Not done with Jackson yet. What did you all think of the film and its view of Jackson Pollack the artist? Have your question written and ready for the next step by next week.
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Jackson Pollack was a man who obviously tried to use his art to escape his demons. I think his method allowed him to dream, float or maybe fantasize. I would be quite interested in learning about his childhood. If he was an ACOA, an adult child of an alcoholic, many questions would be answered. People who grow up in alcoholic environments are usually troubled to say the least. They grow up feeling trapped. Unless the problem is identified the feeling of being trapped does not go away. His artwork and in particular his method seems to reflect his desire to be free.
In the film he was very concerned about recognition for his work. I wonder how much of this is simply the desire to be accepted at a personal level. When he gets it, it doesn't seem to be enough, which is typical of an alcoholic. To a drinker there is never enough of anything. This and the fact that he is a man explains his adulterous behavior.
I wonder if Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, ever tried to get Pollack sober. Bill was in New York at the time. Bill believed that finding and helping other alcoholics was the key to staying sober. It would make sense that he would seek out Pollack when he became well known. His antics would have been publicized and Bill may have gotten wind of it.
I haven't seen Pollack's work to criticize it, but what is shown in the films reflects his restlessness. The word chaos comes to mind. Anyone who drinks like he did would have a very chaotic life. The frustration of his personal life seems to come through in his work. His choice of color and stroke are impulsive like his personality.
Interesting observations. Would be an interesting research question. Notice we never see or hear mention of the father. Also, if you observe Lee Krasner's actions they are classically co-dependent. I think that based on your observations you would enjoy looking at more of Pollack's work and maybe learning more about him as an artist. Barnes & Nobles had quite a few books on him and his work.
This article gave me the impression that Pollock's style was much more about "deliberate randomness", even in his pre-drip days. (I thought it was very interesting when the movie showed Lee and some others trying to analyze what style of art he's doing, and he's looking very irritated, as if he wants to say: "Shut up and let me [bleeping] *paint* already.")
The various montages of him painting also show a very definitive move from experimentation to thorough planning. The fake documentary scene especially makes him look like he's at least two or three steps ahead of himself mentally.
As far as his behavior towards other people go, the vibe I got was that he was being a jerk almost on purpose. "You think I'm brilliant and wonderful? I'm going to pee in your fireplace. Joke's on you now!"
I liked the movie. I think Ed haris did an awesome job playing the unstable Jackson Pollack. I makes you think about many of these famous artists and how they all had issues. Do you think Jackson Pollack would have been able to paint as well if he was your avarage run of the mill nice guy? Do you think his alchoalism in a way enhanced his perception of art? I don't know, but it just seems like you have to be a bit crazy to be recognized. Maybe I'll give it a try...
Are you looking at it? Good, because it's a monster. It's totally obvious that Jackson was dealing with some demons in his life. We all do at some point in our lives, but it's remarkable how he is able to harness all those emotions and pour them out, literally, on to the canvas.
What I find interesting to think about is the what if. What if Jackson wasn't tormented by alcoholism? What kind of artist would he have been? Would he paint similar abstractions or would we be seeing more of the norm? Sunrises and sunsets, etc. Or would he have been an artist at all?
Had Jackson not had the very serious issues with alcohol abuse, I don't think we would have created works like "Lucifer". I think he may have continued to refine his abstract style, but I have to believe we wouldn't see the emotional storm that rages in some of his works.
Please, I'm not advocating alcohol abuse (it did kill him and his mistress), but it certainly played a role in his work and therefore his success as an artist. But, it is also possible that Jackson's affliction kept him from opening other doors into his artistic style.
The film was good! I enjoyed it! I like who they picked to be the character. I felt that each actor did a good job on being the character that they were assigned for. So good acting in my opinion. Ed Harris was great. I wonder in the scene that he was painting, did he get to keep the paintings that he throw paint on or where they not good that they ended up throwing them out? It seemed to me that when pollack life was on the down he made is art better and more of a aggressive feeling. One scene that i didn't like is when Jackson's brother tell him that he is moving and Jackson turned up the radio and stated freaking out. To me i didn't know if that was a good scene to have in the movie. It was uncomfortable for me to see that happen. I think it was over done way too much. For the rest of the movie he doesn't react that way. I did like how they should Jackson working on is earlier painting. I've never seen any of his painting be for the abstract period. I actually like them better. I thought his cubism paintings were great. Then there is the scene where Jackson is hammered and he stumbles over to the fire place and starts peeing. That was funny because for us that have partied in our life times can relate to that not by doing it but seeing it. I know I have. Over all it was a good movie on Jackson Pollack and anyone how appreciates art should watch this film.
