# Jackson Pollock **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 28, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230 "2012-04-28T14:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![f.coli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eada6e/32.png) [@f.coli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/f.coli)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/1 "2012-04-28T14:16:37Z")
I’ve been pondering this question ever since I saw the movie “Who the #$%& is Jackson Pollock?” Why is he considered a great artist? Why is dripping paint on a big canvas considered art worth millions of dollars? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/2 "2012-04-28T14:27:40Z")
I don’t know much about art, but I do find Jackson Pollock’s work to be emotionally evocative. Whenever people criticize abstract art, I want to ask them to try it themselves and post the results. If you can’t do it just as well, then maybe there’s something to it. People like to say “my 3 year old could do that”, but I have a 3 year old, and I’ve seen her “art”, and no, she couldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/3 "2012-04-28T14:43:11Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I don’t know much about art, but I do find Jackson Pollock’s work to be emotionally evocative. > > Whenever people criticize abstract art, I want to ask them to try it themselves and post the results. If you can’t do it just as well, then maybe there’s something to it. People like to say “my 3 year old could do that”, but I have a 3 year old, and I’ve seen her “art”, and no, she couldn’t. I was going to post something similar. Years ago I heard something and I like to repeat it to others. Whenever someone looks at art and says “I could have done that” I reply with “But you didn’t”. So in reply to “Why is dripping paint on a big canvas considered art worth millions of dollars?” I’d say a good answer is “because he did it first”. Yes yes, I know, he wasn’t the first to do it, but he was the first to do it the way HE did it. Using different types of paints, different types of canvases, different methods for applying the paints etc. It made his art different the others. Also, since it was more or less all he did, he churned out more then the others. One last thought. Was his work that much more expensive or sought after before the movie Pollock came out then it was after? Just looking at Wiki, in 1973 something sold for 2 Million, Pollock came out in 2000 and in 2006 No 5 1948 sold for 140 million. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/4 "2012-04-28T14:55:40Z")
I absolutely adore Jackson Pollock. Wonderful stuff that speaks to me. If I ever hit the lottery, his will be the first art I’m buying. Different strokes and all that. Maybe the OP would prefer something by Thomas Kincaide? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/5 "2012-04-28T14:57:33Z")
The market value is a separate issue from the aesthetics. Somewhere there may be a a pair of paint-splattered shoes worn by Pollock, or maybe a loose scrap of canvas that was on the floor where Mark Rothko slit his elbows that has an abstract expressionist bloodstain. These too would be worth a lot of money. But value is not virtue. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/6 "2012-04-28T15:18:38Z")
Art is supposed to evoke an emotional response and if it does that to enough people then it becomes accepted as valid. (whatever those people think for whom it fails to work) In terms,of paintings, the art is created often by applying paint to a surface in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. It may take a recognisable form and be done with a brush or, in the case of Pollock, be done by dribbling it on with abstract intent. Doesn’t really matter. If it works, it works. And having seen them up close I certainly find them pleasing. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/7 "2012-04-28T16:34:22Z")
He made for \*great \*jigsaw puzzles. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/8 "2012-04-28T16:54:09Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I absolutely adore Jackson Pollock. Wonderful stuff that speaks to me. If I ever hit the lottery, his will be the first art I’m buying. Same here. First time I saw a Pollock in person, I was floored. There is just a nice visual rhythm and level of microscopic detail to his work that speaks to me. I hate deconstructing art, because so much of it really does depend on a visceral reaction, and Pollock’s work hits me in the gut for some reason. It’s just meditative and beautiful and rhythmic. But it doesn’t look like random splashes to me. It looks deliberate, though improvised, with a clear order in the chaos. His work is compositionally sound and balanced. I’ve tried splashing around paint on a canvas. It doesn’t look like Pollock. It looks like crap. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/9 "2012-04-28T17:10:31Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I absolutely adore Jackson Pollock. Wonderful stuff that speaks to me. If I ever hit the lottery, his will be the first art I’m buying. Me, too. I’m not a huge abstract art fan, but Pollack’s art just wows me. > [@](#): > > Different strokes and all that. Maybe the OP would prefer something by Thomas Kincaide? The late Thomas Kincaide. He’s a local guy here with a very troubled end of life story. Doesn’t make his art any better, but what a messed up life for the “Painter of Light”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/10 "2012-04-28T17:32:10Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Different strokes and all that. Maybe the OP would prefer something by Thomas Kincaide? That’s a little condescending, don’t you think? Personally, I’m not a fan of Pollock or Kinkade. I’ve seen Pollock’s work in person and I remain unimpressed by it. Separate out the story of Jackson Pollock the tortured artist and the actual art is greatly diminished. I’ve never been a fan of selling the art by selling the artist. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/11 "2012-04-28T17:38:33Z")
