There is a website where you can simulate dripping and spattering paint of various colors on a white background. I’ve played with it now and again and while I am by no means an art expert I can tell that compared to Jackson’s work it’s pretty lifeless. It might be that it’s a simulation rather than the physicality of dropping paint onto a canvas but I think it is more than that.
Interesting! Then how do you perceive that circular bulge between her breasts and her legs, facing to the left, which her arms are extending past? Even looks to me like there’s a little white dot of negative space representing a navel.
Meanwhile, the green stuff… Some folks are saying it looks like a skirt, but I’m not seeing that. It envelops both the man and the woman equally, and covers a roughly square region. I had at first interpreted it as being in between them, due to the lower contrast between the green and the black of the man than with the red of the woman, but if you look closer, it’s in front of both.
I think that the only representational sense I can make of it is that the two dancers are behind a shrubbery or some other sort of foliage. But of course, it might not be representational at all.
If she is pregnant, it could be the green represents their fertility.
There are a lot of styles of art that represent fecund women with a pronounced belly, even when they aren’t pregnant. I’ve seen paintings of Eve with a large belly with a museum note saying it’s not meant to imply she’s pregnant.
With each view I like it more and more.
Latin dance moves, she’s coming out of a spin, it’s all in motion.
Love the colors, cool print!
It’s certainly an interesting piece, no doubt about that. And I imagine that the artist would take that as high praise.
Some women have big bellies.
If those are breasts, they’re coming out of her neck. I think they’re pigtails. It also looks like she’s pregnant.
My interpretation, which is pure speculation, is that this is supposed to be Adam and Eve.
The figures are a man and a woman. They appear to be naked. And I feel the green leaves are supposed to show they exist in a state of nature.
You think the man appears to be naked? To me he appears fully dressed, in fairly formal clothes.
Agreed, he looks like a sharply dressed showdancer. And he definitely wears shoes.
It looks like she has a swarm of flies coming out her nether region.
Hey, I didn’t make the picture!
I can’t speak for THIS artist, this being the first work I have seen, but I think there are a lot that do.
Some artists really don’t like women, and either consciously or subconsciously it shows up in the art. We, not being misogynists, tend to give artist the benefit of the doubt, “he couldn’t really mean women have flies coming out their privates!”. But sometimes, they do.
Thanks to @Darren_Garrison for generating and posting AI image interpretations of this woodcut in another thread.
For what it’s worth my mental image of the scene is much like the middle picture, except for the hedge and the intensity of the woman’s movement (I’ll post my remarks on the hedge/greenery and movement in the next post so as not to interfere with the picture included here)
It’s hard to be certain given the art style. But I think it’s possible. That thing across the front of his body could be his left arm; it doesn’t seem to be an article of clothing.
I agree the man appears to be wearing shoes. But so does the woman and here we are discussing how her naked breasts are swinging around. So I see this as two otherwise naked people who happen to be wearing shows.
The green pattern in the woodcut is a red herring IMO - the print is part of a series of woodcuts published in 1970, entitled grob, fein, göttlich ("coarse, fine, divine2). All of the prints in the series have some sort of green pattern over part of the page that does not mean anything in particular:
See for example another print in the series, that I also acquired and have hung near the other print.
Also see another print in the series which I have eschewed buying in order not to give my wife the wrong idea:
As to the movement of the lady, my interpretation is that she is in the process of pivoting on her right leg as the first step in turning full circle.
As to the mammary issue that was the question in my poll, I am happy to report that 76% of respondents say my wife is right; the natural order of things is thus maintained.
But it looks as if her lower body has already taken a 180° rotation, with her upper body still having to follow. No criticism to the artist, that’s a way of showing motion in a static medium.
Just posting to say that I too really like the print and the artist in general. Thanks to the OP for introducing us.
Out of curiosity, the prints that you own, are they originals or more recent reproductions? I don’t see the usual series numbering (xx/yy) or a signature so would guess the latter.
I don’t see both of them as naked, certainly not the male. And the woman is definitely wearing heels (less clear if the man is wearing shoes or the feet are just extremely stylized).
I was unfamiliar with the artist and appreciate being introduced to him. I love the artwork under discussion, and yes, those objects are breasts. I also think she’s being depicted as pregnant, although perhaps not literally so - just fertile.