When I learn of Pollack's life and watch Ed Harris' portrayal of him I can't help but believe that Pollack was in a trance... like the trance of a severely bipolar person. You could see it when his confidence would jump to extreme 'polar' opposites in a matter of seconds. Regardless if he drank or not he'd have these issues.
So that trance. When he's having one of his emotional fits - where he is just so utterly discontent or overly excited when he can no longer comprehend his overwhelming emotions - it's a trance like that.
Some people do self-mutilation to release that frustration, others suicide, for Pollack it's art.
Pollack's art is his memoir.
He was destined for a life of tragedy. He was self destructive, over indulgent and was his own worst enemy and friend.
If Pollack did not drink he'd still be an exceptional artist although no where near this level. In the video, we saw it, he was still painting when things were going well, when he was content. He painted, and he painted well. It was only when he truly let himself go did he become ridiculously famous.
I agree with Dot. I can see that while in one of his bipolar episode induced trances Pollack having a strike of genius. Although, if it wasn't for a psychotic trance he wouldn't have been able to come up with such a profound algorithm.
I respect Jackson Pollack for he burned so brightly in his life that he left us with a scar, his artwork.
I look forward to seeing his pieces in person. I can't wait to be submerged in the shear size of one.
Pollock is a very intreging artist. His style and drip method and completely differnet than anything that anyone else was doing at the time. Many have tried to emulate and copy his style, although true art critics say that they lack the same elements and feelings. To me, his drip style painting is the true version of abstract. It allows the unconcious mind to be released onto the canvas.
I appreciate intentional art. It seems to me that Pollock was just making accidental art. Granted, his style was unique at first, but the fact that so many others could recreate "the effect" goes to show it doesn't take an artistic genius to dribble paint on a canvas. I feel it was a cop-out. He wasn't inspired, so he just scribbled.
I think pollack obviously saw and interpreted life in a way vastly different from others, which in a way made him more secluded and alone despite his wife's feelings for him, he seemed to be less interested in her than she was in him. This left him seeming very lonely especially when he drank, but were it not for the loneliness and sadness his works would have been vastly different, if they were even known at all. I think he lived the romantic life of an artist, and probably never really understood how influential he became.
This one was hard for me... I definately like how the film took us inside the artist and how his personal life dictated his emotions and art. I love art, I love to create art, however sometimes I feel like I haven't experienced enough to create prolific pieces. Can a small town girl with no real hardships, whose parent's are still together, create an impactful artpiece that can connect emotionally to many people?
So far as his style, I appreciate the emotion of it, but I feel it's a bit dizzying. I am a big fan of abstract art, but mostly I like to understand what I'm looking at; which I guess is mainly contradictory to abstractism anyway. The emotion it takes to create Pollack's pieces is understandable, but to get an emotion as an audience is quite difficult for me.
I enjoyed the film. I wonder what Pollock would have thought of it. If he thought it was a true adaptation of his life or another case of Hollywood make-believe. Honestly, he'd probably wonder why any of us gave a sh*t.
I think there's certainly some lessons to learn from the man's life... and death. I'd be interested to read a biography of the man, in the hopes of getting the 'real' story.
I think we're all in agreement that Pollock was a man with some inner demons. However, he would have been a lot worse off if he didn't have his artistic talent to vent some of that energy. I'm still amazed by how those feelings of anger and frustration show up in his work. I don't think a content, happy person could have created his style of work. It takes a little madness to put it down on the canvas. He certainly mastered that feat.
Pollack?!! hehe... Who? I think Pollock was the artist america needed in that period... Anyway, he was a great artist. I think he also helped to build the artist stereotype of the crazy, careless, drug addict but sensible and genius. Based on the film, wich I liked, I think his wife really helped him a lot, without her he wouldn't have become the Pollock.... She put him in the artistic society and made him an artist. Don't you remember in the beginning (and also towards the end), in the Art Gallery, Pollock's deep look to his wife...
