Paul Jackson Pollock

Having had the opportunity to research Pollock rather extensively, I find him more legitimate than I otherwise would have. My first impression of him and his more famous work in the style of abstract expressionism was in line with a quote mentioned in the presentation; that it was “a joke in bad taste” (from a Reynold’s News headline in 1959). When my untrained eye saw the interwoven swirling colors on the canvas, I thought a five-year-old could create something just as good. I would still like to raise the question; “Even though no one can correctly reproduce a Pollock, should his work still qualify as great art?” I am under the impression that his tumultuous life greatly contributed to his incredible fame; even the film presented in class revealed that there were many Pollock imitators that were much less well-known. I did not begin to “approve” of Pollock as an artist deserving of any kind of recognition until I saw his earlier work; specifically, “Going West” from 1934. The figures represented in the piece are recognizable from real life, and are painted in a way that bends reality, demonstrating that talent was required to create this work. In my humble opinion, since Pollock had first “proved” himself as possessing actual talent before creating his later, much better-known work, he had the right to make anything he wanted and call it “art.”
Danto seems to be the most applicable theorist to Pollock’s art, because of his comment that art is not art until someone says that it is. I am referring to his later work when I say this. If I saw a bunch of squiggles on a canvas, no matter how “controlled” they were, I would never call it art. However, our society works in such a way that if an influential person in a field (or someone who is simply good at promoting their work) says that something is art, or “genius,” on numerous enough occasions, the lemmings will follow, and follow we did, spending $140,000,000 on Number 5 as we went.

Image: http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/artist4.shtm