it is easier to make sense of and understand. It is traditionally understood that most people would gain some interpretation of a piece of art fairly quickly. A painting of a house is easily understood just as that, a painting of a house. Nonetheless, an abstract work of art such as a Pollock piece does not appear to have any sort of meaning behind it to the uneducated eye and as a consequence it is hard to determine what exactly the painting represents, if anything. For this reason, since many people become frustrated with what they don’t understand, the result is a negative impression of the piece of art. However, in order to understand a Pollock, one must understand the context in which it was created, such as his mental state, if there was a subversive message hidden within, whether the piece represents a portrait of the human psyche and subconscious, as well as the fact that the abstract expressionist genre of art overall was created to challenge the traditional canvas paintings as legitimate art.

With the above argument in mind, as the saying goes, you should never judge a book by its cover; one should never judge a piece of art if the viewer does not understand the context of the style it was created in. Our perception of something may change as we begin to understand the meaning of it. In the context of abstract expressionism, if a person does not understand the reason behind the movement, their impression of this genre of art may differ.


Works Cited

Paul, Stella. "Abstract Expressionism - Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art." The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Metmuseum.org. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/abex/hd_abex.htm>.

Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? Dir. Harry Moses. Perf. Teri Horton. Warner Bros., 2006. DVD.

I don't know Chris. I sometimes wonder if I just don't get abstract art or if it's just a case of "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome. After all, the courtier's reply is a very close analog of the treatise you just posted.

I wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about Pollock - I hear there is a biopic about him starring Ed Harris. Did he ever produce anything that wasn't considered abstract? Did he demonstrate that he could produce non-abstract art before he began flinging/dripping paint on canvas? If you look at Dali or Picasso (or maybe even Warhol, to some extent) you can see that they definitely mastered colour and shading and proportion before they began producing abstract items.

I don't know if this is really related but to me it's a bit like music. Frank Zappa experimented with making music with bicycles, Tom Waits incorporates all kinds of weird noises and sound effects in his music (like banging on brake drums), Mike Silverman (That 1 Guy) makes all his own instruments out of plumbing & hardware items. These are three examples of what I would consider 'musical abstract artists' and they are very successful and popular and I like a lot of their stuff, as well. On the other hand you have Glenn Gould who was a magnificent classical pianist but some of his experimental stuff was just raucous cacophony in my opinion. I'm sure there are people who will tell me I'm not informed enough to criticize Gould's work. I love listening to him playing Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc but I wouldn't pay a nickel for any of his own compositions that I've heard.

Ultimately I think art is what ever appeals to you - one man's trash is another man's treasure. Pollock's art (like a lot of really abstract art) doesn't appeal to me but that doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be considered art by other people. I just wonder sometimes if people are really willing to pay big bucks for certain abstract pieces because it really appeals to them or simply because some courtier has proclaimed it valuable art. I suspect there's a bit of both.

I have similar suspicions about the fashion industry.

Originally Posted by Blondin

I don't know Chris. I sometimes wonder if I just don't get abstract art or if it's just a case of "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome. After all, the courtier's reply is a very close analog of the treatise you just posted.

I wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about Pollock - I hear there is a biopic about him starring Ed Harris. Did he ever produce anything that wasn't considered abstract? Did he demonstrate that he could produce non-abstract art before he began flinging/dripping paint on canvas? If you look at Dali or Picasso (or maybe even Warhol, to some extent) you can see that they definitely mastered colour and shading and proportion before they began producing abstract items.

I don't know if this is really related but to me it's a bit like music. Frank Zappa experimented with making music with bicycles, Tom Waits incorporates all kinds of weird noises and sound effects in his music (like banging on brake drums), Mike Silverman (That 1 Guy) makes all his own instruments out of plumbing & hardware items. These are three examples of what I would consider 'musical abstract artists' and they are very successful and popular and I like a lot of their stuff, as well. On the other hand you have Glenn Gould who was a magnificent classical pianist but some of his experimental stuff was just raucous cacophony in my opinion. I'm sure there are people who will tell me I'm not informed enough to criticize Gould's work. I love listening to him playing Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc but I wouldn't pay a nickel for any of his own compositions that I've heard.

Ultimately I think art is what ever appeals to you - one man's trash is another man's treasure. Pollock's art (like a lot of really abstract art) doesn't appeal to me but that doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be considered art by other people. I just wonder sometimes if people are really willing to pay big bucks for certain abstract pieces because it really appeals to them or simply because some courtier has proclaimed it valuable art. I suspect there's a bit of both.

I have similar suspicions about the fashion industry.

Although I haven't seen any of his non-abstract art, I know that he was influenced by the realist painter Thomas Hart Benton. He also went to the Art Students League of New York. So he wasn't just some random that decided to throw paint on a canvas.

I guess you could analyze canvas art like music, but at the same time, you lose out when you judge something before understanding very much about it. With canvas art, I think in order to truly discard a piece and judge it as ugly, you have to at least know a little about the painter as well as its movement. If you understand what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her work, you may appreciate it with an entirely different perspective. At the same time, you could just as easily continue to not like it.