13 comments:
Jackson Pollack was a man who obviously tried to use his art to escape his demons. I think his method allowed him to dream, float or maybe fantasize. I would be quite interested in learning about his childhood. If he was an ACOA, an adult child of an alcoholic, many questions would be answered. People who grow up in alcoholic environments are usually troubled to say the least. They grow up feeling trapped. Unless the problem is identified the feeling of being trapped does not go away. His artwork and in particular his method seems to reflect his desire to be free.
In the film he was very concerned about recognition for his work. I wonder how much of this is simply the desire to be accepted at a personal level. When he gets it, it doesn't seem to be enough, which is typical of an alcoholic. To a drinker there is never enough of anything. This and the fact that he is a man explains his adulterous behavior.
I wonder if Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, ever tried to get Pollack sober. Bill was in New York at the time. Bill believed that finding and helping other alcoholics was the key to staying sober. It would make sense that he would seek out Pollack when he became well known. His antics would have been publicized and Bill may have gotten wind of it.
I haven't seen Pollack's work to criticize it, but what is shown in the films reflects his restlessness. The word chaos comes to mind. Anyone who drinks like he did would have a very chaotic life. The frustration of his personal life seems to come through in his work. His choice of color and stroke are impulsive like his personality.
Interesting observations. Would be an interesting research question. Notice we never see or hear mention of the father. Also, if you observe Lee Krasner's actions they are classically co-dependent. I think that based on your observations you would enjoy looking at more of Pollack's work and maybe learning more about him as an artist. Barnes & Nobles had quite a few books on him and his work.
On the fractal nature of Pollock's art:
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock
This article gave me the impression that Pollock's style was much more about "deliberate randomness", even in his pre-drip days. (I thought it was very interesting when the movie showed Lee and some others trying to analyze what style of art he's doing, and he's looking very irritated, as if he wants to say: "Shut up and let me [bleeping] *paint* already.")
The various montages of him painting also show a very definitive move from experimentation to thorough planning. The fake documentary scene especially makes him look like he's at least two or three steps ahead of himself mentally.
As far as his behavior towards other people go, the vibe I got was that he was being a jerk almost on purpose. "You think I'm brilliant and wonderful? I'm going to pee in your fireplace. Joke's on you now!"
I liked the movie. I think Ed haris did an awesome job playing the unstable Jackson Pollack. I makes you think about many of these famous artists and how they all had issues. Do you think Jackson Pollack would have been able to paint as well if he was your avarage run of the mill nice guy? Do you think his alchoalism in a way enhanced his perception of art? I don't know, but it just seems like you have to be a bit crazy to be recognized. Maybe I'll give it a try...
The first Pollack I saw was "Lucifer". If you're not familiar with this piece, try this link.
http://www.globalgallery.com/prod_images/bm-p726.jpg
Are you looking at it? Good, because it's a monster. It's totally obvious that Jackson was dealing with some demons in his life. We all do at some point in our lives, but it's remarkable how he is able to harness all those emotions and pour them out, literally, on to the canvas.
What I find interesting to think about is the what if. What if Jackson wasn't tormented by alcoholism? What kind of artist would he have been? Would he paint similar abstractions or would we be seeing more of the norm? Sunrises and sunsets, etc. Or would he have been an artist at all?
Had Jackson not had the very serious issues with alcohol abuse, I don't think we would have created works like "Lucifer". I think he may have continued to refine his abstract style, but I have to believe we wouldn't see the emotional storm that rages in some of his works.
Please, I'm not advocating alcohol abuse (it did kill him and his mistress), but it certainly played a role in his work and therefore his success as an artist. But, it is also possible that Jackson's affliction kept him from opening other doors into his artistic style.
Like many "what if's", we'll just never know.
The film was good! I enjoyed it! I like who they picked to be the character. I felt that each actor did a good job on being the character that they were assigned for. So good acting in my opinion. Ed Harris was great. I wonder in the scene that he was painting, did he get to keep the paintings that he throw paint on or where they not good that they ended up throwing them out? It seemed to me that when pollack life was on the down he made is art better and more of a aggressive feeling.