When I was a child, Pollock’s Blue Poles was [controversially purchased by the Australian National Gallery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_poles) in 1973, the year I turned 8. I remember, vaguely, hearing about the controversy. People were upset about it, saying things like, well, what the OP says. Somewhere around that time, there was a big full-colour spread in a magazine that my parents bought. The gist of the article was “The gov’t has wasted two million taxpayer dollars on this garbage”, which was a pretty common sentiment at the time. I was 8, maybe 9 at the most, and I _fell in love_ with that picture. I thought it was _beautiful_. I cut the picture out of the magazine and put it on the wall over my desk, where it stayed for nearly a decade. Now, my family wasn’t what you’d call arty and no-one around me had any particular interest in paintings; this was something I discovered by myself and that I loved because it spoke to me. I stared at that picture for hours. Since I lived in Melbourne and the painting was in Canberra (and my family was very poor) I couldn’t go and see it in real life. But I made the decision to see it in person if and when I could. I did, in my twenties, go and see it. I’ve been back to visit it several times. It’s stunning. It is gorgeous. And I am very proud that 8 or 9 year-old me could see something that many adults apparently cannot. If you don’t get why Pollock’s art is great, it’s your loss. Those of us who _do_ have something which brings us great pleasure. Your loss. I’ve seen the film, by the way, and my opinion is that the painting is not a Pollock. It doesn’t ring true to me. At most, it’s an inferior work, something that Pollock threw out, but I doubt even that. I think it’s by someone who thought “I could do that.” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/12 "2012-04-28T17:43:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a little condescending, don’t you think? > > Personally, I’m not a fan of Pollock or Kinkade. I’ve seen Pollock’s work in person and I remain unimpressed by it. Separate out the story of Jackson Pollock the tortured artist and the actual art is greatly diminished. I’ve never been a fan of selling the art by selling the artist. I actually don’t know much about Pollock’s life at all, and I think his work is amazing. I certainly knew next-to-nothing about him, other than he was a “splash painter”, when I first saw his work in MOMA and was floored by it. > [@Shakester](#): > > I was 8, maybe 9 at the most, and I fell in love with that picture. I thought it was beautiful. I cut the picture out of the magazine and put it on the wall over my desk, where it stayed for nearly a decade. You sure you weren’t reacting to his reputation as a “tortured artist”? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![postcards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e8cbc/32.png) [@postcards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postcards)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/13 "2012-04-28T18:10:44Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > …Somewhere there may be a a pair of paint-splattered shoes worn by Pollock… The [floor of his studio](http://sb.cc.stonybrook.edu/pkhouse/housestudio/) has been preserved: > [@](#): > > It documents the evolution of Autumn Rhythm, Convergence, Blue Poles and many of his other masterpieces painted between 1946 and 1952, after which the building was winterized. During that renovation, the floor was covered with a new surface, which protected the colors and gestures that had spilled over the edges of his canvases. That covering was removed in 1987-88, revealing the evidence of Pollock’s most productive and innovative years. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/14 "2012-04-28T18:19:59Z")
I doubt JP would have approved. He was very particular about what was for display and what needed to be discarded. Some wag once crafted a human ear out of chipped beef and pit it on display next door to a Van Gough exhibit. Guess which had a higher attendance? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/15 "2012-04-28T18:24:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a little condescending, don’t you think? No, it was **a lot** condescending. The OP asked for it. Asked a loaded question, get a loaded answer. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/16 "2012-04-28T18:26:42Z")
I’m thinking about the Angry Penguins effect. Some people believe a work of art is great because it’s presented in a context where they’re told it’s great. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/17 "2012-04-28T18:29:03Z")
Without question. There are a bunch of people out there with absolutely no taste in art, music, food or cinema. We’re two of them. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/18 "2012-04-28T18:45:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m thinking about the Angry Penguins effect. Some people believe a work of art is great because it’s presented in a context where they’re told it’s great. Yes some people do. And some people think that art that doesn’t speak to them _can’t_ be great and _must_ be the result of something other than the art itself, be it the context its presented in, or the biography of the piece, or the marketing, etc. This is equally as condescending. There’s plenty of modern art I don’t like. In fact, my modern art tastes are rather conservative in my estimation. There’s little modern art I like after the 1960s or so. I hate conceptual art. I still like aesthetic “beauty” in my art, and I don’t get it from people like Hirst or Koons or even old standards like Warhol. That said, it seems that some people really get something from it, so who am I to say they’re succumbing to some sort of “Angry Penguins” effect (the first I’ve heard it called this) or buzz or something else. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/19 "2012-04-28T18:59:46Z")
First, here’s my post from another “modern art is stupid” thread: > [@](#): > > Well, let me start with Pollock. Despite liking a wide range of art, I’d always thought Pollock looked silly…on paper, that is, never having seen one in person. Then one day I was at MOMA and there was a bench in front of one of his works, so I sat down out of curiosity and absolutely fell in love within half a minute. What you don’t get on paper is the incredible physical energy that must have gone into the painting, and how intricate and complex it looks close up. So yeah, he did it by flinging paint, but I don’t care…the painting (second on page) has as distinct physical presence, and when I used to travel to NYC quarterly I stopped in at least a couple of times a year (for that and one of Monet’s late bridge paintings). And then: > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a little condescending, don’t you think? > > Personally, I’m not a fan of Pollock or Kinkade. I’ve seen Pollock’s work in person and I remain unimpressed by it. Separate out the story of Jackson Pollock the tortured artist and the actual art is greatly diminished. I’ve never been a fan of selling the art by selling the artist. If your juxtaposition of (a complaint about condescension) with (the claim that people partially enjoy Pollock because of the backstory) was intentional, I say bravo! As it stands, I don’t know the backstory at all. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230/20 "2012-04-28T19:10:30Z")
> [@](#): > > The late Thomas Kincaide. He’s a local guy here with a very troubled end of life story. Doesn’t make his art any better, but what a messed up life for the “Painter of Light”. Please don’t perpetuate the myth that Kincaide was the “painter of light” that title belongs to another. How anyone would have the gall to select that for himself I don’t know. It is the equivalent of a hack playwright calling himself “The Bard” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-pollock/620230.md?page=2)