One scene that i didn't like is when Jackson's brother tell him that he is moving and Jackson turned up the radio and stated freaking out. To me i didn't know if that was a good scene to have in the movie. It was uncomfortable for me to see that happen. I think it was over done way too much. For the rest of the movie he doesn't react that way. I did like how they should Jackson working on is earlier painting. I've never seen any of his painting be for the abstract period. I actually like them better. I thought his cubism paintings were great. Then there is the scene where Jackson is hammered and he stumbles over to the fire place and starts peeing. That was funny because for us that have partied in our life times can relate to that not by doing it but seeing it. I know I have. Over all it was a good movie on Jackson Pollack and anyone how appreciates art should watch this film.
When I learn of Pollack's life and watch Ed Harris' portrayal of him I can't help but believe that Pollack was in a trance... like the trance of a severely bipolar person. You could see it when his confidence would jump to extreme 'polar' opposites in a matter of seconds. Regardless if he drank or not he'd have these issues.
So that trance. When he's having one of his emotional fits - where he is just so utterly discontent or overly excited when he can no longer comprehend his overwhelming emotions - it's a trance like that.
Some people do self-mutilation to release that frustration, others suicide, for Pollack it's art.
Pollack's art is his memoir.
He was destined for a life of tragedy. He was self destructive, over indulgent and was his own worst enemy and friend.
If Pollack did not drink he'd still be an exceptional artist although no where near this level. In the video, we saw it, he was still painting when things were going well, when he was content. He painted, and he painted well. It was only when he truly let himself go did he become ridiculously famous.
I agree with Dot. I can see that while in one of his bipolar episode induced trances Pollack having a strike of genius. Although, if it wasn't for a psychotic trance he wouldn't have been able to come up with such a profound algorithm.
I respect Jackson Pollack for he burned so brightly in his life that he left us with a scar, his artwork.
I look forward to seeing his pieces in person. I can't wait to be submerged in the shear size of one.
Pollock is a very intreging artist. His style and drip method and completely differnet than anything that anyone else was doing at the time. Many have tried to emulate and copy his style, although true art critics say that they lack the same elements and feelings. To me, his drip style painting is the true version of abstract. It allows the unconcious mind to be released onto the canvas.
I appreciate intentional art. It seems to me that Pollock was just making accidental art. Granted, his style was unique at first, but the fact that so many others could recreate "the effect" goes to show it doesn't take an artistic genius to dribble paint on a canvas. I feel it was a cop-out. He wasn't inspired, so he just scribbled.
I think pollack obviously saw and interpreted life in a way vastly different from others, which in a way made him more secluded and alone despite his wife's feelings for him, he seemed to be less interested in her than she was in him. This left him seeming very lonely especially when he drank, but were it not for the loneliness and sadness his works would have been vastly different, if they were even known at all. I think he lived the romantic life of an artist, and probably never really understood how influential he became.
This one was hard for me... I definately like how the film took us inside the artist and how his personal life dictated his emotions and art. I love art, I love to create art, however sometimes I feel like I haven't experienced enough to create prolific pieces. Can a small town girl with no real hardships, whose parent's are still together, create an impactful artpiece that can connect emotionally to many people?
So far as his style, I appreciate the emotion of it, but I feel it's a bit dizzying. I am a big fan of abstract art, but mostly I like to understand what I'm looking at; which I guess is mainly contradictory to abstractism anyway. The emotion it takes to create Pollack's pieces is understandable, but to get an emotion as an audience is quite difficult for me.
I enjoyed the film. I wonder what Pollock would have thought of it. If he thought it was a true adaptation of his life or another case of Hollywood make-believe. Honestly, he'd probably wonder why any of us gave a sh*t.
I think there's certainly some lessons to learn from the man's life... and death. I'd be interested to read a biography of the man, in the hopes of getting the 'real' story.
I think we're all in agreement that Pollock was a man with some inner demons. However, he would have been a lot worse off if he didn't have his artistic talent to vent some of that energy. I'm still amazed by how those feelings of anger and frustration show up in his work. I don't think a content, happy person could have created his style of work. It takes a little madness to put it down on the canvas. He certainly mastered that feat.
Pollack?!! hehe... Who? I think Pollock was the artist america needed in that period... Anyway, he was a great artist. I think he also helped to build the artist stereotype of the crazy, careless, drug addict but sensible and genius. Based on the film, wich I liked, I think his wife really helped him a lot, without her he wouldn't have become the Pollock.... She put him in the artistic society and made him an artist. Don't you remember in the beginning (and also towards the end), in the Art Gallery, Pollock's deep look to his wife...
Post a Comment